was watching the hoopla about Leiberman getting his but whipped in the polls leading up to the midterm elections for the democratic nomination.
its funny. totally clueless. both sides going back and forth about who is supporting who, and which one belongs to some all white good ole boys club, and who has done what for whom.
they skipped right over the war issue. when Lebermans mouth piece was asked how they think his support of Bush concerning Iraq affected his declinning pols, he jumpled right into the race card and bypassed the issue.
the dems STILL dont get it.
we are not just pissed at the mess the repubs have made of this country, we are also pissed at the useless dems who sat their with their head up their collective ***** and LET THEM.
the repubs are gona take a hard hit in the mid terms. but the dems are gona take a hit too. it takes two to tango. the repubs couldnt have trashed this country without complacency by the dems. Leberman,s political career is toast. and it IS because of his support for the mess we made in the middle east.
Hillary better take note too. that wench voted for going in too if im not mistaken.
evil florishes when good men do nothing. to stop the evil, you not only have to purge the "evil doers", you have to purge the usless lumps of camel dung that DID NOTHING while it was happening.
by by Leberman. dont let the door hit you on the **** on your way out. on second though, let it.
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- the dem,s in midterm.....
the dem,s in midterm.....Follow
shadowrelm wrote:
evil florishes when good men do nothing. to stop the evil, you not only have to purge the "evil doers", you have to purge the usless lumps of camel dung that DID NOTHING while it was happening.
Lol. Apply this to foreign policy and you might have an inkling of what's really going on...
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
I'd be happy just to see some coherant platform from the Democrats. I wasn't exactly enthused to read the "6 for '06" plan.
Hardly an original thought but, say what you will about the Republicans, they at least know how to get their wagons into a circle.
Hardly an original thought but, say what you will about the Republicans, they at least know how to get their wagons into a circle.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
I honestly think we're going to be heading into a shakeup of both parties over the next decade or two.
I think that the "righteous cause" methodology that the Dems have played on for the last 40+ years has lost a lot of steam. That approach only works if you've got a lot of people who believe things are in desperate need of fixing. But what we've started to see is Dems (and various Dem lobbying groups) spending more of their time convincing people of the horribleness of the problems around them then actually presenting solutions to those problems. That's a good indicator that they're behind the curve in terms of support for that particular direction in politics.
I also do believe that there is a split forming in the Republican party as well. The "classic conservatives" and the Religious Right don't see eye to eye on a lot of issues. Never have, but then the "Religious Right" didn't exist as a political entity until the late 70s, and formed largely in response to a percieved attack on values and religion by those same Liberal causes that were feeding the engine of the Democrat party of that day. It was always a marriage of convenience, and I think that convenience is fading.
Where this goes is hard to say. I've always argued that terms like "Conservative" and "Liberal" tend to change over time, and this may very well be one of those times. We might see a pairing of the Religious Right and the social liberalists (dropping the secular aspects) since both tend to use the same methodologies to accomplish their goals. This would push the "rights" crowd in bed with the classic conservatives causing a shift, not in goals, but in methodology. At least that's what I *think* is the most likely shift. Which groups will end up in which party is totally up in the air.
I've already seen hints of Democrat's trying to win favor with traditionally Religious Right leaders, and to judge by the talk on Air America, this isn't being taken too well. I'm thinking that the current crop of "rhetoric-liberals" (a decent description for the faire on that station) will have to choose between supporting candidates who're moving to a Religious base to get votes, or sticking with their secular natures and getting in bed with the classic conservative folks instead. I suspect that the second will occur, but that's just a guess.
I just don't see how the Dems can continue using the methodology they're currently using. They're suffering from a lack of support. The moderates don't like their approach and/or lack of solutions, and the far left thinks they're too tepid. The Republicans are suffering from too many different ideas in the umbrella. I think if the Dem's re-invent themselves a bit, they'll be able to pull alot of those over, but it'll require really changing their message, not just packaging it as they've been doing (with not much success).
I absolutely agree that we need two viable parties for things to work well. Right now, we're just not seeing that.
I think that the "righteous cause" methodology that the Dems have played on for the last 40+ years has lost a lot of steam. That approach only works if you've got a lot of people who believe things are in desperate need of fixing. But what we've started to see is Dems (and various Dem lobbying groups) spending more of their time convincing people of the horribleness of the problems around them then actually presenting solutions to those problems. That's a good indicator that they're behind the curve in terms of support for that particular direction in politics.
