[quote]Sloth wrote:
Woah, it’s the other way around. The "extremist’ conservatives weren’t able to stop the fiscally liberal republicans (compassionate conservative) from spending.[/quote]
Ahahahahaha!
[quote]Sloth wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
The intelligent, moderate Republicnas certainly weren’t able to act as a check on the extremest conservatives and stop their reckless spending and ill-considered policies and initiatives.
Woah, it’s the other way around. The "extremist’ conservatives weren’t able to stop the fiscally liberal republicans (compassionate conservative) from spending.[/quote]
I guess. I don’t really consider traditional conservatives extremist in the manner of the recent Republican leaders. They adopted the worst of both parties. Reckless spending traditionally associated with spend-and-tax liberals but without the taxing part.
And a pugnacious, self-righteous moral attitude and unacceptable intrusion into people’s private lives.
[quote]tme wrote:
Sloth wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
The intelligent, moderate Republicnas certainly weren’t able to act as a check on the extremest conservatives and stop their reckless spending and ill-considered policies and initiatives.
Woah, it’s the other way around. The "extremist’ conservatives weren’t able to stop the fiscally liberal republicans (compassionate conservative) from spending.
Whoa, slow down on the spin, you’re getting dizzy.
[/quote]
How is it spin? Conservatives would be cutting/reforming social programs. Not growing them and even adding new ones. It’s like calling someone a fiscal liberal, though they support deep tax and entitlement cuts.
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
Sloth wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
The intelligent, moderate Republicnas certainly weren’t able to act as a check on the extremest conservatives and stop their reckless spending and ill-considered policies and initiatives.
Woah, it’s the other way around. The "extremist’ conservatives weren’t able to stop the fiscally liberal republicans (compassionate conservative) from spending.
I guess. I don’t really consider traditional conservatives extremist in the manner of the recent Republican leaders. They adopted the worst of both parties. Reckless spending traditionally associated with spend-and-tax liberals but without the taxing part.
And a pugnacious, self-righteous moral attitude and unacceptable intrusion into people’s private lives.
[/quote]
Well, conservative social values are one issue, but fiscally? This has not even been anything remotely like a conservative reign. Where’s the privatization? Hell, did any social programs actually see a cut? Forget spending cuts, how many saw a sizeable slowing of rate of growth, spending-wise?
Tax cuts? Yawn, puny. Where’s the tax reform? Where’s the dismantleing of slow inefficient central beaucracies? Fiscal conservatives are wondering what the hell they’re doing supporting republicans.
To be clear. Bush isn’t a flat out Conservative. A social conservative, sure. Fiscal conservative? Oh hell no! How many times did that veto pen get put to use? That’s not spin, it’s a statement of fact.
[quote]tme wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
If she puts Hastings in, she violates her principles (does she have any?). She voted to IMPEACH the guy in 1988. If she is honest and kicks him to the curb, the CBC ‘revolts’. Guess which one she’ll do?
And you guys voted so that an IMPEACHED JUDGE is in charge of the INTELLIGENCE committee!!! Still ROFLMAO!!!
Guess I haven’t been keeping up with my douchebag logic translator skills. Who did all “you guys” vote for again? I don’t recall seeing either Hastings or Pelosi on my ballot, maybe I missed it.
Or are you referring to everyone who isn’t a member of the white-boy southern red-neck evangelical club you call a political party?
(Psst, hey dipshit. some of the people you’re talking to don’t vote in US elections.)
[/quote]
But they want to do so. They post about American politics, they support the guys with cash in the freezer. Can you imagine the howl that would go up if a Republican was caught ON FILM accepting a bribe, then was found to have a freezer full of cash?
They went apeshit over Foley sending gay text messages. But, film a Dem taking bribes and red-handed: “Oh, let’s wait for the trial.” or “Impeachment is not the same as guilty!”
The fact that people voted for these scum at all, and that THEY KNEW Nancy would be SPEAKER (with all that follows and all the evil she will perpetrate) shocked me to the core. Either the people who voted for these scum are too stupid to project into the future, or they are evil. Probably a little of both.
We are doomed and ready for our leashes now. Fucking, fucking sad…
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
tme wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
If she puts Hastings in, she violates her principles (does she have any?). She voted to IMPEACH the guy in 1988. If she is honest and kicks him to the curb, the CBC ‘revolts’. Guess which one she’ll do?
And you guys voted so that an IMPEACHED JUDGE is in charge of the INTELLIGENCE committee!!! Still ROFLMAO!!!
Guess I haven’t been keeping up with my douchebag logic translator skills. Who did all “you guys” vote for again? I don’t recall seeing either Hastings or Pelosi on my ballot, maybe I missed it.
Or are you referring to everyone who isn’t a member of the white-boy southern red-neck evangelical club you call a political party?
(Psst, hey dipshit. some of the people you’re talking to don’t vote in US elections.)
