This is actually a pretty good anology, Oski...but you are wrong, the act of taking action involves conducting a thought-induced action plan designed to arrive at a decided goal... Agree with Bush, or not...this is what is evident. I'm not sure if the "neo-demos" could arrive at a course driven plan...
ROX, you should understand that endless threads with LIARS, and LIES in them tend to make one rather numb. if you add all of them together, from both sides, it's a bit tiresome, so you shouldn't be surprised at the lack of response. I'm glad you posted a link to Huffington's blog, however, because I had been intending to check it out for a long time. I agree with her about the pathetic Democrat response to Bush's babble. Murtha would have been a better choice, as would Obama and Fiengold, both of whom would have said more than babble-speak themselves. If we truly intend to clobber the GOP in November and in '08, then the Democrats, of which I am one, need to offer better leadership for America. Sure, the walking dead would be better than Bush, but if you want Americans to go to the polls and pull the levers for the Democrats, instead of just staying at home in disgust, then the party needs better leaders giving their responses to Bush Babble, like the state of the union, and any other time he babbles, which is rare, but deserves a response when he comes out of hiding, or drags himself away from his innumerable vacations. I enjoyed reading some of Huffington's blog, with good stuff like this: "DC GOSSIP" What Tom DeLay's Office Calls Republican Corruption Scandal... Associated Press | SUZANNE GAMBOA | March 4, 2006 at 02:45 PM READ MORE: Tom DeLay, Jack Abramoff One of DeLay's campaign tactics was to try to distance himself from disgraced ex-lobbyist Jack Abramoff, who pleaded guilty to federal charges in January and is cooperating with investigators in an ongoing congressional corruption case. DeLay's travels with Abramoff, and the contributions from Abramoff and his clients, have raised questions about their association. Abramoff's former business partner, who also pleaded guilty in the case, is a former DeLay aide; at least one other former DeLay aide has come under scrutiny in the probe. DeLay's campaign spokeswoman has said that the Abramoff matter is little more than "D.C. gossip" and that DeLay will win easily with a tough, organized grassroots campaign. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/thenewswire/#a016764 Katherine Harris Caught Up in Bribery Scandal Campaign Donations From Defense Contractor Under Scrutiny By MITCH STACY, AP TAMPA, Fla. (March 3) - U.S. Rep. Katherine Harris said Thursday she did not knowingly do anything wrong in her associations with a defense contractor who prosecutors say illegally funneled thousands of dollars to her campaign in 2004. Questions about the donations have arisen as Harris, the former Florida secretary of state who oversaw the 2000 presidential election recount, tries to unseat U.S. Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla. The donations were described in a plea agreement last Friday, when Mitchell Wade, the former president of MZM Inc., pleaded guilty to bribing U.S. Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham in exchange for assistance in getting $150 million in Defense Department contracts for his company. He also admitted making illegal campaign contributions in the names of MZM employees and their spouses to Harris and Rep. Virgil Goode, R-Va. Prosecutors said Harris got $32,000 from employees who were reimbursed by Wade. Harris said she recently donated the money to charity, and didn't know the donations would be reimbursed. In the plea agreement, Wade acknowledged dining with Harris at a Washington restaurant in 2005 to discuss a possible fundraiser for her and obtaining funding for a Navy counterintelligence program involving his company. She requested the funding, but Wade didn't get it. "I requested a $10 million appropriation for the U.S Naval Criminal Investigative Services project because I thought it would bring new jobs to Sarasota," said Harris, R-Fla. "I never requested funding for this project in exchange for any contributions, but rather to bring more high-skill, high-wage jobs to the region." Wade has been cooperating with federal prosecutors in Washington and San Diego since last summer and is required to continue to do so as part of his plea agreement with the government. He faces up to 20 years in prison. Prosecutors said they are continuing to investigate and won't say if Harris is a subject. Harris said her office has not been contacted about the investigation. "I think these revelations should matter to voters because I think ethics should count for something in a public servant," said Dan McLaughlin, spokesman for Nelson. http://articles.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?id=20060303035709990014 Lots of stuff in her blog. Loads of links, Oscar predictions, and more dirt on Republicans, and even a Democrat or two. Check it out! Keep D&D CIvil.
I'm not either, but I appreciate aspects of life I see more conducive to the Republican party...I want to be convinced, but the cadre of back slappers affirms the thought process...
Her blog is right...dirt is evident on Republicans, as well as a Democrat or two... It is I who knowingly realized her positioning as a reason for reference...It says it all about your leadership...It is not my words, but by using a known blog that leans towards the Democrats, the message is directed as if coming from me...When your own says your leadership SUCKS...It is telling. I am tired of hearing about threads on LIES,...and my point of illustrating that the Democrats LIE is to suggest who is above this and can provide the leadership necessary...Instead I am personally attacked for my "mental problems"...and other idiotic crap I expect from the "neo-demos" of the world. Congratulations...
