But I thought it was a good thing to be on Bush’s side? Where’s the love?
[i]Is Bush Bad for Republicans?
With Elections Approaching, Many Republicans Are Distancing Themselves From Unpopular President
By JAKE TAPPER and MAX CULHANE
July 27, 2006 ? -
For years, former Philadelphia 76er Charles Barkley has discussed running for governor as a Republican in his home state of Alabama.
This month, Barkley refueled talk about his future candidacy, except there was a change: He would run as a Democrat.
“I was a Republican until they lost their minds,” the man once known as the “Round Mound of Rebound” said at a celebrity golf tournament earlier this month.
As goes Barkley, so goes the nation?
Not necessarily, but Republican candidates all over the country are running from the president with the energy and determination of Barkley in the paint…(story continued in link)[/i]
[quote]ALDurr wrote:
But I thought it was a good thing to be on Bush’s side? Where’s the love?
[i]Is Bush Bad for Republicans?
With Elections Approaching, Many Republicans Are Distancing Themselves From Unpopular President
By JAKE TAPPER and MAX CULHANE
July 27, 2006 ? -
For years, former Philadelphia 76er Charles Barkley has discussed running for governor as a Republican in his home state of Alabama.
This month, Barkley refueled talk about his future candidacy, except there was a change: He would run as a Democrat.
“I was a Republican until they lost their minds,” the man once known as the “Round Mound of Rebound” said at a celebrity golf tournament earlier this month.
As goes Barkley, so goes the nation?
Not necessarily, but Republican candidates all over the country are running from the president with the energy and determination of Barkley in the paint…(story continued in link)[/i]
[/quote]
Same type of shit went on during the mid term elections in 1998. The Democratic candidates also ran from Clinton.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
ALDurr wrote:
But I thought it was a good thing to be on Bush’s side? Where’s the love?
[i]Is Bush Bad for Republicans?
With Elections Approaching, Many Republicans Are Distancing Themselves From Unpopular President
By JAKE TAPPER and MAX CULHANE
July 27, 2006 ? -
For years, former Philadelphia 76er Charles Barkley has discussed running for governor as a Republican in his home state of Alabama.
This month, Barkley refueled talk about his future candidacy, except there was a change: He would run as a Democrat.
“I was a Republican until they lost their minds,” the man once known as the “Round Mound of Rebound” said at a celebrity golf tournament earlier this month.
As goes Barkley, so goes the nation?
Not necessarily, but Republican candidates all over the country are running from the president with the energy and determination of Barkley in the paint…(story continued in link)[/i]
Same type of shit went on during the mid term elections in 1998. The Democratic candidates also ran from Clinton.
[/quote]
I remember this as well. It happens every time there is a scandal or low approval regardless of the party. This just goes to show that if the politicians have no loyalty to their party leaders, then why should we? They have proven time and time again that their only concern is themselves.
When they didn’t do term limits and the line-item veto, while having solid majorities everywhere, I gave up on them. They became just like the horseshit Democrats.
They will lose in November, because they did not stick to their principles. We voted for these cocksuckers because of what they said they’d do. They have therefore lost the moral high ground to scum like Hillary and Howard ‘the Screamer’ Dean. Since they didn’t stick to their principles, they will lose, as they should.
Of course, the Dems are stark raving lunatics, so we all are truly fucked.
Of late, it seems you are bashing both parties. Are you getting sick of politicians in general, or did something happen?
I’m used to you taking shots at the Good Guys. However, I’m sensing some anger at the dems.
That being said, I trully don’t know about November. It is exceedingly rare for the Republicans to pick up seats in this scenario. With a Republican President it has happened exactly twice: TR and 2002 w/GWB.
It’s going to come down to whether people are more angry at the Republican Congress for not sticking to their guns versus the madness that is the current democratic party.
My long range guess, is that there won’t be much change at all. I think the dems are such a mess that they are going to have a hard time convincing anyone who isn’t a hater to vote for them.
I remember this as well. It happens every time there is a scandal or low approval regardless of the party. This just goes to show that if the politicians have no loyalty to their party leaders, then why should we? They have proven time and time again that their only concern is themselves.[/quote]
Absolutely.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
When they didn’t do term limits and the line-item veto, while having solid majorities everywhere, I gave up on them. They became just like the horseshit Democrats.
