Not particularly. It was apparent almost immediately that arguing or debating with you was a waste of time. I was just responding to you bothering to take the time to post that tired old non-argument b**** about Dems or progressives being "angry." You're right. We're angry. What's your point? Oh, right. It was just an observation. Have you 'observed' a public opinion poll lately? Like, any of them? Not only are progressives angry -- so are most independents, a heck of a lot of conservatives and a goodly chunk of Republicans. Said the kid whose parents paid a boatload to send him to St. Johns. Go kick a cripple's crutch while you're at it. FB's right as usual. Poor people are a real and present threat to your pampered lifestyle. It is in your self interest to reduce poverty as disgusting as you might find the people born into it to be.
It's always a good thing to see a fellow priviliged St. John's alumn promoting Social Darwinism. Yay for Herbert Spencer! Spoiler We lift our hearts in rev'rence. We sing thy endless praise. May the lamp of knowledge guide us Along our countless ways. As we tread thy storied cloisters. We'll ever mindful be. Of the place in selfless service. Thy founders dreamt for thee. Hail, St. John's! Hail, St. John's! Hail the Faith, thy foundation. Hail the Virtue, thy dedication. Hail, St. John's! Hail St. John's!
I'm not sure how many people around here remember, but this was a big issue right around the time that Clinton entered his first term. I believe that the Democrats would benefit most by framing the issue as 'helping the poor to help themselves' as opposed to 'helping the poor'. It seems that it is easy for the Republicans to play on the idea of 'welfare mothers' having kids in order to increase their income or whatever other stupid BS that makes people dislike the idea of government support being unconditional on the helpee. I think almost everybody likes the idea of helping underprivledged people who work hard. This is the image that should be portrayed, and I think is what worked for Clinton.
Ah... so the problem you have with my post isn't the "rage and frustration," that's not consuming me, but what I said. That's good, Nomar. That means you were paying attention. Keep D&D Civil.
Of course helping the weak and poor is important, to a certain extent. That extent has been met and even exceeded in some cases in my opinion.
Come on dude, you are the biggest troll on this board. You just surf for posts from conservatives then snipe them with BS as soon as you can. It wasn't an argument. This guy Deckard seems like a nice guy, I remember from his posts in the past. Now he's just a lunatic. It's sad to see. It wasn't an argument, it wasn't really a political comment at all. But you had to come after me, didn't you? I know about the polls. I wasn't saying that all liberals are angry, or that it's wrong to be angry, or anything. I was just commenting. Kick a cripple's crutch? I said that we help the poor enough. Get a grip BJ.
You think I'm a lunatic? Watch it, buddy! Looks like a political comment from where I'm sittin'. Keep D&D Civil.
I said that what I posted about your post, was not a political comment. It did not require the rediculous response from BJ.
Ok. I think what you're not understanding about me is that when I'm making posts like the one you referred to, I'm not consumed with "rage and frustration." "The GOP believes in bankrupting the country, growing government to record levels, running a huge foreign trade deficit. Just look at their record. Look beyond the Rove/RNC BS, and look at their damn record. It's an outrage. If anyone believes Rove, Bush, and the Rush Limbaughs of this country, they are being taken to the cleaners, and have their heads buried in the sand. They want you to believe that what the GOP Congress and the Bush Administration are actually doing is what the Democrats want to do. Pardon me, but it's bull****. Again, just look at the record of governing of the GOP. It speaks for itself." I assume this is what you're talking about, Nomar. The reason I wrote it it that way was to make my point strongly, and get at least some people to pay attention. I could easily have written it like this: "The GOP believes in bankrupting the country, growing government to record levels, running a huge foreign trade deficit. Just look at their record. Look beyond the Rove/RNC strategy, and look at their record. It's awful. If anyone believes Rove, Bush, and the Rush Limbaughs of this country, they are being the victims of Republican propaganda. They want you to believe that what the GOP Congress and the Bush Administration are actually doing is what the Democrats want to do. Pardon me, but that's just not the case. Again, just look at the record of governing of the GOP. It speaks for itself.' Actually, that's not bad, Nomar. Thanks for the feedback! Am I still a lunatic, consumed with rage and frustration? Keep D&D Civil.
Actually I think it's good to be passionate about things in life. I just think of you as being a positive person in your posts, generally. I was disconcerted with your tone, but it's my issue. You shouldn't change it just because of something I said. I hope that your happy with the results of whatever happens in the elections. You seem to be genuinely pissed about what the other side does, and how it affects you and the country. I'm more just irritated with your side's ideology and people who believe in it. Either way, it shouldn't make that big of a difference to me personally, besides making me feel alot less safe with Democrats in power.