I also do believe that there is a split forming in the Republican party as well. The "classic conservatives" and the Religious Right don't see eye to eye on a lot of issues. Never have, but then the "Religious Right" didn't exist as a political entity until the late 70s, and formed largely in response to a percieved attack on values and religion by those same Liberal causes that were feeding the engine of the Democrat party of that day. It was always a marriage of convenience, and I think that convenience is fading.
Where this goes is hard to say. I've always argued that terms like "Conservative" and "Liberal" tend to change over time, and this may very well be one of those times. We might see a pairing of the Religious Right and the social liberalists (dropping the secular aspects) since both tend to use the same methodologies to accomplish their goals. This would push the "rights" crowd in bed with the classic conservatives causing a shift, not in goals, but in methodology. At least that's what I *think* is the most likely shift. Which groups will end up in which party is totally up in the air.
I've already seen hints of Democrat's trying to win favor with traditionally Religious Right leaders, and to judge by the talk on Air America, this isn't being taken too well. I'm thinking that the current crop of "rhetoric-liberals" (a decent description for the faire on that station) will have to choose between supporting candidates who're moving to a Religious base to get votes, or sticking with their secular natures and getting in bed with the classic conservative folks instead. I suspect that the second will occur, but that's just a guess.
I just don't see how the Dems can continue using the methodology they're currently using. They're suffering from a lack of support. The moderates don't like their approach and/or lack of solutions, and the far left thinks they're too tepid. The Republicans are suffering from too many different ideas in the umbrella. I think if the Dem's re-invent themselves a bit, they'll be able to pull alot of those over, but it'll require really changing their message, not just packaging it as they've been doing (with not much success).
I absolutely agree that we need two viable parties for things to work well. Right now, we're just not seeing that.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
I know I'm not that great on my politics knowledge, but it has seemed to me that the Republicans are two parties in one, and the Democrats isn't a coherent party at all.
Which I guess is what gbaji said in a lot less words? =P
Which I guess is what gbaji said in a lot less words? =P
Do what now?
gbaji wrote:
We might see a pairing of the Religious Right and the social liberalists (dropping the secular aspects) since both tend to use the same methodologies to accomplish their goals.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Isn't this kinda like waht happened to the Whigs and the Democrats right before the Republicans entered on to the scene?
"I don't belong to any organized political party - I'm a Democrat."
What the Demos need to do is stop talking about how to win, and start talking about the issues and how they affect ordinary people. It took Clinton and his carnival of wonks to keep the campaign, and indeed the dialog, focused and on point back in the day. ("It's the economy, stupid.") Without a similar forceful personality and message, the Demos will continue to flounder.
What the Demos need to do is stop talking about how to win, and start talking about the issues and how they affect ordinary people. It took Clinton and his carnival of wonks to keep the campaign, and indeed the dialog, focused and on point back in the day. ("It's the economy, stupid.") Without a similar forceful personality and message, the Demos will continue to flounder.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
I just don't see how the Dems can continue using the methodology they're currently using. They're suffering from a lack of support.
-------------------------------------------------------------
the dems dont need to use anything right now. the repubs are going down hard in the mid terms. and historically, that doesnt bode well for them for the presidential election following the mid terms.
the repubs have sunk their own ship. and alot of them are trying to save their little piece by leaning to the left and splitting from this addministriation. its too late. 8 years to late for this country and the garbage heap we have turned the middle east into, not to mention the tens of thousands of human beings that have paid the ultimate price for our ignorance and arrogance.
the dems in office are probably going to pay to for their complacency. what is happening to Lieberman is a good heads up. but atleast they will be replaced by other dems. the repubs wont.
no one can deny Iraq would be better off with hussin in charge now. and our push to get Syeria out of Lebonon is comming back to bite us through Israel in our collective **** now too.
people are tired of it. and all they see is the escalation of our stupidity day after day on every news channel with no way out in sight. if only Jr could read. all that has come to pass was written in his dads book.
the next addministraition will not be liked much either. the problems created by this addministraition will not be fixed in one term. they will not be fixed in one decade. we cant put hussin back in charge of iraq. we cant put Syeria back in Lebonon.
it would be easy to say hind sight is 20/20, but half this country and most of the rest of the world saw this comming before it happened. does not apply.
the flaw with democracy is not only the stupidity of the masses, but the ignorance of the electoral college. any system that lets a group of people so clueless and blind to the eneviatable result of their actions become leaders is seriously flawed. we need to change the way we elect leaders. we need to set some standards. HIGH standards. if we dont change how we elect our leaders, the eneviatable result will be that no matter how long it takes us to put humpty dumpty back together again, all it will take is one idiot to push him off the wall again.
the dems probably wouldnt have gone into Iraq. they probably would have gone with the U.N. recomendation of continuing the sanctions. the dems probably wouldnt have push to get Syeria out of lebonon either. probably defering actions in that country to the League of Arab states that set that arrangement up in the first place.
i can honestly say, doing nothing would have been a hell of alot better that what we did. so can the tens of thousands of human beings that have been butchered because of what we did. because of us.
welcome to the bloody majority.
