View Full Version : Libs Upset Pres Bush Calls Them Democrat Party
red states rule
02-02-2007, 08:02 PM
Libs by their nature love to bitch. However, they are showing how they will bitch about nothing
Liberals Smell A Rat: 'Democrat Party' Is A GOP Slur, A Smear, 'Jarring Verging On Ugly'
Posted by Tim Graham on February 2, 2007 - 13:04.
The amazing liberal vapors over President Bush’s use of the word "Democrat" to describe, er, Democrats, continues. In an NPR interview with Juan Williams, President Bush claimed it was a simple mistake in his State of the Union speech, but liberals quickly found more of these grievous offenses in searching speech texts at the White House website. Certain left-wing media critics who lay face down in worship at the feet of Hillary Clinton are now insisting that the word "Democrat" is a "smear" and an "oft-used Republican slur." The Washington Post and The New York Times each produced stories on Bush's denial of this microscopic scandal. (Clay Waters handled it at Times Watch here.)
But my favorite fuss comes from former Newsweek reporter and Carter speechwriter Hendrik Hertzberg at The New Yorker, who says the plain D-word is "jarring verging on ugly. It fairly screams ‘rat.’" He then imagined Republicans want to destroy the Democrats like Israel’s enemies want to wipe out Israel, and compared them to a street gang:
An alternative view is that it’s called the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party itself takes this view, and many nonpartisan authorities agree. The American Heritage College Dictionary, for example, defines the noun "Democratic Party" as "One of the two major US political parties, owing its origin to a split in the Democratic-Republican Party under Andrew Jackson in 1828." (It defines "Democrat n" as "A Democratic Party member" and "Democratic adj" as "Of, relating to, or characteristic of the Democratic Party," but gives no definition for—indeed, makes no mention of—"Democrat Party n" or "Democrat adj".) Other dictionaries, and reference works generally, appear to be unanimous on these points. The broader literate public also comes down on the "Democratic" side, as indicated by frequency of usage. A Google search for "Democratic Party" yields around forty million hits. "Democrat Party" fetches fewer than two million.
There’s no great mystery about the motives behind this deliberate misnaming. "Democrat Party" is a slur, or intended to be—a handy way to express contempt. Aesthetic judgments are subjective, of course, but "Democrat Party" is jarring verging on ugly. It fairly screams "rat." At a slightly higher level of sophistication, it’s an attempt to deny the enemy the positive connotations of its chosen appellation. During the Cold War, many people bridled at obvious misnomers like "German Democratic Republic," and perhaps there are some members of the Republican Party (which, come to think of it, has been drifting toward monarchism of late) who genuinely regard the Democratic Party as undemocratic. Perhaps there are some who hope to induce it to go out of existence by refusing to call it by its name, a la terming Israel "the Zionist entity." And no doubt there are plenty of others who say "Democrat Party" just to needle the other side while signalling solidarity with their own—the partisan equivalent of flashing a gang sign.
The WashPost account from Michael Abramowitz added this nugget, that Democrat-leaning White House reporters were hyperventilating in the briefing room:
White House press secretary Tony Snow seemed peeved with reporters asking about the Bush mispronunciation at his morning press "gaggle" yesterday, accusing the reporters of making "three mountains out of a molehill" and suggesting that the press was not much interested when Democrats bashed Bush with language calling him a "loser" or a "liar."
http://newsbusters.org/node/10571
Bubbalicious
02-02-2007, 08:26 PM
Yeah I've heard a few allusions that I'm supposed to be upset about this but it's just not happening. I didn't know it was a slur until some right-wing pundit made a big deal of it in the after SOTU commentary. I figured GWB must not have been aware of that either.
red states rule
02-02-2007, 08:29 PM
Yeah I've heard a few allusions that I'm supposed to be upset about this but it's just not happening. I didn't know it was a slur until some right-wing pundit made a big deal of it in the after SOTU commentary. I figured GWB must not have been aware of that either.
In the 2000 election libs had a temper tantrum over the word "rat" flashing ob the TV screen for about 1/2 second. They were spelling the word Democrat in two or three letters
Libs are never happy unless they are bitching about something
retiredman
02-02-2007, 08:30 PM
you republics are all alike
Bubbalicious
02-02-2007, 08:39 PM
Libs are never happy unless they are bitching about something
And what exactly are you doing if not bitching about liberals?
red states rule
02-02-2007, 08:39 PM
you republics are all alike
yes, we tell the truth and libs hate it
red states rule
02-02-2007, 08:40 PM
And what exactly are you doing if not bitching about liberals?
I am not bitching about them. I am exposing them for what they really are. I enjoy it and they hate it
Bubbalicious
02-02-2007, 08:42 PM
I am not bitching about them. I am exposing them for what they really are. I enjoy it and they hate it
you know liberals say pretty much the exact same thing when they bitch about republicans?
red states rule
02-02-2007, 08:46 PM
you know liberals say pretty much the exact same thing when they bitch about republicans?
We go by facts. Libs go by emotion and feelings
Bubbalicious
02-02-2007, 08:50 PM
We go by facts. Libs go by emotion and feelings
And that very statement is completely rational and logical and untinged by hysteria.
OH NO! NOT THE LIBERALS!!! http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y80/bunnydonia/smilies/953e85ac.gif
red states rule
02-02-2007, 08:54 PM
And that very statement is completely rational and logical and untinged by hysteria.
OH NO! NOT THE LIBERALS!!! http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y80/bunnydonia/smilies/953e85ac.gif
Liberalism is built on emotion and feelings. To a liberal you only have to say you "care" about something and you are a hero. You do not have to offer a solution to the issue however, only say you care
You can wear a ribbon and other libs gush. Wearing the ribbon does not do anything to solve the issue, but it makes the libs feel warm and fuzzy
Bubbalicious
02-02-2007, 09:23 PM
Do you even know any liberals in real life or are they like Gremlins or mischievous fairies you see in the dark sometimes?
you republics are all alike
Again with your glib falsehoods. Don't make me own you again.
