The way back for the Democratic party.

[elucidator]

To you its about winning elections. To us, its about saving our country. You think that’s a dramatic exaggeration? As God is my witness, John, I wish I agreed. But we live in interesting times…

[John_Mace]

@elucidator

Ah, c’mon, John, you don’t tiptoe delicately around my dignity, how can you expect me to tiptoe around yours? You can dish, you can take. Or you can’t.

There are two issues here:

1. You made the false claim that I didn’t vote against Bush. I don’t expect you to know or remember what my votes were, but if you are going to make a statement about something I did, at least check for accuracy. You could find it in one my recent OPs, so it’s not like it’s some hidden puzzle.

2. I’m surprised that you seem to be unaware of this forum rule, which was the topic of discussion in a recent thread you participated in. Maybe you missed that particular discussion, but it’s not exactly a new rule.

So, if you can show me where in this thread I made a false claim about you AND broke a forum rule in the process, then I’ll agree this is an issue of dishing things out vs being able to take said dishing out.

[elucidator]

Oh, Lordy. Thread lawyers. I’m not playing, John. Want to make an issue of it, report me, pit me, or forget it. Strongly recommend the latter. Your call.

[John_Mace]

@elucidator

Oh, Lordy. Thread lawyers. I’m not playing, John. Want to make an issue of it, report me, pit me, or forget it. Strongly recommend the latter. Your call.

You asked, I explained. That’s as far as my interest goes. Otherwise I’d’ve made a bigger issue of it in the first place.

[RedFury]

@John Mace

Meh. I can make up shit about your posts, too, but I choose not it.

Non-responsive, avoiding the issue. Which is no doubt the best you can do under the circumstances.

Probably because I never asked about Bush’s reluctance to get in bed with PNAC. Can you show me where I did.? I did ask why Bush didn’t nominate a PNAC Sec of State, if that’s what you mean. But that’s not even in the same ballpark as what you’re claiming I said.

Asked and answered. Comprehensively. And in case you’ve forgotten what you asked, nothing a good scrolling won’t cure.

I also note that you haven’t answered whether Condi is a neocon, which you at least indirectly claimed she was. Your vauge response, which essentially boils down to “she supported the war in Iraq” could as easily be applied to McCain or even Lieberman. Hell, it might even apply to Kerry, if we play as loosely with definitions as you seem to be doing.

Ditto. With extensive cites which you’ve clearly chosen to ignore.

Not my problem that you’ve elected to remain ignorant in this matter.

At any rate, stick with your conspiracy theories if you find comfort in them. But don’t expect that stance to win any elections, which, if you recall, is what this thread is about.

I post well-known facts to the reality-based community, you call them “conspiracies.” Perhaps we should try this discussion again when you change your zip-code. Somewhere closer to planet earth would be preferable.

Trust you’re getting enough oxygen in your current State of Denial.

Cheers.

[John_Mace]

@RedFury

Non-responsive, avoiding the issue. Which is no doubt the best you can do under the circumstances.

The only “issue” is your speculation. I gave it all the attention it deserved-- none.

Asked and answered. Comprehensively. And in case you’ve forgotten what you asked, nothing a good scrolling won’t cure.

In other words you can’t produce the quote from me because it doesn’t exist. Give it up.

Ditto. With extensive cites which you’ve clearly chosen to ignore.

Not my problem that you’ve elected to remain ignorant in this matter.

In other words, you can’t support your claim, but throw out a bunch of “cites” that are roughly on the same subject, and call that supporting a claim. All you gotta do is quote the relavent sections-- the ones that “prove” that Condi is a neocon. That’s the way things are typically done around here, if you haven’t noticed.

Cheers indeed.

[squeegee]

@Sam Stone

That is pushing the Democratic party WAY out to the left…The Republicans don’t have this problem. There are no huge KKK websites raising millions. The John Birchers aren’t a major source of internet activism. The Republicans on the internet tend to be moderate, or neo-con, or if they lean to an extreme they lean towards libertarianism.

Sam, do you really want to defend this statement – that there are no whackjobs promoting/contributing to the GOP? None?

[Sam_Stone]

Of course there are. What I mean is that there are no large, organized fringe groups on the right like there are on the left. If there were some ultra-nationalist, militia movement that had a million members and was pumping millions of dollars into the Republican party, I’d expect the party to start moving a bit towards their point of view.

But maybe I’m wrong. Can you name a large fringe conservative group that is financially important to the Republican party?

[Debaser]

@Apos

But given that it was a key piece of conservative strategy, this advice seems… a little dishonest.

The conservatives aren’t whining nearly as much as the democrats have been. I was also specifically referring to the intensity of the post election loss whining that is just starting to end now. It really makes the left look bad even though it’s only a vocal minority that is doing it.

Cite? Because most of the survey evidence shows that they agree with the Democrats on most issues. But they either don’t understand what the Democratic positions are, or think they are radically farther left than they actually are.