But they want to do so. They post about American politics, they support the guys with cash in the freezer. Can you imagine the howl that would go up if a Republican was caught ON FILM accepting a bribe, then was found to have a freezer full of cash?
They went apeshit over Foley sending gay text messages. But, film a Dem taking bribes and red-handed: “Oh, let’s wait for the trial.” or “Impeachment is not the same as guilty!”
The fact that people voted for these scum at all, and that THEY KNEW Nancy would be SPEAKER (with all that follows and all the evil she will perpetrate) shocked me to the core. Either the people who voted for these scum are too stupid to project into the future, or they are evil. Probably a little of both.
We are doomed and ready for our leashes now. Fucking, fucking sad…
[/quote]
Ok,I’m just trying to get an accurate representation of all this emotively loaded “good/evil” vitriol that you post.
Bear with me here.
So is the majority of the American voting public ‘evil’ in your view?
Do you see the Republican ideology as the only ‘good’ viewpoint?
Do you have a problem with Pelosi because she is a woman rather than a Democrat?
Because while it may not be your actual viewpoint,a lot of what you write comes across as mysoginist in the extreme.
clear up my misconceptions here if I have misjudged your intent in your posts please…
[quote]Sloth wrote:
To be clear. Bush isn’t a flat out Conservative. A social conservative, sure. Fiscal conservative? Oh hell no! How many times did that veto pen get put to use? That’s not spin, it’s a statement of fact.[/quote]
I disagree that Bush is a social conservative. He is simply politically expedient, and everything he’s done that could be considered socially conservative has been pandering to his far right “base”.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
tme wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
If she puts Hastings in, she violates her principles (does she have any?). She voted to IMPEACH the guy in 1988. If she is honest and kicks him to the curb, the CBC ‘revolts’. Guess which one she’ll do?
And you guys voted so that an IMPEACHED JUDGE is in charge of the INTELLIGENCE committee!!! Still ROFLMAO!!!
Guess I haven’t been keeping up with my douchebag logic translator skills. Who did all “you guys” vote for again? I don’t recall seeing either Hastings or Pelosi on my ballot, maybe I missed it.
Or are you referring to everyone who isn’t a member of the white-boy southern red-neck evangelical club you call a political party?
(Psst, hey dipshit. some of the people you’re talking to don’t vote in US elections.)
But they want to do so. They post about American politics, they support the guys with cash in the freezer. Can you imagine the howl that would go up if a Republican was caught ON FILM accepting a bribe, then was found to have a freezer full of cash?
They went apeshit over Foley sending gay text messages. But, film a Dem taking bribes and red-handed: “Oh, let’s wait for the trial.” or “Impeachment is not the same as guilty!”
The fact that people voted for these scum at all, and that THEY KNEW Nancy would be SPEAKER (with all that follows and all the evil she will perpetrate) shocked me to the core. Either the people who voted for these scum are too stupid to project into the future, or they are evil. Probably a little of both.
We are doomed and ready for our leashes now. Fucking, fucking sad…
[/quote]
God, you’re crazy. I almost could say the same thing about those who re-elected Bush, also KNOWING Hastert would be the Speaker of the house. But I wouldn’t call them evil. I wouldn’t even call Bush and some of the scarier and more dangerous elements of the Republican evil. Just terribly misguided. Foley comes close to being evil.
Oh, wait-he’s an alcoholic and was abused by priests. That absolves him of all responsibility for his actions of child abuse and makes him unaccountable. The way that and other scandals were handled was certainly self-serving and perpetuated evil.
Last time I checked, people aren't voting for the Speaker of their House when they cast their vote. The Democrats who were elected are moderate and centrist and should act a check on Pelosi's excessive liberalism. That is unless they are derelict in their duty like the less extreme, more intelligent moderate Repulicans were in acting as any type of moderating influence on the President's ill-considered, poorly-executed agenda.
Even if Pelosi is given free reign, that will be better for the country than the recent course. Maybe not in isolation. But certainly after the direction it’s been going in.
[quote]tme wrote:
Sloth wrote:
To be clear. Bush isn’t a flat out Conservative. A social conservative, sure. Fiscal conservative? Oh hell no! How many times did that veto pen get put to use? That’s not spin, it’s a statement of fact.
I disagree that Bush is a social conservative. He is simply politically expedient, and everything he’s done that could be considered socially conservative has been pandering to his far right “base”. [/quote]
It’s not pandering. It’s the course he whole-heartedly believes in and fully supports. Otherwise, he wouldn’t have alienated the rest of the country causing many long-time, staunch Republicans to vote for Moderate democrats. They did so as a referendum because Bush abandoned the centrist base. That was not politically expedient.
Or maybe Rove and other advisors simply just fucked up this time.
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
Or maybe Rove and other advisors simply just fucked up this time.[/quote]
Ding, ding, ding.
They keep pushing further and further to the right and eventually the door closed behind them.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
But they want to do so. They post about American politics, they support the guys with cash in the freezer. Can you imagine the howl that would go up if a Republican was caught ON FILM accepting a bribe, then was found to have a freezer full of cash?