You are a walking logical fallacy:
Guilt by Association
Analysis General Form
Target Link Bad Thing
The person or group being criticized An idea that the Target shares with the Bad Thing A person or group of which the argument's audience disapproves
I called you out before on your insults and you came back with some whiney post. Fact is, this post is an insult and is an generalization. Want me to reciprocate? Stop your kindergarten whining and add real diaglogue. I know, and you know, you hate people that don't agree with your view that do this. Yet you feel comfortable doing it here.
Sad
"Democrat Party" is jarring verging on ugly. It fairly screams "rat."
This from the first quote. Strange, would think adding an "s" would make things really fun.... Yet they complain about the lack of "s"
retiredman
02-02-2007, 10:43 PM
we are democrats. Our party is the democratic party.
YOu are republicans. YOur party is the republican party.
we do not like being referred to as the democrat party.
you, obviously, do not like being referred to as a republick.
what is good for the goose is good for the gander.
that was the intent of my post....I am sorry you missed it.
Bubbalicious
02-02-2007, 10:57 PM
Again with your glib falsehoods. Don't make me own you again.
You are a walking logical fallacy:
Guilt by Association
Analysis General Form
Target Link Bad Thing
Fact is, this post is an insult and is an generalization.
Oh Noze, not a generalization!!!
Libs by their nature love to bitch. (http://debatepolicy.com/showpost.php?p=9584&postcount=1)
Libs are never happy unless they are bitching about something (http://debatepolicy.com/showpost.php?p=9594&postcount=3)
We go by facts. Libs go by emotion and feelings (http://debatepolicy.com/showpost.php?p=9608&postcount=9)
Liberalism is built on emotion and feelings. To a liberal you only have to say you "care" about something and you are a hero. You do not have to offer a solution to the issue however, only say you care
You can wear a ribbon and other libs gush. Wearing the ribbon does not do anything to solve the issue, but it makes the libs feel warm and fuzzy (http://debatepolicy.com/showpost.php?p=9611&postcount=11)
stephanie
02-03-2007, 12:53 AM
we are democrats. Our party is the democratic party.
You are republicans. Your party is the republican party.
we do not like being referred to as the democrat party.
you, obviously, do not like being referred to as a republic.
what is good for the goose is good for the gander.
that was the intent of my post....I am sorry you missed it.
:lol:
Now I know where I've seen you before.....Du underground....
They have a raging hardon over this exact stupid thing....
When I was growing up....I could of swore they were....the Democrat party...
For some reason I can't bring myself to say......the Democratic Party..
Today I just call them them........the Socialist party..:laugh:
Can ya dig it!
red states rule
02-03-2007, 07:15 AM
:lol:
Now I know where I've seen you before.....Du underground....
They have a raging hardon over this exact stupid thing....
When I was growing up....I could of swore they were....the Democrat party...
For some reason I can't bring myself to say......the Democratic Party..
Today I just call them them........the Socialist party..:laugh:
Can ya dig it!
libs are the joke of the world. Terrorists everywhere were dancing a jig as the won the election
They are the Wimp party
TheSage
02-03-2007, 07:45 AM
we are democrats. Our party is the democratic party.
YOu are republicans. YOur party is the republican party.
we do not like being referred to as the democrat party.
you, obviously, do not like being referred to as a republick.
what is good for the goose is good for the gander.
that was the intent of my post....I am sorry you missed it.
Here's why you're a giant idiot. It makes sense in our language to refer to a person as a democrat. It makes no sense to call a person a republic. Hence democrat party can refer to a party of democrats, which it is. Get over it.
red states rule
02-03-2007, 08:33 AM
As I have posted before. Libs are fueled and ruled by emotions
Libs go through life looking for things to be offended by
TheSage
02-03-2007, 08:38 AM
As I have posted before. Libs are fueled and ruled by emotions
Libs go through life looking for things to be offended by
Hey. RSR. Are libs fueled by emotions? I'm really not quite sure about your position on this one.
red states rule
02-03-2007, 08:46 AM
Hey. RSR. Are libs fueled by emotions? I'm really not quite sure about your position on this one.
Lib by their nature and by their actions let their emotions rule. They are constantly saying how they feel,a nd how others must feel thwe same way
A few examples:
Libs love to wear and hand out ribbons to show they care about some illness
Libs see a homeless person and give them a shopping cart
Libs sleep on a heating grate for one night to find out what it is like to be homeless. Then they go home and tell eveyone how wamr and fuzzy they feel
The common thread here is the libs do nothing to solve the issues, but it makes them (and their liberal friends) feel warm and fuzzy
TheSage
02-03-2007, 09:10 AM
Lib by their nature and by their actions let their emotions rule. They are constantly saying how they feel,a nd how others must feel thwe same way
A few examples:
Libs love to wear and hand out ribbons to show they care about some illness
Libs see a homeless person and give them a shopping cart
Libs sleep on a heating grate for one night to find out what it is like to be homeless. Then they go home and tell eveyone how wamr and fuzzy they feel
The common thread here is the libs do nothing to solve the issues, but it makes them (and their liberal friends) feel warm and fuzzy
So are you saying libs are emotional?
red states rule
02-03-2007, 09:24 AM
So are you saying libs are emotional?
One of the foundations of liberals and liberalism is good intentions are important then actual results
Gunny
02-03-2007, 12:07 PM
Do you even know any liberals in real life or are they like Gremlins or mischievous fairies you see in the dark sometimes?
I got a whole family full of them, and used to be one myself. Then I came to my senses.;)
red states rule
02-03-2007, 12:11 PM
I got a whole family full of them, and used to be one myself. Then I came to my senses.;)
Same here. I once applied for memberhsip in the local Democrat Party. They rejected my application after I passed the mental test
Gunny
02-03-2007, 12:18 PM
Same here. I once applied for memberhsip in the local Democrat Party. They rejected my application after I passed the mental test
I have found it odd that the second you call a liberal a "liberal" or a "Democrat," most go on the defense and/or deny it.
When I was one, I was proud of it. When they shamed the name, I bailed.
red states rule
02-03-2007, 12:25 PM
I have found it odd that the second you call a liberal a "liberal" or a "Democrat," most go on the defense and/or deny it.
When I was one, I was proud of it. When they shamed the name, I bailed.