Nice post. I just don't think we should be living our lives, or judging how much freedom we allow ourselves... ...based on fear. The Blade Runner knew fear. But he hung on. He didn't give up. He faced his fears, fought back, and kept what was meaningful for him. For as long as he was given. I want a govenment that tells Americans to face their fears, fight, and never surrender their freedoms. Americans who don't give in to campaigns based on exploiting their fears. Perhaps I want what we'll never truly have, but I know that if we give up and give in to fear, that if we let our lives be ruled by it, we will cease to be Americans. We will cease to be what makes us special. We will lose the freedom that has been the envy of the world for over two centuries. It's not time to die... it's time to live, for as long as we've got. As Americans. Keep D&D Civil.
I don't know why people think this way. It's just crazy. Dems could go to war too, if it's called for. Just because we think twice before sending our troops into harm way and think twice about getting innocent civilians killed in the process does not make us weak. Sometimes I feel, heck ... if these generals, the Pentagons, the military are so gungho about this ... maybe a Dem' president and congress should just turn hawkish and send them all to war at a drop of a hat .... maybe then the Dems will lose the stigma of being weak .... Would you like that ? You think Bush, Cheney and all these Rep's senators and congressmen would step up and go to the front line with the grunts on the ground? How many of them have children in Iraq? How many poor, under priviledged young men are risking their lives there now just so Bush and his cronies can beat their chest and utter the "stay the course" nonsense?!
Why I feel safer with somebody like Bush in power? Right from wiki: Preemption A policy of preventive war, should the US or its allies be threatened by terrorists or by rogue states that are engaged in the production of weapons of mass destruction The right of self-defense should be extended in order to authorize pre-emptive attacks against potential aggressors cutting them off before they are able to launch strikes against the US. [edit] Unilateralism The duty of the US to pursue unilateral military action when acceptable multilateral solutions cannot be found. [edit] Strength Beyond Challenge The policy that "United States has, and intends to keep, military strength beyond challenge", indicating the US intends to take actions as necessary to continue its status as the world's sole military superpower. This resembles a British Empire policy before World War I that their navy must be larger than the world's next two largest navies put together. [edit] Extending Democracy, Liberty, and Security to All Regions A policy of actively promoting democracy and freedom in all regions of the world. Bush declared at West Point, "America has no empire to extend or utopia to establish. We wish for others only what we wish for ourselves -- safety from violence, the rewards of liberty, and the hope for a better life." Bush Doctrine > all else.
Then maybe you should take a look at the current state of the U.S. military, in particular the National Guard and Reserves. I guess I understand how Bush's plan of pre-emptive action has kept nuke's from the hands of unstable governments that hate us like North Korea... wait. And I guess I can understand how his plan of preemption has kept Iran from influencing the Iraqi government, shipping tons of arms into Iraq, killing our troops, having an active nuke program. OH WAIT I FEEL BETTER TOO. I'm sure you think Bush did a fine job responding to Katrina as well. I'm sure he's right, and no one anticipated the levees being breached. Well, except me, the people at the National Hurricane Center, the Weather Channel... eh.. pretty much everyone. I can see how you feel safer.
Iraq had no terrorists before the invasion, no WMDs, and didn't have the capacity to make any. I agree that the right to self-defense should be extended to include preemptive intervention, but it should go through the international community. The Bush administration did not try to come up with a multilateral solution, it cherry picked "intelligence," forced the UN weapons inspectors out of Iraq before they could conclude and report that Iraq did not have WMDs. I don't have an issue with unilateral moves in general as long as the parties involved at least make an attempt to resolve the issue through other means. This seems a bit excessive to me, but I don't have too much of an issue with it. We actually spend more money than the rest of the world combined on our military, so I don't see why we couldn't pare that back at least some. Unfortunately, we are not giving Iraq any of the things that are mentioned above. There is more violence than there ever was under Saddam, people cannot go out in public for fear of reprisals, and are much worse off than ever before. You must be very, VERY high of you believe this.
Sometimes it gets worse before it gets better. In the long run, Iraq will be better off and so will we.
Simple question. I am running for Prez next term. I will send in 500K troops into Iraq. I am a Liberal Democrat. Will you vote for me? More importantly, will you volunteer for this arm forces? Don't give me any excuse, do you want to go or not?