Ah, this old canard. People are too stupid to actually know that they agree with you. Keep believing this at your peril.

The far left? Can you give an example?

I’ve given four examples. The four most important members of the democrat party: Hillary Clinton, Ted Kennedy, Nancy Pelosi and (if chosen as DNC chair) Howard Dean. All far left liberals/socialists.

Most of Kerry’s policy platforms were centrist if not hawkish, for instance.

Yes, he was smart enough to lie about what he believed in order to try and win the election. However, people were not fooled. His voting record was that of the most liberal Senator in the US. He was not a centrist at all. Not even close.

Leftists may make a lot of noise out on the streets, but they generally don’t seem to be setting much policy in the party.

They are making noise in the streets. That’s costing you votes. Also, “leftists” are winning the democrat nomination for president (Kerry) holding powerful Senate seats (Kennedy) leading the minority in congress (Pelosi) and possibly running the DNC (Dean). This is costing you votes.

[ElvisL1ves]

@Sam Stone

But maybe I’m wrong. Can you name a large fringe conservative group that is financially important to the Republican party?

Good Lord, you’re serious.

[squeegee]

@Sam Stone

Of course there are. What I mean is that there are no large, organized fringe groups on the right like there are on the left. If there were some ultra-nationalist, militia movement that had a million members and was pumping millions of dollars into the Republican party, I’d expect the party to start moving a bit towards their point of view.

But maybe I’m wrong. Can you name a large fringe conservative group that is financially important to the Republican party?

Are you really that blinkered? I’m sure you can think of at least one conservative religious group that contributes heavily to the GOP. Or doesn’t that count?

[Mr.Moto]

Sure, but given the religious makeup of the U.S., they probably can’t be considered fringe.

[John_Corrado]

@squeegee

Are you really that blinkered? I’m sure you can think of at least one conservative religious group that contributes heavily to the GOP. Or doesn’t that count?

If in Democrats’ opinion, conservative religious = fringe, it’s gonna be a long time before the Democrats win a national election.

[squeegee]

So, by definition, christian organizations – all of them, whatever their politics – aren’t fringe groups?

[squeegee]

@John Corrado

If in Democrats’ opinion, conservative religious = fringe, it’s gonna be a long time before the Democrats win a national election.

No, not by definition. But certainly there are religious groups with extreme stances that contribute to politics. Do you disagree?

[elucidator]

Your Falwells, your Robertsons, your Bauers…they solicit money, but then they keep it. This works out just dandy for the Pubbies. They can have poisonous propaganda about liberals hating God spread on their behalf, but keep deniability. That way, they injure their political opponents without getting their own hands dirty, or leaving any fingerprints. The purpose of donations is to spread propaganda, the religious right dispenses propaganda directly.

What’s not to love?

[Gorgonzola]

Stop moving the goalposts. Sure you can find any number of fringe groups that ‘contribute to politics’. Name one on the right that raises funds on the scale of MoveOn.org, or which organizes people on the scale of International A.N.S.W.E.R.

[Gorgonzola]

Oops. I was using my wife’s computer this morning, and didn’t realize she was logged in. This is, of course, Sam Stone.

Sorry about that.

[elucidator]

Jeez, Sam, what is it with you and ANSWER. Seems to be your own personal Betty Noyer. Let me try and explain something to you.

You would be amazed and stunned to learn how few people on the left have even the slightest idea who they are. Seriously. You seem to be determined to believe that ANSWER writes the agenda, and so forth. We aren’t that organized.

Somebody announces a “Lets Get Rid of Bush” rally at the City Center. Lefties go there and subject themselves to long-winded and self-righteous speeches from people determined to save gay whales and transgendered spotted owls, and so on and so forth. And it doesn’t matter. Its the event, Sam! The happening that draws a like-minded crowd, to mingle and share energy. It makes almost no difference who calls for the rally or what their agenda may be.

Yes, yes, I know. ANSWER is made up of lame-ass Marxists who haven’t gotten the memo. But the crowd who shows up doesn’t know an industrial proletariat from an industrial strength drain cleaner, and could care less.

We don’t, as a general rule, follow leaders. We don’t trust leaders. This lack of organization and solidarity is, at one and the same instance, our greatest strength and our greatest weakness.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@Sam Stone

Of course there are. What I mean is that there are no large, organized fringe groups on the right like there are on the left. If there were some ultra-nationalist, militia movement that had a million members and was pumping millions of dollars into the Republican party, I’d expect the party to start moving a bit towards their point of view.

But maybe I’m wrong. Can you name a large fringe conservative group that is financially important to the Republican party?

There are no massive fringe groups on the left either. WTF are you talking about. Have you gone so far off the rails as to think that something like MoveOn is radically left?

As for right wing, nutjob shit flingers…[cough] Swifties [/cough].