That is another difference between libs and conservatives
Someone calls me a conservative I smile and say thanks
I call a lib a liberal he/she acts like I punched out their mother
Libs are always running away from what they are and what they believe in
retiredman
02-03-2007, 12:29 PM
you republicks need to lighten up..the whol thing is a tempest in a teapot.
If you KNOW, for example that a man whose name is Charles does NOT like to be called Charlie or Chucky... it would seem to make sense to not call him that unless you just want to piss him off for the sake of pissing him off.
And if that is what you repubLICKs insist on doing, that is fine with me....
red states rule
02-03-2007, 12:31 PM
you republicks need to lighten up..the whol thing is a tempest in a teapot.
If you KNOW, for example that a man whose name is Charles does NOT like to be called Charlie or Chucky... it would seem to make sense to not call him that unless you just want to piss him off for the sake of pissing him off.
And if that is what you repubLICKs insist on doing, that is fine with me....
Speaking of thin skinned libs..........
Gunny
02-03-2007, 12:32 PM
you republicks need to lighten up..the whol thing is a tempest in a teapot.
If you KNOW, for example that a man whose name is Charles does NOT like to be called Charlie or Chucky... it would seem to make sense to not call him that unless you just want to piss him off for the sake of pissing him off.
And if that is what you repubLICKs insist on doing, that is fine with me....
Problem with your little argument is you had to make up your own little name. I just call you what you are. I have to admit, you are at least one of the few Deomcrats/liberals who at least admits it and is unapologetic. Might as well be proud of what you are, no matter how wrong it is.
And just for the record, I am not a Republican.
retiredman
02-03-2007, 12:35 PM
Problem with your little argument is you had to make up your own little name. I just call you what you are. I have to admit, you are at least one of the few Deomcrats/liberals who at least admits it and is unapologetic. Might as well be proud of what you are, no matter how wrong it is.
And just for the record, I am not a Republican.
I made up republic? really?
Gunny
02-03-2007, 01:08 PM
I made up republic? really?
Let's don't play this. You know good and well the GOP is not called "repubLICKS" by themselves, the MSM, nor anyone else.
However, Democrats are the official name of a political party.
red states rule
02-03-2007, 01:12 PM
Let's don't play this. You know good and well the GOP is not called "repubLICKS" by themselves, the MSM, nor anyone else.
However, Democrats are the official name of a political party.
or the Socialist Party
or the Mommy and Daddy Party
or the Union Thug Party
CockySOB
02-03-2007, 01:15 PM
Let's don't play this. You know good and well the GOP is not called "repubLICKS" by themselves, the MSM, nor anyone else.
However, Democrats are the official name of a political party.
Why worry about MFM's ad hominems against the Republican Party? Frankly it shows MFM's low intellect and juvenile temperment. Seriously, we've all heard much more creative mangling of the words "Republican" and "conservative" than this pip-squeak has proffered. So let his little one-liners die the pathetic death relegated to the stale jokes of incompetent comedians - thundering silence.
MFM, if you must mangle words like "Republican" or "conservative," please put some effort into it. Make me laugh, please! If your posts are going to lack substance, perhaps you could at least endeavor to make them humorous? TIA!
retiredman
02-03-2007, 01:16 PM
ah...the children's hour.
how refreshing
red states rule
02-03-2007, 01:19 PM
ah...the children's hour.
how refreshing
you attending a peace nik rally later
is Jilly driving?
retiredman
02-03-2007, 01:19 PM
I say again...and it really IS just this simple:
If you KNOW, for example that a man whose name is Charles does NOT like to be called Charlie or Chucky... it would seem to make sense to not call him Charlie or Chucky unless you just want to piss him off for the sake of pissing him off.
if discussing this basic premise seventeen ways from Sunday is what passes for political debate here....
like I said...."The Children's Hour"
red states rule
02-03-2007, 01:20 PM
I say again...and it really IS just this simple:
If you KNOW, for example that a man whose name is Charles does NOT like to be called Charlie or Chucky... it would seem to make sense to not call him Charlie or Chucky unless you just want to piss him off for the sake of pissing him off.
if discussing this basic premise seventeen ways from Sunday is what passes for political debate here....
like I said...."The Children's Hour"
Ok, from now on you are Chuck the Dem lib
retiredman
02-03-2007, 01:21 PM
you attending a peace nik rally later
is Jilly driving?
I try to spend a little time every Thursday night after church choir practice at the weekly candlelight peace vigil in the traffic circle outside the statehouse building.... and I can walk there.
retiredman
02-03-2007, 01:21 PM
Ok, from now on you are Chuck the Dem lib
as expected.
red states rule
02-03-2007, 01:25 PM
A perfect example of the differences bewteen Republicans and Dems is being seen in Florida
The Republican Gov is now doing his job, and NOT waiting and whining where the Feds are
Libs are always looking to the government to solve their problems. It never occurs to Dems that people can solve their own problems
retiredman
02-03-2007, 01:28 PM
A perfect example of the differences bewteen Republicans and Dems is being seen in Florida
The Republican Gov is now doing his job, and NOT waiting and whining where the Feds are
Libs are always looking to the government to solve their problems. It never occurs to Dems that people can solve their own problems
gross and inaccurate generalizations... Maine, for example has a democratic governor and a democratic legislature and we don't EVER wait for the feds to solve any of our problems
red states rule
02-03-2007, 01:31 PM
gross and inaccurate generalizations... Maine, for example has a democratic governor and a democratic legislature and we don't EVER wait for the feds to solve any of our problems
Lets see... School bus Nagin sat on his ass waiting for the Feds to get the people out, then sat on his ass waiting for the Feds to clean the city up
The city of NO and sate of La spect over $150 million to reopen the Super Dome, and yet libs whine about the Fed response
Meanwhile the Florida GOv is doing his job without whining where is FEMA
retiredman
02-03-2007, 01:34 PM
let's see:
"Libs are always looking to the government to solve their problems"
gross generalization? fuck yeah
any questions?
red states rule
02-03-2007, 01:42 PM
let's see:
"Libs are always looking to the government to solve their problems"
gross generalization? fuck yeah
any questions?