They went apeshit over Foley sending gay text messages. But, film a Dem taking bribes and red-handed: “Oh, let’s wait for the trial.” or “Impeachment is not the same as guilty!”
[/quote]
Ahahahahaha! You are letting Rove’s panick and fear strategy consume you. Perhaps if you take a step back, wipe the froth off your mouth, and take a few deep breaths you’ll start to feel better?
Just stop, you are making an ass out of yourself.
[quote]vroom wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
But they want to do so. They post about American politics, they support the guys with cash in the freezer. Can you imagine the howl that would go up if a Republican was caught ON FILM accepting a bribe, then was found to have a freezer full of cash?
They went apeshit over Foley sending gay text messages. But, film a Dem taking bribes and red-handed: “Oh, let’s wait for the trial.” or “Impeachment is not the same as guilty!”
Ahahahahaha! You are letting Rove’s panick and fear strategy consume you. Perhaps if you take a step back, wipe the froth off your mouth, and take a few deep breaths you’ll start to feel better?
Just stop, you are making an ass out of yourself.[/quote]
I’m not the one with a freezer full of cash. I’m not the ones pressuring Pelosi to appoint a guy whom she previously impeached (the vote was something like 394 to 4, or so) to chair our Intelligence Committee. And I’m making an ass of myself? Vacuum, you are one strange fucked up dude…
"Further, such a request would be discriminatory, in as much as no other Member currently under federal investigation has been asked to step down from a substantive, legislative committee assignment. It would also be unprecedented, in as much as I have served with Members who have been indicted, tried and won their cases, and who were never asked to step aside from their committee assignments during those processes. Therefore, I will not give up a committee assignment that is so vital to New Orleans at this crucial time for any uncertain political strategy.
Sincerely,
William J. Jefferson
Member of Congress"
There, Vroomie, is an example of someone making an ass of himself. This is for your future reference. You can now stop saying that to me, now that you can see an actual example.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
There, Vroomie, is an example of someone making an ass of himself. This is for your future reference. You can now stop saying that to me, now that you can see an actual example.[/quote]
Yes, you seem capable of setting that bar higher every day. Good work.
everyone here forgets the basic you are a blight on the face of the planet and a friend to terrorists everywhere. This should clear everything up.
And for the record I would like nothing more than for Jefferson to go, using Katrina and New Orleans as a scapegoat to stay in office is utter bullshit. And what video is this that he is caught taking bribes?? I know about the cash, missed any reference to a video.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
You guys still don’t get it? ITS IMPOSSIBLE FOR A LIB TO BE HONEST! If she puts Hastings in, she violates her principles (does she have any?). She voted to IMPEACH the guy in 1988. If she is honest and kicks him to the curb, the CBC ‘revolts’. Guess which one she’ll do?
[/quote]
I’m still trying to decipher this Headhunter tidbit.
What a clown!!!
[quote]Brad61 wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
You guys still don’t get it? ITS IMPOSSIBLE FOR A LIB TO BE HONEST! If she puts Hastings in, she violates her principles (does she have any?). She voted to IMPEACH the guy in 1988. If she is honest and kicks him to the curb, the CBC ‘revolts’. Guess which one she’ll do?
I’m still trying to decipher this Headhunter tidbit.
What a clown!!!
[/quote]
Yeah. I am really going to laugh if she does do the honest thing. As well as really be happy with the country’s decision. It will be more proof that the results of this election were a good thing.
[quote]Brad61 wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
You guys still don’t get it? ITS IMPOSSIBLE FOR A LIB TO BE HONEST! If she puts Hastings in, she violates her principles (does she have any?). She voted to IMPEACH the guy in 1988. If she is honest and kicks him to the curb, the CBC ‘revolts’. Guess which one she’ll do?
I’m still trying to decipher this Headhunter tidbit.
What a clown!!!
[/quote]
Writing at above the 4th grade level a challenge for you, eh? Because YOU can’t understand a paragraph implies that I’m a clown? THAT is truly laughable.
I see now why the Dems won — there are more of YOU (i.e. ignorant and unintelligent) than of Republicans. Sad. Of course, The Republican congress was full of cowards, so what choice did you really have?
Brad, you are pathetic. Keep after your education though. You sure need it BADLY!!
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
Brad61 wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
You guys still don’t get it? ITS IMPOSSIBLE FOR A LIB TO BE HONEST! If she puts Hastings in, she violates her principles (does she have any?). She voted to IMPEACH the guy in 1988. If she is honest and kicks him to the curb, the CBC ‘revolts’. Guess which one she’ll do?
I’m still trying to decipher this Headhunter tidbit.
What a clown!!!
Yeah. I am really going to laugh if she does do the honest thing. As well as really be happy with the country’s decision. It will be more proof that the results of this election were a good thing.[/quote]
She’ll lose the CBC. It’ll never happen.