They will lose in November, because they did not stick to their principles. We voted for these cocksuckers because of what they said they’d do. They have therefore lost the moral high ground to scum like Hillary and Howard ‘the Screamer’ Dean. Since they didn’t stick to their principles, they will lose, as they should.
Of course, the Dems are stark raving lunatics, so we all are truly fucked.
HH[/quote]
I pretty much agree with this. I would not mind having the Republicans lose part of Congress but I think the Democratic leadership is insane.
Too many Ted Kennedys and not enough Joe Liebermanns.
I have a choice between Santorum and Casey this fall. I don’t like Santorum but I think he will vote the sensible way on major issues. Casey has been under the radar and won’t tell us what he stands for and how he will vote. He has not earned my vote at all. I don’t know what the hell to do.
Of late, it seems you are bashing both parties. Are you getting sick of politicians in general, or did something happen?
I’m used to you taking shots at the Good Guys. However, I’m sensing some anger at the dems.
JeffR[/quote]
JeffR,
I’ve always taken shots at both parties. It’s just that the Republicans have had much more material to work with in the last several years than the Democrats. Therefore, I’ve had more shots going that way. In general, I have never liked nor trusted politicians. My feelings have never been party driven. I have always felt that both sides are crooked and corrupt as they are both being fed from the same corporate-sponsored trough. It just that some people on here (yes, this includes you) decided to throw me in one camp because I don’t agree with them on some issues. There is too much cheerleading and too many myopic viewpoints on here and not enough understanding and comprehending that my viewpoints don’t always fit neatly in a box.
I never liked the idea of one party controlling all aspects of government because it leads to bad things for us citizens. If things are kept fairly even, it keeps both parties off balanced and busy fighting each other and they spend less time screwing us over. When all aspects of government are dominated by one side, they can concentrate their efforts in doing some really dumb shit to us. I am a firm believer in checks and balances, period.
“Good Guys” LOL! That’s extremely funny and extremely pathetic at the same time.
Thanks for your response. However, I must take issue with you not having enough material against the dems.
Therefore, I must enlighten you.
Just this week, john “can you see my little throbber, windsurfer dude?” kerry announced that the war in lebanon wouldn’t have happened if he had been President.
Right.
Then he followed this looney commentary with the Bolton hearings:
kerry: Why not engage in a bilateral one and get the job done? That’s what the Clinton administration did.
Bolton: Very poorly, since the North Koreans violated the agreed framework almost from the time it was signed. And I would also say, senator, that we do have an opportunity for bilateral negotiations with North Korea in the context of the six-party talks, if North Korea would come back to them.
Young padawan (al), you have to go through the npr, cnn, abc filter. However, there is plenty of material if you are willing to work.
Of late, it seems you are bashing both parties. Are you getting sick of politicians in general, or did something happen?
I’m used to you taking shots at the Good Guys. However, I’m sensing some anger at the dems.
JeffR
JeffR,
I’ve always taken shots at both parties. It’s just that the Republicans have had much more material to work with in the last several years than the Democrats. Therefore, I’ve had more shots going that way. In general, I have never liked nor trusted politicians. My feelings have never been party driven. I have always felt that both sides are crooked and corrupt as they are both being fed from the same corporate-sponsored trough. It just that some people on here (yes, this includes you) decided to throw me in one camp because I don’t agree with them on some issues. There is too much cheerleading and too many myopic viewpoints on here and not enough understanding and comprehending that my viewpoints don’t always fit neatly in a box.
I never liked the idea of one party controlling all aspects of government because it leads to bad things for us citizens. If things are kept fairly even, it keeps both parties off balanced and busy fighting each other and they spend less time screwing us over. When all aspects of government are dominated by one side, they can concentrate their efforts in doing some really dumb shit to us. I am a firm believer in checks and balances, period.