No a truthful statement
Dems power comes from the redistribution of wealth and getting people hooked on government checks
Like the drug dealer on the corner, Dems want to have people totally dependent on them for their subsistence. The last thing libs want is to have people stand on their own and free from government handouts
Libs look out acroos the country and all they see is misery. Libs never see any good things happening, unless it is a government make work program
retiredman
02-03-2007, 01:44 PM
no. a gross generalization. get over yourself.
red states rule
02-03-2007, 01:45 PM
no. a gross generalization. get over yourself.
Boy, you put forth your side. Lots of facts there
retiredman
02-03-2007, 02:16 PM
the fact that you can point to instances of anything is not proof that ALL LIBS ALWAYS think or act that way.... it is a gross generalization.
It would be like me pointing to Mark Foley and saying that ALL republican congressmen fuck pages....do you understand what a gross generalization is?
Oh..and by the way... FEMA trailers will be arriving in Florida TOMORROW.
I guess when a tornado kills twenty white republicans, FEMA is on it like white on rice the very next day...but when a hurricane totally devastes an entire region inhabited by black folks, the trailers sit in their lots in Arkansas until they rot.
red states rule
02-03-2007, 02:22 PM
the fact that you can point to instances of anything is not proof that ALL LIBS ALWAYS think or act that way.... it is a gross generalization.
It would be like me pointing to Mark Foley and saying that ALL republican congressmen fuck pages....do you understand what a gross generalization is?
Oh..and by the way... FEMA trailers will be arriving in Florida TOMORROW.
I guess when a tornado kills twenty white republicans, FEMA is on it like white on rice the very next day...but when a hurricane totally devastes an entire region inhabited by black folks, the trailers sit in their lots in Arkansas until they rot.
Ray "Chocolate Town" nagin was to busy waiting for the Feds to do his job. Execpt for rebuilding the Superdome.
The Republcian Gov of Fl knows what he is doing, unlike the clowns in La who are worried about how they look on TV and saying how NO will be a chocolate town
(Of cousre this is not a racist comment. He is a black lib so he cannot be a racist
retiredman
02-03-2007, 02:24 PM
Ray "Chocolate Town" nagin was to busy waiting for the Feds to do his job. Execpt for rebuilding the Superdome.
The Republcian Gov of Fl knows what he is doing, unlike the clowns in La who are worried about how they look on TV and saying how NO will be a chocolate town
(Of cousre this is not a racist comment. He is a black lib so he cannot be a racist
again... are you aware what the term "gross generalization" even means?
a simple yes or no will suffice
retiredman
02-03-2007, 02:26 PM
Ray "Chocolate Town" nagin was to busy waiting for the Feds to do his job. Execpt for rebuilding the Superdome.
The Republcian Gov of Fl knows what he is doing, unlike the clowns in La who are worried about how they look on TV and saying how NO will be a chocolate town
(Of cousre this is not a racist comment. He is a black lib so he cannot be a racist
and it still doesn't explain how FEMA trailers arrive in white as rice florida the day after a tiny tornado and yet they remain in giant holding facilities in Arkansas when black folks need them
red states rule
02-03-2007, 02:29 PM
and it still doesn't explain how FEMA trailers arrive in white as rice florida the day after a tiny tornado and yet they remain in giant holding facilities in Arkansas when black folks need them
How many homes for the black folks could have been built with the $160 million Nagin and Co spent on the Superdome?
The black folk may be homelss but they can watch their football team in their nice stadium
As usual, the libs are still waiting for the government to take care of their problems
A tiny tornado? Sorry asshole it cut a 40 mile path and there were some black folk killed in Fl as well
CockySOB
02-03-2007, 02:29 PM
If Republicans constitute the Republican Party; and,
Libertarians constitute the Libertarian Party; and,
Socialists constitute the Socialist Party; then,
do not Democrats constitute what should be rightly called the Democrat Party?
The identity of a group is defined through its constituents, no?
retiredman
02-03-2007, 02:44 PM
How many homes for the black folks could have been built with the $160 million Nagin and Co spent on the Superdome?
The black folk may be homelss but they can watch their football team in their nice stadium
As usual, the libs are still waiting for the government to take care of their problems
A tiny tornado? Sorry asshole it cut a 40 mile path and there were some black folk killed in Fl as well
that doesn't change the fact that the FEMA trailers are headed to Florida the day after and the field full of rotting trailers in Arkansas hasn't moved. YOu don't really seem to want to discuss that aspect of it. Why am I not surprised?
retiredman
02-03-2007, 02:46 PM
If Republicans constitute the Republican Party; and,
Libertarians constitute the Libertarian Party; and,
Socialists constitute the Socialist Party; then,
do not Democrats constitute what should be rightly called the Democrat Party?
The identity of a group is defined through its constituents, no?
don't you think that the members of a political party ought to be able to decide what they would like to be called? And once they have made that preference known, don't you think that those who purposely choose to call them something else are just being annoying pricks?
red states rule
02-03-2007, 02:56 PM
that doesn't change the fact that the FEMA trailers are headed to Florida the day after and the field full of rotting trailers in Arkansas hasn't moved. YOu don't really seem to want to discuss that aspect of it. Why am I not surprised?
It does not change the fact the Gov of Fl requested the said and Choclate town Nagin has yet to put the request in. Even with the vicitms of NO using my tax money for strippers, plasma TV's, and designer handbags (the real important things to libs) libs still want more money spent on their town
Libs will also find racism where noen exist and ignore it when it staters them in the face. Hello Joe Biden
Gaffer
02-03-2007, 02:56 PM
that doesn't change the fact that the FEMA trailers are headed to Florida the day after and the field full of rotting trailers in Arkansas hasn't moved. YOu don't really seem to want to discuss that aspect of it. Why am I not surprised?
The trailers are sitting there because people either refused to move into them or the area they were to be put in said they didn't want them there.
many of the "homeless" didn't want to give up their cushy hotel rooms to go live in a trailer.
retiredman
02-03-2007, 02:57 PM
It does not change the fact the Gov of Fl requested the said and Choclate town Nagin has yet to put the request in. Even with the vicitms of NO using my tax money for strippers, plasma TV's, and designer handbags (the real important things to libs) libs still want more money spent on their town
Libs will also find racism where noen exist and ignore it when it staters them in the face. Hello Joe Biden
Nagin has never requested FEMA asssistance? Really??? didn't you earlier make a big deal out of Nagin wanting FEMA to do it all, unlike the industrious Florida governor? Are you getting dizzy yet? ROFLMFAO
retiredman
02-03-2007, 02:59 PM
The trailers are sitting there because people either refused to move into them or the area they were to be put in said they didn't want them there.
many of the "homeless" didn't want to give up their cushy hotel rooms to go live in a trailer.
link, please, to a non-partisan news source to confirm that latest half-baked assertion?
