Ledge Republicans?

[dissention]

Originally Posted by gldstwmn

Truly. And what kind of friendship has anyone had where you don't growl at each other once in a while? Even dissention and I disagree once in a while.

I still think you should be using the "Bite This!" sig I sent you instead of the one you're using!

[gldstwmn]

Originally Posted by sparky

No one in the Dem party is nearly as outright horrible as any of these men. I have issues with the Dems. I think most of the men are wimps. They are worthless. Afraid to speak their minds, if indeed their minds even work anymore. The women have all the power and balls in that party. But there isn't much to choose from.

I think a large part of the problem here is that people are basing their opinions on who to vote for on ten second sound bites from a right wing media. The only way to see the feisty dems in action is to watch CSPAN, which a lot of people find boring because again, we've been conditioned by the tube to have a ridiculously short attention span. (I know I'm generalizing here but you get the picture.) I wouldn't call Senators Kennedy, Biden, Leahy, Schumer, Byrd or Feingold wimpy. We all know Hillary's got a set. I could go on but the fact of the matter is alot of these people aren't really seen in the ten second sound bites. And when you've got people as smarmy as DeLay and Rove coordinating for the other side...well, I truly believe there will be a special place in hell for them.

[dissention]

Originally Posted by GypsySorcerer

I do recognize the Party is moving further to the right. Perhaps it's a loyalty thing for some. I think the Republican party is generally more united than the Democratic Party, or at least they put on that front. If the Democrats could agree more, there probably wouldn't be a Republican party.

But that just proves one thing: in the Democratic party, you can be outspoken or oppose something and you won't be punished for it, whereas you would if you were in the Republican party.

[dissention]

Originally Posted by gldstwmn

I think a large part of the problem here is that people are basing their opinions on who to vote for on ten second sound bites from a right wing media. The only way to see the feisty dems in action is to watch CSPAN, which a lot of people find boring because again, we've been conditioned by the tube to have a ridiculously short attention span. (I know I'm generalizing here but you get the picture.) I wouldn't call Senators Kennedy, Biden, Leahy, Schumer, Byrd or Feingold wimpy. We all know Hillary's got a set. I could go on but the fact of the matter is alot of these people aren't really seen in the ten second sound bites. And when you've got people as smarmy as DeLay and Rove coordinating for the other side...well, I truly believe there will be a special place in hell for them.

Very well said. I have my TV programmed to go to CSPAN when it turns on and I rarely watch any other source for cable news. And if you really want the pulse on what people think across the coutnry, nothing beats Washington Journal.

[GypsySorcerer]

Originally Posted by dissention

But that just proves one thing: in the Democratic party, you can be outspoken or oppose something and you won't be punished for it, whereas you would if you were in the Republican party.

Perhaps, but looked what happened to poor Howie Dean.

[dissention]

Originally Posted by GypsySorcerer

Perhaps, but looked what happened to poor Howie Dean.

People fell in love with him, but smartened up to the fact that ChimpCo could use a lot against him, notably the records he had sealed concerning his stint as governor...

[gldstwmn]

Originally Posted by dissention

People fell in love with him, but smartened up to the fact that ChimpCo could use a lot against him, notably the records he had sealed concerning his stint as governor...

Not to mention that he doesn't have the experience for the job.

[sodascouts]

Originally Posted by dissention

Facts and figures don't lie, Shrubya does.

Funny how both sides have different "facts and figures that don't lie"! Ah, politics.

[sodascouts]

Originally Posted by dissention

Unfortunately, some people just can't be involved in political conversations and feel as if they are being made fun of every time one of their views is challeneged (note: I'm not referring to Nancy, I'm speaking about lots of people.)

You may not have been referring to me, but I admit I do take criticism personally - because it's often directed at me! An example earlier - my post is "mean-spirited." Now, I admit I get upset that I come across that way - I'm the one who wrote that post, after all. Perhaps I just didn't express myself in the way I intended, because I wasn't trying to be mean to anyone, and I feel bad that I sounded mean. I can see condescending. I will even go as far as to say it sounds pretty whiny and self-pitying. And I was hoping to inspire twinges of guilt in those who might find it applicable to themselves, and maybe make them think a little bit about the way they're coming across. But I never intended to be mean.

[dissention]

Originally Posted by sodascouts

You may not have been referring to me, but I admit I do take criticism personally - because it's often directed at me! An example earlier - my post is "mean-spirited." Now, I admit I get upset that I come across that way - I'm the one who wrote that post, after all. Perhaps I just didn't express myself in the way I intended, because I wasn't trying to be mean to anyone, and I feel bad that I sounded mean. I can see condescending. I will even go as far as to say it sounds pretty whiny and self-pitying. And I was hoping to inspire twinges of guilt in those who might find it applicable to themselves, and maybe make them think a little bit about the way they're coming across. But I never intended to be mean.