“Good Guys” LOL! That’s extremely funny and extremely pathetic at the same time.[/quote]
Very well written and I agree with that point of view. Unfortunately, most can’t think beyond simply being a cheerleader. You will be seen as “liberal” if you aren’t kissing the asses of republicans and calling them “the good guys”…which is the dumbest thing I’ve read since jeffy last posted.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
ALDurr wrote:
JeffR wrote:
al,
Of late, it seems you are bashing both parties. Are you getting sick of politicians in general, or did something happen?
I’m used to you taking shots at the Good Guys. However, I’m sensing some anger at the dems.
JeffR
JeffR,
I’ve always taken shots at both parties. It’s just that the Republicans have had much more material to work with in the last several years than the Democrats. Therefore, I’ve had more shots going that way. In general, I have never liked nor trusted politicians. My feelings have never been party driven. I have always felt that both sides are crooked and corrupt as they are both being fed from the same corporate-sponsored trough. It just that some people on here (yes, this includes you) decided to throw me in one camp because I don’t agree with them on some issues. There is too much cheerleading and too many myopic viewpoints on here and not enough understanding and comprehending that my viewpoints don’t always fit neatly in a box.
I never liked the idea of one party controlling all aspects of government because it leads to bad things for us citizens. If things are kept fairly even, it keeps both parties off balanced and busy fighting each other and they spend less time screwing us over. When all aspects of government are dominated by one side, they can concentrate their efforts in doing some really dumb shit to us. I am a firm believer in checks and balances, period.
“Good Guys” LOL! That’s extremely funny and extremely pathetic at the same time.
Very well written and I agree with that point of view. Unfortunately, most can’t think beyond simply being a cheerleader. You will be seen as “liberal” if you aren’t kissing the asses of republicans and calling them “the good guys”…which is the dumbest thing I’ve read since jeffy last posted.[/quote]
News flash: In order to be considered an “independent” (like pox claims) you have to see both sides of an issue. Unlike pox, who sides with the democratic party line 99% of the time, a true independent will keep his options open.
If I’m a “cheerleader,” then pox is a card carrying member of the “haters.”
News flash: In order to be considered an “independent” (like pox claims) you have to see both sides of an issue. Unlike pox, who sides with the democratic party line 99% of the time, a true independent will keep his options open.
If I’m a “cheerleader,” then pox is a card carrying member of the “haters.”
JeffR
[/quote]
What is the “democratic party line”? How could I side with something that doesn’t exist?
In truth, beyond that, I really don’t know what the party believes.
JeffR
[/quote]
So, why did you lie? You wrote that 99% of the time I am siding with “the democratic party line”. If you don’t even know what that is, how could you claim anyone is always siding with it? There are REPUBLICANS who don’t like Bush. How does not liking Bush equal being a “democrat”?
[quote]hspder wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Too many Ted Kennedys and not enough Joe Liebermanns.
You really seem to like Joe Lieberman a lot. More than you do Bush. I can’t blame you.
So why did you not vote for Gore/Lieberman when you had the chance, which would have refreshed the power of the moderate Dems in the party?
Do you now regret not voting for them?
[/quote]
Because Joe-Joe was running with Gore, who is not good for the U.S… No matter how bad Bush and the current sorry excuses we have for republicans are, they are still better than what the left has to offer.
The republicans will win/retain bouth houses in November not because they are the better party, but because they are the lesser of two evils.
The conservative movement has little if any representation in DC right now.
Thanks for your response. However, I must take issue with you not having enough material against the dems.
[/quote]
JeffR, you did it again. I didn’t say that there wasn’t ENOUGH material. I said that the Republicans simply had MORE material over the last several years. This is a function of them having control of every area for the last several years. If the pendulum swings the other way, then their amount of material should decrease.
Please don’t. This is an exercise in stupidity at best. We could spend weeks pulling events out that makes either party look bad. The point that I was making is similar to what my father said to me about women when I was younger: “Deep down all women are the same. They only have different covers that make them skinny, fat, black, white, tall, short or whatever. At the core they are all the same and they are designed to drive us crazy.” Politicians at the core are all greedy, selfish, power-hungry, manipulative bastards. The only difference is whether they have a Democrat cover or Republican cover.
First off, the Star Wars reference is not a good look. Put away the jedi robes that you bought off of e-Bay.