I'll wait.
Bubbalicious
02-03-2007, 03:15 PM
I have found it odd that the second you call a liberal a "liberal" or a "Democrat," most go on the defense and/or deny it.
When I was one, I was proud of it. When they shamed the name, I bailed.
We didn't shame the name. Hysterical conservatives like Limbaugh and Colter and Red State Rules did. Rather than accept responsibility for anything or come up with any solutions, they blame liberals for everything that they perceive to be wrong with the world. It's easier than thinking.
red states rule
02-03-2007, 03:28 PM
We didn't shame the name. Hysterical conservatives like Limbaugh and Colter and Red State Rules did. Rather than accept responsibility for anything or come up with any solutions, they blame liberals for everything that they perceive to be wrong with the world. It's easier than thinking.
Libs are to blame for alot of the worlds problems. Mostly because libs will never stand up to evil, they would rather make nice to terrorists instead of killing them, and they would rather offer therapy to those who want to kill us instead of going afte them with everything we have
Bubbalicious
02-03-2007, 03:31 PM
Libs are to blame for alot of the worlds problems. Mostly because libs will never stand up to evil, they would rather make nice to terrorists instead of killing them, and they would rather offer therapy to those who want to kill us instead of going afte them with everything we have
Quit yer snivelling. You're not doing any more to fight terrorism than any patchouli-stinking hippy from Berkeley is.
retiredman
02-03-2007, 03:32 PM
Libs are to blame for alot of the worlds problems. Mostly because libs will never stand up to evil, they would rather make nice to terrorists instead of killing them, and they would rather offer therapy to those who want to kill us instead of going afte them with everything we have
it is amazing.... it is like you open your yapper and the only thing that ever comes out is insulting anti-liberal gross generalizations and hypoerbolic bullshit. Is that really all you are capable of?
There is not a grain of truth in any of what you typed above. It really is just insulting for the sake of insulting.
red states rule
02-03-2007, 03:33 PM
Quit yer snivelling. You're not doing any more to fight terrorism than any patchouli-stinking hippy from Berkeley is.
I am doing more then you know. Meanwhile libs, spit at a crippled Iraq war vet, offer support to the terroists, smear the US military, and do everything in thie rpower to undermine the war effort
Bubbalicious
02-03-2007, 03:39 PM
I am doing more then you know.
What? Sitting on message boards, blaming liberals for everything?
Meanwhile libs, spit at a crippled Iraq war vet, offer support to the terroists, smear the US military, and do everything in thie rpower to undermine the war effort
All bullshit. Just more hysterical, irrational, bitching, moaning, and crying about the existance of Liberals (http://www.sound-effect.com/sounds1/human/ascream1.wav).
red states rule
02-03-2007, 03:42 PM
What? Sitting on message boards, blaming liberals for everything?
All bullshit.
and you, flap your gums on how you are speaking out for the rights of the terrorists
The US military knows how libs feel about them and they feel the same back to the libs
That is why the military vote went 75 - 25 to pres Bush over Kerry on 04
retiredman
02-03-2007, 03:46 PM
and you, flap your gums on how you are speaking out for the rights of the terrorists
The US military knows how libs feel about them and they feel the same back to the libs
That is why the military vote went 75 - 25 to pres Bush over Kerry on 04
I have never spoken out for the rights of terrorists....
and I have plenty of good friends still on active duty who know that I am a liberal and know that I have nothing but affection and pride and gratitude for their service.
And that polling figure is pulled right out of your ass. and smells like it too!
Bubbalicious
02-03-2007, 03:47 PM
and you, flap your gums on how you are speaking out for the rights of the terrorists
I do? Where? Show me.
Gunny
02-03-2007, 04:06 PM
the fact that you can point to instances of anything is not proof that ALL LIBS ALWAYS think or act that way.... it is a gross generalization.
It would be like me pointing to Mark Foley and saying that ALL republican congressmen fuck pages....do you understand what a gross generalization is?
Oh..and by the way... FEMA trailers will be arriving in Florida TOMORROW.
I guess when a tornado kills twenty white republicans, FEMA is on it like white on rice the very next day...but when a hurricane totally devastes an entire region inhabited by black folks, the trailers sit in their lots in Arkansas until they rot.
Bull. When the governor of the state requests Federal intervention, they usually get it. Blanco and ONLY Blanco is to blame in regard to the lateness of the Fed government's intervention in LA. She put being an extremist left-winger ahead of the people of her state. Either that or she was too dumb to know the proper protocol for requesting Federal aid.
Had President Bush usurped her authority as Governor of Louisiana and intervened on his own, you libs would STILL be screaming about him violating the Constitution.
Gunny
02-03-2007, 04:09 PM
and it still doesn't explain how FEMA trailers arrive in white as rice florida the day after a tiny tornado and yet they remain in giant holding facilities in Arkansas when black folks need them
See what happens when you live in your cave in Maine and don't get out much? Rural FL is as populated by blacks as it is whites. Iguess there just wasn't as big a percentage of balcks killed compared to whited for the media to sensationalize it claim racism, as you seem to be trying to do.
CockySOB
02-03-2007, 04:16 PM
don't you think that the members of a political party ought to be able to decide what they would like to be called? And once they have made that preference known, don't you think that those who purposely choose to call them something else are just being annoying pricks?
To a degree, members of a group in general (or political party specifically) have the right to refer to themselves as they see fit. However, that does not invalidate other equivalent descriptions, hence my question. If the self-described "Democratic Party" is composed of individual Democrats, then using either "the Party of Democrats" or "the Democrat Party" are valid variations of the same group of people who call themselves "the Democratic Party." There is no connotation either negative or positive in these variations.