I just responded to one of your previous LIAR threads...regretfully now. It is clear by the way you throw it the face of democrats that you have no interest in being "convinced." You are just picking a fight. Yes, silence is golden. I'd love to have some silence from you. Here is my one comment on your LATEST liar thread. Yes, democratic leadership sucks. No big secret as evidenced by election results. But that doesn't make republican leadership "good" by default. I think most Americans are disappointed with both sides right now.
Way back when I was a young lad, Conservatives would whine and moan about all the Dems in office and eventually end up at, "If they're not doing a good job, throw the whole bunch out and let the other fellas have a shot. If the new guys aren't worth a damn, throw them out and get some others in!" Now that Republicans are in and thoroughly screwing things up, we rarely hear that argument from the Conservative side. Instead, it is more like, "Any Republican is slightly better than a Democrat," or "Democrats are bad too, so there's no need to change." Also, as far as I'm concerned, the only plan the Dems need is to try to spend the next 20 years fixing all the crap that has gone down during this administration. If we can get back to 2000 (debt, economy, foreign relations, condemning torture and spying, environment, etc.) or anywhere close by 2020, I'll consider that a great accomplishment.
As far as I'm concerned, the forward momentum is to adhere the best leadership, Democrats have admitted their leadership "SUCKS"... I have always enjoyed admitted rights such as the second admendent, as a side benefit towards typical following of the Republican party, so the future only looks bright...
Just because the "leadership sucks," doesn't mean the principals that democrats stand for suck. That's the part you are missing. If you think our current situation looks "bright" then that is all we need to know about you. Thanks.
What good is priniciples without leadership?...I loathe not the older version of this party's principles. Truman was a great Democratic leader. His specialty was renowned, common sense decisiveness...The Democrats have lacked this virtue (IMHO) ever since...I have seen the eventual dawn of the pathetic neo-demos rear its ugly head and the party has pathetically lost itself... I also did not say our current situation looks "bright"...The future is up to you and me. Be part of the solution and think. Change the base. Hold homeboys accountable on both sides of the fence equally...You can destroy the Neo-cons, but a change of mindset, not anger is the key...
What good is leadership without the right principles. Example, Hitler, Mao, and Stalin were great leaders. I rather stand still than be lead over a cliff.
1. "Albeit." You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. 2. "Taking action" does NOT necessarily involve a plan or a vision, nor does it necessarily indicate that there's a positive goal in mind. There's no reason - none - to think that, in all circumstances and regardless of the consequences, "taking action" is a virtue. 3. You're a Republican. You're happy to be a Republican. You agree with Republicans on the issues. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that, but don't pretend like you'd be a Democrat if the party could just provide some Truman-like leadership (which, like the rest of us, you have no direct experience with). And don't pretend like a well-reasoned response to your opening post would make you see the portside-shining light.
1.) I do know what the word means and it applies as I intended...al·be·it (ôl-bt, l-) conj. Even though; although; notwithstanding: clear albeit cold weather. 2.) Taking action does NOT necessarily involve a plan or a vision, ...true. However my contention is a plan or vision has been the basis. If you carefully read my posts, you should comprehend that I do not advocate action for the sake of action... 3.) I am happy with the framework of America, and I believe the ideals of the older version of the Democratic party had merit. Consequently I also believe (personally more strongly) in the ideals of the Republican party... It is true I have no direct experience in the era of Truman, but what I do know I have read or seen documentaries about him...In addition, my father...An absolute Republican experienced his era, and commented that he was the best President he has seen regardless of party...and that is saying a lot coming from him. It is true
I live my life with good principles. That's what good it is. From my perspective, the world isn't over if we have republican leadership in charge. But this particular administration just plain sucks. I wasn't thrilled with Reagan or Bush Sr. but they were fine. W makes my skin crawl every time he opens his mouth. Too bad the leadership isn't really in tune with the average democrat, IMO. The problem is defining what is "average." The Republicans did a good job of "finding religion" as the unifying thread for the republican party. If the democrats can find their own unifying thread anytime soon, they'll win in a landslide cause W has disappointed so many. But nobody has found that "thread" yet. This is an argument for why we need more than a two party system. I disagree. The base doesn't need to change. The leadership needs to figure out what the base wants. The democratic base doesn't want special interest leadership. The democratic base wants an honest shot of the American way for the common man. Once a democratic leader figures out how to build a platform on that, they'll win in a landslide. I promise! But instead, they continue to pander to special interests. Only difference is the Republicans figured out how to pander and make it look like they care about their base using religion ...and that is sad.