Secondly, to refer to me as a young padawan, you are assuming that you are of some jedi level of age and wisdom to be able to teach me anything of value. Many of your thousands of previous posts illustrates that you are more than likely not older than I am and that you don’t possess any level of wisdom whatsoever. I have no desire to be indoctrinated into the “Dark Side of the Cheerleading Force”. When you can find your way to work through the FOX news, Free Republic filter and actually see and understand another side to things, then we might have something to discuss.
BTW, in case you didn’t know, NPR, CNN and ABC are all funded by corporations that have donated far more to right-wing causes than anywhere else (It is easily researched). So when you are talking about their filter, you’ve just shown that you don’t know as much as you think you do.
Thanks for your response. However, I must take issue with you not having enough material against the dems.
JeffR, you did it again. I didn’t say that there wasn’t ENOUGH material. I said that the Republicans simply had MORE material over the last several years. This is a function of them having control of every area for the last several years. If the pendulum swings the other way, then their amount of material should decrease.[/quote]
Fair enough. However, being CHEERLEADER IN CHIEF, I must remind you about the bad guys.
[quote]Therefore, I must enlighten you.
Please don’t. This is an exercise in stupidity at best. We could spend weeks pulling events out that makes either party look bad. The point that I was making is similar to what my father said to me about women when I was younger: “Deep down all women are the same. They only have different covers that make them skinny, fat, black, white, tall, short or whatever. At the core they are all the same and they are designed to drive us crazy.” Politicians at the core are all greedy, selfish, power-hungry, manipulative bastards. The only difference is whether they have a Democrat cover or Republican cover.[/quote]
[quote]You keep this up, I might have to capitalize your name.
Young padawan (al), you have to go through the npr, cnn, abc filter. However, there is plenty of material if you are willing to work.
Good luck!!!
JeffR
First off, the Star Wars reference is not a good look. Put away the jedi robes that you bought off of e-Bay.[/quote]
Good God, I trully hope they don’t make them for anyone larger than little irish.
Great. No sense of humor. Thought Star Wars references couldn’t be anything BUT sarcasm/nerdling speak.
It’s not the years of your life, it’s the life in your years. --A.L.
I do want to thank you for insult. I know it’s your defense mechanism.
I take it back, you did get it.
Whoever donates, it would be hard to argue they specialize in liberal drivel.
In short, I’ve tried to lighten it up between us. Maybe it’s impossible.
And that, parents, is what your kids were taught today in the 4th grade. Don’t forget we always have cookies in the back of the room during Parent Teacher Conferences and remember to pick up your child’s maccaroni picture on the way out! JeffR’s parents, could you please stay after? We have some things to talk about.
And that, parents, is what your kids were taught today in the 4th grade. Don’t forget we always have cookies in the back of the room during Parent Teacher Conferences and remember to pick up your child’s maccaroni picture on the way out! JeffR’s parents, could you please stay after? We have some things to talk about.[/quote]
Great!!!
My pal finds a way to chime in!!!
Teacher: “Mrs. pox, your child has the tendency to sulk. He keeps eating other kids’ ho ho’s. He doesn’t play with other kids. We can’t be sure, but we think he is mumbling, “bulk. Must bulk. Need cheesecake.””
Mrs. pox: “It can’t be!!! He eats us out of house and home. All he does is eat and type on some internet forum on all hours of the day. How can he still be hungry!?!”
In all seriousness, pox, I think al will understand that I was poking a little fun at myself with the you=bad commentary.
[quote]JeffR wrote:
Whoever donates, it would be hard to argue they specialize in liberal drivel.
[/quote]
So, if they specialize in liberal discussion, but are sponsored by conservative money, wouldn’t this lead one to believe that the liberal/conservative dichotomy is really designed to keep the massses fighting amongst themselves while those in power rob us blind? It’s all a big chess game to the powers-that-be. It should be obvious by now that they don’t care about the philosophies of either party. They are just interested in making money off of our collective stupidity. Therefore, cheerleading one side or the other is asinine.
Don’t try to lighten things up. It’s much more fun when we are giving each other a hard time. It would be boring if we tried to get along.