Personally, I think the brouhaha surrounding "Democrat Party" versus "Democratic Party" is rather insignificant.
On the other hand, I'd point out that other plays on names, such as "democraps" or "librulls" is a definite attempt to be obnoxious. I personally prefer using the term "librull" when describing the absolute stupidity found in the majority of left-wing American liberals. However, I would not refer to all American liberals (or Democrats) as "librulls" because there have been a good many of the moderate Democrats are rational, thinking individuals (Paul Simon is one I particularly appreciated.)
I assume that when you refer to our POTUS as "chimp" that you are wanting to be an obnoxious prick, no?
CockySOB
02-03-2007, 04:18 PM
Had President Bush usurped her authority as Governor of Louisiana and intervened on his own, you libs would STILL be screaming about him violating the Constitution.
Had POTUS GWB usurped her authority as Gov. of LA, I'D still be screaming and wanting his impeachment for violating the US Constitution!
Gunny
02-03-2007, 04:18 PM
We didn't shame the name. Hysterical conservatives like Limbaugh and Colter and Red State Rules did. Rather than accept responsibility for anything or come up with any solutions, they blame liberals for everything that they perceive to be wrong with the world. It's easier than thinking.
None of those people were in my vocabulary when Jimmy Carter drove most moderate libs away from the Democrats. Nor can you present one instance in which I quote either Limbaugh or Coulter.
It amazes me that you libs can't see that Coulter and Limbaugh act just like left-wingnuts. Y'all swear they're the anti-Christs when in reality they're just a good dose of your own medicine.
However, I rarely listen to either, and take everything they say with a grain of salt.
Gunny
02-03-2007, 04:20 PM
Quit yer snivelling. You're not doing any more to fight terrorism than any patchouli-stinking hippy from Berkeley is.
Are you kidding? Hippies from Berkeley would stand and watch a foreign army occupy this nation and do nothing about it but whine and bitch. The only violence they seem capable of is against US civil authority.
Not a good example on your part at all.
red states rule
02-03-2007, 04:22 PM
Are you kidding? Hippies from Berkeley would stand and watch a foreign army occupy this nation and do nothing about it but whine and bitch. The only violence they seem capable of is against US civil authority.
Not a good example on your part at all.
For three years, the young Democrat took his vacations at a country inn. He had an affair with the innkeeper's daughter. Looking forward to an exciting few days, he dragged his suitcase up the stairs of the inn, then stopped short. There sat his lover with an infant on her lap! "Why didn't you write when you learned you were pregnant?" he cried. "I would have rushed up here, we could have gotten married, and the child would have my name!" "Well," she said, "when my folks found out about my condition, we sat up all night talkin' and talkin' and we finally decided it would be better to have a bastard in the family than an Democrat."
retiredman
02-03-2007, 04:25 PM
To a degree, members of a group in general (or political party specifically) have the right to refer to themselves as they see fit. However, that does not invalidate other equivalent descriptions, hence my question. If the self-described "Democratic Party" is composed of individual Democrats, then using either "the Party of Democrats" or "the Democrat Party" are valid variations of the same group of people who call themselves "the Democratic Party." There is no connotation either negative or positive in these variations.
Personally, I think the brouhaha surrounding "Democrat Party" versus "Democratic Party" is rather insignificant.
On the other hand, I'd point out that other plays on names, such as "democraps" or "librulls" is a definite attempt to be obnoxious. I personally prefer using the term "librull" when describing the absolute stupidity found in the majority of left-wing American liberals. However, I would not refer to all American liberals (or Democrats) as "librulls" because there have been a good many of the moderate Democrats are rational, thinking individuals (Paul Simon is one I particularly appreciated.)
I assume that when you refer to our POTUS as "chimp" that you are wanting to be an obnoxious prick, no?
It is certainly not the same as if I called YOU a chimp, is it? The point is...if a guy named Charles doesn't want to be called Chuck, if you persist in calling HIM Chuck, you are just being an asshole. Re: chimp comments, let Bush fight his own battles. I have not called YOU a chimp nor will I.
Bubbalicious
02-03-2007, 04:25 PM
Are you kidding? Hippies from Berkeley would stand and watch a foreign army occupy this nation and do nothing about it but whine and bitch.
Which is exactly what RSR would do. Plus blame the liberals. :uhoh:
Gunny
02-03-2007, 04:26 PM
Had POTUS GWB usurped her authority as Gov. of LA, I'D still be screaming and wanting his impeachment for violating the US Constitution!
Really? I think in the case of people who are so freakin' stupid they don't know to get out from in front of a Cat 5 hurricaine, that perhaps somebody NEEDED to intervene.
Had Blanco been a Republican governor, and/or Nagin a white mayor named Smith (or Bush) they'd have been absolutely crucified by the Democrats and MSM.
But either way, we are in agreement that federal intervention with the state's request is a violation of the US Constitution.
Gunny
02-03-2007, 04:28 PM
Which is exactly what RSR would do. Plus blame the liberals. :uhoh:
I don't speak for RSR. I just think you could've probably come up with someone a little better than the absolute worst you have to offer.;)
Bubbalicious
02-03-2007, 04:29 PM
I don't speak for RSR. I just think you could've probably come up with someone a little better than the absolute worst you have to offer.;)
apples to apples
Pale Rider
02-03-2007, 04:33 PM
Libs by their nature love to bitch. However, they are showing how they will bitch about nothing
Liberals Smell A Rat: 'Democrat Party' Is A GOP Slur, A Smear, 'Jarring Verging On Ugly'
Posted by Tim Graham on February 2, 2007 - 13:04.
The amazing liberal vapors over President Bush’s use of the word "Democrat" to describe, er, Democrats, continues. In an NPR interview with Juan Williams, President Bush claimed it was a simple mistake in his State of the Union speech, but liberals quickly found more of these grievous offenses in searching speech texts at the White House website. Certain left-wing media critics who lay face down in worship at the feet of Hillary Clinton are now insisting that the word "Democrat" is a "smear" and an "oft-used Republican slur." The Washington Post and The New York Times each produced stories on Bush's denial of this microscopic scandal. (Clay Waters handled it at Times Watch here.)
But my favorite fuss comes from former Newsweek reporter and Carter speechwriter Hendrik Hertzberg at The New Yorker, who says the plain D-word is "jarring verging on ugly. It fairly screams ‘rat.’" He then imagined Republicans want to destroy the Democrats like Israel’s enemies want to wipe out Israel, and compared them to a street gang:
An alternative view is that it’s called the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party itself takes this view, and many nonpartisan authorities agree. The American Heritage College Dictionary, for example, defines the noun "Democratic Party" as "One of the two major US political parties, owing its origin to a split in the Democratic-Republican Party under Andrew Jackson in 1828." (It defines "Democrat n" as "A Democratic Party member" and "Democratic adj" as "Of, relating to, or characteristic of the Democratic Party," but gives no definition for—indeed, makes no mention of—"Democrat Party n" or "Democrat adj".) Other dictionaries, and reference works generally, appear to be unanimous on these points. The broader literate public also comes down on the "Democratic" side, as indicated by frequency of usage. A Google search for "Democratic Party" yields around forty million hits. "Democrat Party" fetches fewer than two million.
There’s no great mystery about the motives behind this deliberate misnaming. "Democrat Party" is a slur, or intended to be—a handy way to express contempt. Aesthetic judgments are subjective, of course, but "Democrat Party" is jarring verging on ugly. It fairly screams "rat." At a slightly higher level of sophistication, it’s an attempt to deny the enemy the positive connotations of its chosen appellation. During the Cold War, many people bridled at obvious misnomers like "German Democratic Republic," and perhaps there are some members of the Republican Party (which, come to think of it, has been drifting toward monarchism of late) who genuinely regard the Democratic Party as undemocratic. Perhaps there are some who hope to induce it to go out of existence by refusing to call it by its name, a la terming Israel "the Zionist entity." And no doubt there are plenty of others who say "Democrat Party" just to needle the other side while signalling solidarity with their own—the partisan equivalent of flashing a gang sign.
The WashPost account from Michael Abramowitz added this nugget, that Democrat-leaning White House reporters were hyperventilating in the briefing room:
White House press secretary Tony Snow seemed peeved with reporters asking about the Bush mispronunciation at his morning press "gaggle" yesterday, accusing the reporters of making "three mountains out of a molehill" and suggesting that the press was not much interested when Democrats bashed Bush with language calling him a "loser" or a "liar."
http://newsbusters.org/node/10571
Whatta' ya expect. It only took ONE LITTLE MENTION from a liberal, and "illegal alien" was all of a sudden a "slur", when in all actuallity and description, that's what they are. A alien of this nation who entered it illegaly. An illegal alien. It has gone so far out in space, that now illegal aliens have even been refered to as "undocumented workers", which is about as much a PC line of bullshit there is. "Don't offend anyone", EVEN YOU CALL THEM WHAT THEY ARE".... FUCK THAT!
The PC crowd is powerful over timid, easily influenced minds. The uneducated, lock step liberals will follow whatever it is they say without question.
On top of that, liberals do their VERY BEST at HIDING who they REALLY ARE... COMMUNISTS. They work OVERTIME at covering that fact up.
Bubbalicious
02-03-2007, 04:35 PM
..liberals do their VERY BEST at HIDING who they REALLY ARE... COMMUNISTS.
:lmao:
retiredman
02-03-2007, 04:38 PM
No sir, Mr. Palerider. I am most definitely NOT a communist. I spent the better part of my adult life standing guard against them. Calling patriotic americans communists is really sort of insulting, imho.
Pale Rider
02-03-2007, 04:41 PM
No sir, Mr. Palerider. I am most definitely NOT a communist. I spent the better part of my adult life standing guard against them. Calling patriotic americans communists is really sort of insulting, imho.
Read my signature line quote of hitlery clinton, and then get back to me.
CockySOB
02-03-2007, 04:58 PM
It is certainly not the same as if I called YOU a chimp, is it? The point is...if a guy named Charles doesn't want to be called Chuck, if you persist in calling HIM Chuck, you are just being an asshole. Re: chimp comments, let Bush fight his own battles. I have not called YOU a chimp nor will I.
Yet you seem to insist on making hay about two correct ways of addressing a political party composed of Democrats, declaring that only one method is acceptable, despite the fact that both are correct in the English language.
I can certainly understand your point with regards to individual preference of the use of a given name (like Charles/Chuck/Chaz/etc.) The main offense usually associated with such a play on one's name is the assumed familiarity where inappropriate. This is not the case when discussing Democratic Party and Democrat Party, both of which are valid descriptions of the same gruop of people under the English language.
retiredman
02-03-2007, 05:01 PM
the main offense is that democrats prefer to refer to their party as the democratic party and intentionally avoiding that preferred usage is an intentional slight...but it really isn't that big a deal to me.... you can call us anything, as long as you acknowledge that we are in the majority! ;)
CockySOB
02-03-2007, 05:10 PM
the main offense is that democrats prefer to refer to their party as the democratic party and intentionally avoiding that preferred usage is an intentional slight...but it really isn't that big a deal to me.... you can call us anything, as long as you acknowledge that we are in the majority! ;)
I can appreciate that it isn't that big of a deal to you. But majority? LOL! Keep dreaming! The 2006 election simply reinforced the rule that says the Congress will shift away from the party of POTUS during the second term. The real test of whether the Democrat Party can hold a majority will be in 2008.
retiredman
02-03-2007, 05:12 PM
I can appreciate that it isn't that big of a deal to you. But majority? LOL! Keep dreaming! The 2006 election simply reinforced the rule that says the Congress will shift away from the party of POTUS during the second term. The real test of whether the Democrat Party can hold a majority will be in 2008.
and my belief is, that Iraq will cause a skunk stench to permeate the top of your party's ticket and will pretty much guarantee that will happen.
and the 2006 election simply made my statement about the majority an accurate one.
Pale Rider
02-03-2007, 06:15 PM
and my belief is, that Iraq will cause a skunk stench to permeate the top of your party's ticket and will pretty much guarantee that will happen.
and the 2006 election simply made my statement about the majority an accurate one.
For some reason I'm not convinced the war against terror will be the main deciding factor. I think issues like the border, the economy and abortion will once again take front stage.