I can't claim to know whether you intended to be mean or not, because I'm not you and I wouldn't want to assume what your intentions were. I just thought it came across that way. And my comment that it was "mean-spirited" really can't factor into the debate over political threads because I was referring to something that I felt was unfair towards a lot of people who involve themselves in those debates. It didn't inspire any guilt in me because when we talk politics, I know that we're doing just that. We're not attacking people and saying "You're such a horrible person, you're a bastard for this and that." Granted, people do not understand how other people can believe such things, and this goes both ways with liberals and conservatives. I just got the impression that when you took part in the political discussions, you would be personally offended if someone disagreed with you and said that something you posted was off-base. I just happen to think that there is a really bold line between attacking someone and disagreeing with someone's politics.

At this point, I'm so staunchly liberal and you're so staunchly conservative that we're going to disagree every time. But that doesn't mean that either of us are attacking the other, we simply disagree (greatly) with how this country should run.

But, it's water under the bridge, IMO.

[strandinthewind]

My largest problem with both parties is the total commitment by some people to it that they canno tever go against it. I certainly do not have that problem - but I really do not "fit" in either party. I am socailly liberal and fiscally conservative. I think ALOT of people are like me. They do not want the govt. to tell them what to do in their private lives as long as it does not hurt someone esle and they are or at least to some degree were, tired of seeing over half of their pay going out of the window, etc., to fund the inefficient govt. THEN, both parties essentially talk a great game, but do not vote wildly differently (see Defense of Marriage Act, etc.) In the end, I just make my mind up on the candidates voting record if available and do not really consider the party. But, that is just me.

[dissention]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

tired of seeing over half of their pay going out of the window, etc., to fund the inefficient govt.

...with the full knowledge that if they suffered hard times, they'd want those social programs that they don't want to pay for to help them...

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by dissention

...with the full knowledge that if they suffered hard times, they'd want those social programs that they don't want to pay for to help them...

FOUL and you know it

I was talling about the $100 hammer at the Pentagon. This is a PRIME example of attacking the rich as all being evil misers who want to see the poor dead rather than pay for them Stereotypes are just as bad when you are talking about rich people, but that often gets lost in the shuffle. Moreover, NO ONE should have to pay 1/2 of what they make to the govt. period - end of story IMO. That is just absurd. But, people think people maling $200,000 a year are rich beyond reason, automatically evil, and should have to pay pay pay. IT is unfair and you know it, but will NEVER admit it

[dissention]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

FOUL and you know it

I was talling about the $100 hammer at the Pentagon. This is a PRIME example of attacking the rich as all being evil misers who want to see the poor dead rather than pay for them Stereotypes are just as bad when you are talking about rich people, but that often gets lost in the shuffle. Moreover, NO ONE should have to pay 1/2 of what they make to the govt. period - end of story IMO. That is just absurd. But, people think people maling $200,000 a year are rich beyond reason, automatically evil, and should have to pay pay pay. IT is unfair and you know it, but will NEVER admit it

I wasn't referring to the rich, I was referring to everyone collectively. If you were to conduct a poll and ask anyone off the street "Do you want to be taxed less?" the obvious answer is going to be yes. But then ask them what would happen if they fell on hard times and needed government assistance. Who and what would pay for it? Everyone wants to be taxed less but keep the same level of social programs we currently have. OR - they want to curtail social programs so they can have a little bit of extra steak in their pockets. They can't have it both ways. If given the choice between having a few extra bucks in their paychecks or helping a single mother out with putting food on her kids table, they are going to choose the former.

Now, what we should be doing is eliminating every type of waste we have in government spending to fund these ridiculous tax cuts. We need to stop offering tax breaks for SUVs, tax the corporations a helluva lot more, and stop giving oil contracts to companies that are going to steal money from us. There is so much that could be done to save money, but no one wants to put in the effort to save it. People want to bitch about the money being taken form their weekly paychecks, but they don't want to do anything about it. They want to vote for a man who is the collective whore of corporate America.

And no, it isn't necessarily fair that the rich pay half of their income, but it also isn't fair that the poor pay as much as they do. It's so absurd when someone gets ten dollars a goddamn hour BUSTING THEIR ASS and working full time, only to get $300 a week after taxes. Who the hell can live on that?

[CarneVaca]

If you call yourself a Republican or a Democrat, all you've done is agree to play, or rather spectate at, a game controlled by people intent on keeping you down.