-------------------------------------------------------------
the dems dont need to use anything right now. the repubs are going down hard in the mid terms. and historically, that doesnt bode well for them for the presidential election following the mid terms.
the repubs have sunk their own ship. and alot of them are trying to save their little piece by leaning to the left and splitting from this addministriation. its too late. 8 years to late for this country and the garbage heap we have turned the middle east into, not to mention the tens of thousands of human beings that have paid the ultimate price for our ignorance and arrogance.
the dems in office are probably going to pay to for their complacency. what is happening to Lieberman is a good heads up. but atleast they will be replaced by other dems. the repubs wont.
no one can deny Iraq would be better off with hussin in charge now. and our push to get Syeria out of Lebonon is comming back to bite us through Israel in our collective **** now too.
people are tired of it. and all they see is the escalation of our stupidity day after day on every news channel with no way out in sight. if only Jr could read. all that has come to pass was written in his dads book.
the next addministraition will not be liked much either. the problems created by this addministraition will not be fixed in one term. they will not be fixed in one decade. we cant put hussin back in charge of iraq. we cant put Syeria back in Lebonon.
it would be easy to say hind sight is 20/20, but half this country and most of the rest of the world saw this comming before it happened. does not apply.
the flaw with democracy is not only the stupidity of the masses, but the ignorance of the electoral college. any system that lets a group of people so clueless and blind to the eneviatable result of their actions become leaders is seriously flawed. we need to change the way we elect leaders. we need to set some standards. HIGH standards. if we dont change how we elect our leaders, the eneviatable result will be that no matter how long it takes us to put humpty dumpty back together again, all it will take is one idiot to push him off the wall again.
the dems probably wouldnt have gone into Iraq. they probably would have gone with the U.N. recomendation of continuing the sanctions. the dems probably wouldnt have push to get Syeria out of lebonon either. probably defering actions in that country to the League of Arab states that set that arrangement up in the first place.
i can honestly say, doing nothing would have been a hell of alot better that what we did. so can the tens of thousands of human beings that have been butchered because of what we did. because of us.
welcome to the bloody majority.
shadowrelm wrote:
welcome to the bloody majority.
For f'ucks sake, for love of God and all the saints, GET A NEW F'UCKING TAG LINE ALREADY!
Not only is this whole "welcum to the majerity" schtick tired, unoriginal, preachy and completely unwarranted in it's self-righteousness, but you act as though your whole "reactionary-lefter than the reactionary-lefties" stance somehow places you in an exclusive minority.
It doesn't. You are in no way unique nor are you, in fact, all that far off from where "the majority" actually sits. You're just narcissistic enough to envision yourself as being original and different.
You're not. Get over yourself.
Quote:
For f'ucks sake, for love of God and all the saints, GET A NEW F'UCKING TAG LINE ALREADY!
Not only is this whole "welcum to the majerity" schtick tired, unoriginal, preachy and completely unwarranted in it's self-righteousness, but you act as though your whole "reactionary-lefter than the reactionary-lefties" stance somehow places you in an exclusive minority.
It doesn't. You are in no way unique nor are you, in fact, all that far off from where "the majority" actually sits. You're just narcissistic enough to envision yourself as being original and different.
You're not. Get over yourself.
Not only is this whole "welcum to the majerity" schtick tired, unoriginal, preachy and completely unwarranted in it's self-righteousness, but you act as though your whole "reactionary-lefter than the reactionary-lefties" stance somehow places you in an exclusive minority.
It doesn't. You are in no way unique nor are you, in fact, all that far off from where "the majority" actually sits. You're just narcissistic enough to envision yourself as being original and different.
You're not. Get over yourself.
It's strange, when this kind of attack was aimed at me I thought you were the dumbest person on the planet. With it directed at shadowrelm it makes me feel funny in my pants. Thanks for making me feel all conflicted!
Edited, Aug 5th 2006 at 3:12am EDT by allenjj
Funny, I don't recall ever attacking you.
Come to that, I don't recall you.
Come to that, I don't recall you.
Ambrya wrote:
Funny, I don't recall ever attacking you.
Come to that, I don't recall you.
Come to that, I don't recall you.
BURN!!
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
Recent Visitors: 407
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (407)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- the dem,s in midterm.....
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC