Expectations

Users who are viewing this thread

groundpounder

Well-Known Member
Messages
7,933
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.00z
I think it would be good for rightwing fucknut assbags to not label the Democratic Party (or people who consider themselves liberal) as corrupt, communist, socialist, blue-blooded tree huggers or what the fuck ever because of what a select few politicians do.

conversely...

I think it would be good for leftwing batshit crazy loonies to not label the Rebuplican Party (or people who consider themselves conservatives) as corrupt, narrow minded, redneck, oil grubbin, war mongering fat cats or what the fuck ever because of what a select few politicians do.



Sarge, I'm not pointing fingers at anyone in particular, aight? Go ahead an put that in your pipe and smoke it. But if that little commentary stings a little, then you need to ask yourself why. If it doesn't, then you shouldn't have any problem whatsoever with it.
 
  • 75
    Replies
  • 2K
    Views
  • 0
    Participant count
    Participants list

groundpounder

Well-Known Member
Messages
7,933
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.00z
so, essentially, what I'm saying is that was one helluva statement you made, and there are people ALL over this board who try to label the right and the left over and over who would do themselves some good to read that excellent post over and over.

But you cannot base an entire party off of a few people's actions.


That's good stuff right there. :clap
 

groundpounder

Well-Known Member
Messages
7,933
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.00z
...Anyway, as Mulder pointed out in another thread, many unconvicted peoples are continuing to be held there for their own safety, as their own countries would kill them if they went back.
yanno, I've never thought of Gitmo as a community service until now...

WE'RE HELPING PEOPLE DOWN THERE!!!! :thumbup
 

SgtSpike

Active Member
Messages
807
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.00z
I think it would be good for rightwing fucknut assbags to not label the Democratic Party (or people who consider themselves liberal) as corrupt, communist, socialist, blue-blooded tree huggers or what the fuck ever because of what a select few politicians do.

conversely...

I think it would be good for leftwing batshit crazy loonies to not label the Rebuplican Party (or people who consider themselves conservatives) as corrupt, narrow minded, redneck, oil grubbin, war mongering fat cats or what the fuck ever because of what a select few politicians do.



Sarge, I'm not pointing fingers at anyone in particular, aight? Go ahead an put that in your pipe and smoke it. But if that little commentary stings a little, then you need to ask yourself why. If it doesn't, then you shouldn't have any problem whatsoever with it.
Gotcha, yes I completely agree the finger-pointing goes both ways. But it's also mostly true. Most of what the Democrats say about Republicans is true about most Republicans, and most of what the Republicans say about the Democrats is true about most Democrats. We make generalizations because it is easier to talk about things that way.

I try as much as possible to talk about Democrats and leftist thinking according to their ideals and not specific people, but sometimes specific people are exactly what the ideals paint a picture of in the first place, so they make good examples. :)
 

Minor Axis

Well-Known Member
Messages
7,294
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.02z
Gotcha, yes I completely agree the finger-pointing goes both ways. But it's also mostly true. Most of what the Democrats say about Republicans is true about most Republicans, and most of what the Republicans say about the Democrats is true about most Democrats. We make generalizations because it is easier to talk about things that way.

I try as much as possible to talk about Democrats and leftist thinking according to their ideals and not specific people, but sometimes specific people are exactly what the ideals paint a picture of in the first place, so they make good examples. :)

Except as Tim said in a post, Democratic leaders and pundits tend to disavow those caught in scandal while Republican leaders and pundits tend to make excuses and blame the press for their people who get caught. Yes this is a generalization...
 

Alien Allen

Froggy the Prick
Messages
16,633
Reaction score
22
Tokenz
1,206.36z
Except as Tim said in a post, Democratic leaders and pundits tend to disavow those caught in scandal while Republican leaders and pundits tend to make excuses and blame the press for their people who get caught. Yes this is a generalization...

oh come on Minor take of the blinders.

both sides protect their own.

Barney Frank should have been canned back in the 80's when they found out his live in lover boy was running a prostitute service out of their apartment. Where was the democrats screaming for him to resign.

Then ya got the big Kahuna Ted Kennedy who instead of being jailed is now lauded by his minions.

Then ya got Jefferson down in La.

The silence is deafening.
 

SgtSpike

Active Member
Messages
807
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.00z
Except as Tim said in a post, Democratic leaders and pundits tend to disavow those caught in scandal while Republican leaders and pundits tend to make excuses and blame the press for their people who get caught. Yes this is a generalization...
I'd have to agree with Allen... both sides are just as much to blame. Just about every time that I've seen a Republican caught in a scandal they've been disavowed.
 

Strauss

Active Member
Messages
718
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.00z
oh come on Minor take of the blinders.

both sides protect their own.

Barney Frank should have been canned back in the 80's when they found out his live in lover boy was running a prostitute service out of their apartment. Where was the democrats screaming for him to resign.

Then ya got the big Kahuna Ted Kennedy who instead of being jailed is now lauded by his minions.

Then ya got Jefferson down in La.

The silence is deafening.

Lets not forget Mr. Rangel who, apparently, has two domiciles better tax breaks that way. ;) In case you didn't know, under the law you can only have one domicile. I don't hear the Democratic leadership calling for him to step down.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/10/nyregion/10rangel.html?_r=1
 

SgtSpike

Active Member
Messages
807
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.00z
I don't get it... that article says nothing about domiciles, unless I'm not reading between the lines enough. Not trying to say you are wrong, just that I don't see the relevance between what you said and what the article says.
 

Accountable

Well-Known Member
Messages
6,962
Reaction score
1
Tokenz
0.00z
I am not hoping for failure

But I expect it

Too many promises which people lapped up like a drooling hound dog.

Might be different too if he came from some place other than Chicago. That place is known for political shenanigans. I would not trust anybody from those parts when it comes to politics.
I don't see any way to interpret his moving to Chicago as anything other than getting into their political machine in order to ride it to the top. Now that he's there, though, I'm pretty impressed with his initial moves. His appointments & speeches are definitely not in line with his campaign rhetoric; even better, they're not in line with his voting record. Maybe that super duper tip top secret briefing he started getting daily has changed him.

Then again, I'm an incurable optimist. :D
 

Minor Axis

Well-Known Member
Messages
7,294
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.02z
I'd have to agree with Allen... both sides are just as much to blame. Just about every time that I've seen a Republican caught in a scandal they've been disavowed.

This last week I was listening to Air America and they were in essence calling for the Gov of IL's head. Every Democrat I've heard on TV has had nothing good to say about it. That is not silence. What do you listen to for info?
 

Strauss

Active Member
Messages
718
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.00z
I don't get it... that article says nothing about domiciles, unless I'm not reading between the lines enough. Not trying to say you are wrong, just that I don't see the relevance between what you said and what the article says.

That's because I only quoted one of the articles......sorry and if you don't like it.....suck wind. ;) :sarcasm

Congressman Rangel was claiming two domiciles...one in New York and one in D.C. and getting homestead exemptions on both with reduced property taxes....that's a no no.
 

Strauss

Active Member
Messages
718
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.00z
More Expectations:

Plan for Ending the War in Iraq


Barack Obama and Joe Biden's Plan

Judgment You Can Trust

In 2002, as the conventional thinking in Washington lined up with President Bush for war, Obama had the judgment and courage to speak out against going to war, and to warn of “an occupation of undetermined length, with undetermined costs, and undetermined consequences.” He and Joe Biden are fully committed to ending the war in Iraq as president.
A Responsible, Phased Withdrawal

Barack Obama and Joe Biden believe we must be as careful getting out of Iraq as we were careless getting in. Immediately upon taking office, Obama will give his Secretary of Defense and military commanders a new mission in Iraq: ending the war. The removal of our troops will be responsible and phased, directed by military commanders on the ground and done in consultation with the Iraqi government. Military experts believe we can safely redeploy combat brigades from Iraq at a pace of 1 to 2 brigades a month that would remove them in 16 months. That would be the summer of 2010 – more than 7 years after the war began.
Under the Obama-Biden plan, a residual force will remain in Iraq and in the region to conduct targeted counter-terrorism missions against al Qaeda in Iraq and to protect American diplomatic and civilian personnel. They will not build permanent bases in Iraq, but will continue efforts to train and support the Iraqi security forces as long as Iraqi leaders move toward political reconciliation and away from sectarianism.
Encouraging Political Accommodation

Barack Obama and Joe Biden believe that the U.S. must apply pressure on the Iraqi government to work toward real political accommodation. There is no military solution to Iraq’s political differences, but the Bush Administration’s blank check approach has failed to press Iraq’s leaders to take responsibility for their future or to substantially spend their oil revenues on their own reconstruction.
Obama and Biden's plan offers the best prospect for lasting stability in Iraq. A phased withdrawal will encourage Iraqis to take the lead in securing their own country and making political compromises, while the responsible pace of redeployment called for by the Obama-Biden plan offers more than enough time for Iraqi leaders to get their own house in order. As our forces redeploy, Obama and Biden will make sure we engage representatives from all levels of Iraqi society—in and out of government—to forge compromises on oil revenue sharing, the equitable provision of services, federalism, the status of disputed territories, new elections, aid to displaced Iraqis, and the reform of Iraqi security forces.
Surging Diplomacy

Barack Obama and Joe Biden will launch an aggressive diplomatic effort to reach a comprehensive compact on the stability of Iraq and the region. This effort will include all of Iraq’s neighbors—including Iran and Syria, as suggested by the bi-partisan The Iraq Study Group Report. This compact will aim to secure Iraq’s borders; keep neighboring countries from meddling inside Iraq; isolate al Qaeda; support reconciliation among Iraq’s sectarian groups; and provide financial support for Iraq’s reconstruction and development.
Preventing Humanitarian Crisis

Barack Obama and Joe Biden believe that America has both a moral obligation and a responsibility for security that demands we confront Iraq’s humanitarian crisis—more than five million Iraqis are refugees or are displaced inside their own country. Obama and Biden will form an international working group to address this crisis. He will provide at least $2 billion to expand services to Iraqi refugees in neighboring countries, and ensure that Iraqis inside their own country can find sanctuary. Obama and Biden will also work with Iraqi authorities and the international community to hold the perpetrators of potential war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide accountable. They will reserve the right to intervene militarily, with our international partners, to suppress potential genocidal violence within Iraq.
The Status-of-Forces-Agreement

Obama and Biden believe any Status of Forces Agreement, or any strategic framework agreement, should be negotiated in the context of a broader commitment by the U.S. to begin withdrawing its troops and forswearing permanent bases. Obama and Biden also believe that any security accord must be subject to Congressional approval. It is unacceptable that the Iraqi government will present the agreement to the Iraqi parliament for approval—yet the Bush administration will not do the same with the U.S. Congress. The Bush administration must submit the agreement to Congress or allow the next administration to negotiate an agreement that has bipartisan support here at home and makes absolutely clear that the U.S. will not maintain permanent bases in Iraq.
 

SgtSpike

Active Member
Messages
807
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.00z
That's because I only quoted one of the articles......sorry and if you don't like it.....suck wind. ;) :sarcasm

Congressman Rangel was claiming two domiciles...one in New York and one in D.C. and getting homestead exemptions on both with reduced property taxes....that's a no no.
Ah, gotcha. Yes I agree with you completely. :thumbup
 
78,875Threads
2,185,392Messages
4,959Members
Back
Top