Dilloduck
02-03-2007, 06:26 PM
For some reason I'm not convinced the war against terror will be the main deciding factor. I think issues like the border, the economy and abortion will once again take front stage.
Or people might finally be tired of the Clinton-Bush dynasty. Lord knows I am. Y'all realize how long we've put up wih these families ?
Gunny
02-03-2007, 06:50 PM
and my belief is, that Iraq will cause a skunk stench to permeate the top of your party's ticket and will pretty much guarantee that will happen.
and the 2006 election simply made my statement about the majority an accurate one.
The 2006 election made the statement that Republicans/conservatives are willing to cut off their noses to spite their faces. Republicans/conservatives abstaining from voting to protest the actions of their elected representatives does not a majority of the Democrats make. Y'all slipped in the back door, as usual.
Face it, the only thing you can hope for is such a split in the Republican party. When conservatives are united, y'all are on the outside looking in EVERY time.
retiredman
02-03-2007, 08:19 PM
The 2006 election made the statement that Republicans/conservatives are willing to cut off their noses to spite their faces. Republicans/conservatives abstaining from voting to protest the actions of their elected representatives does not a majority of the Democrats make. Y'all slipped in the back door, as usual.
Face it, the only thing you can hope for is such a split in the Republican party. When conservatives are united, y'all are on the outside looking in EVERY time.
you keep telling yourself that....conservatives are not numerous enough to unite around anyone. Will you "unite" around Rudy? Pro-choice, adulterous Rudy? will you "unite" around McCain? maverick un-conservative McCain? Will you "unite" around Romney? mormon, northeastern moderate Romney? Will you "unite" around Newt? conservative, to be sure...but he's got that intern-fucker thing working against him... the republican party IS split... neocons, northeastern moderates, religious wackos.... yeah...I can "hope" for a split in the republican party, like I can hope that the rooster will make some noise when the sun comes up.
"thanks for playing...Jim...tell him about his parting gifts"
your party is FUCKED in 2008, and I am dancing in the street knowing that it will happen!
you keep telling yourself that....conservatives are not numerous enough to unite around anyone. Will you "unite" around Rudy? Pro-choice, adulterous Rudy? will you "unite" around McCain? maverick un-conservative McCain? Will you "unite" around Romney? mormon, northeastern moderate Romney? Will you "unite" around Newt? conservative, to be sure...but he's got that intern-fucker thing working against him... the republican party IS split... neocons, northeastern moderates, religious wackos.... yeah...I can "hope" for a split in the republican party, like I can hope that the rooster will make some noise when the sun comes up.
"thanks for playing...Jim...tell him about his parting gifts"
your party is FUCKED in 2008, and I am dancing in the street knowing that it will happen!
Just like you said Kerry would win, right? ;)
retiredman
02-03-2007, 08:28 PM
Just like you said Kerry would win, right? ;)
I hoped Kerry would win...not because I thought he was our best candidate (Clark surely was),b ut because I thought he was a damned sight better than the moron we have now.... and my hopes were not realized. I'll bet anyone from the right a lot of money today, candidates unseen, that the democrat, whoever the hell he or she is, will win in '08 because of the stench of Iraq that will permeate the republican ticket.
I hoped Kerry would win...not because I thought he was our best candidate (Clark surely was),b ut because I thought he was a damned sight better than the moron we have now.... and my hopes were not realized. I'll bet anyone from the right a lot of money today, candidates unseen, that the democrat, whoever the hell he or she is, will win in '08 because of the stench of Iraq that will permeate the republican ticket.
Are you telling me you told no one, not a single soul, nor voiced in your own head, that yes, Kerry will win.
No blithe comments, no sidesteps, just say it outright whether you ever said it.
retiredman
02-03-2007, 08:49 PM
Are you telling me you told no one, not a single soul, nor voiced in your own head, that yes, Kerry will win.
No blithe comments, no sidesteps, just say it outright whether you ever said it.
I hoped Kerry would win...but after the debacle of 2000, I had no sense of certainty that he would win. I thought he had made some really boneheaded moves.... misstatements about the funding for the war... sitting back and allowing the SBVT bullshit to gain credence....but I never gave up HOPE that he would win.
I hoped Kerry would win...but after the debacle of 2000, I had no sense of certainty that he would win. I thought he had made some really boneheaded moves.... misstatements about the funding for the war... sitting back and allowing the SBVT bullshit to gain credence....but I never gave up HOPE that he would win.
Reading comprehension is a sign of one's intelligence. Let me educate you:
Are you telling me you told no one, not a single soul, nor voiced in your own head, that yes, Kerry will win.
No blithe comments, no sidesteps, just say it outright whether you ever said it.
I hope this helps. :)
retiredman
02-03-2007, 09:03 PM
Reading comprehension is a sign of one's intelligence. Let me educate you:
I hope this helps. :)
I said that I hoped Kerry would win.
I hope this answers your inane question.
Next: how many angels really WILL be able to dance on the head of a pin????
I said that I hoped Kerry would win.
I hope this answers your inane question.
Next: how many angels really WILL be able to dance on the head of a pin????
I can't believe you. You are either an ignorant fool or a slick talker. I put fools like you down almost everyday at work.
Let us look logically at your stupidity:
I asked you "twice" to answer whether or not you said "Kerry will win." The second time, I asked you to not mince words and dance around the issue. You replied with the same answer:
"I said I 'hoped'."
This does not mean you never said: Kerry will win
So, no, it does not answer my "inane" question.
Do you understand the difference?
YES
or
NO
Simple really.
:wink2:
retiredman
02-03-2007, 09:18 PM
look...I know that the determination as to whether a candidate will win is made up of the sum total of all of the individual decisions about that candidacy and that opponent and that world, national, and local situation., I have been around a long time - obviously a lot longer than YOU - and I know well enough to NEVER state that a candidate WILL win, only that I hope mine does. What are you failing to comprehend here?
look...I know that the determination as to whether a candidate will win is made up of the sum total of all of the individual decisions about that candidacy and that opponent and that world, national, and local situation., I have been around a long time - obviously a lot longer than YOU - and I know well enough to NEVER state that a candidate WILL win, only that I hope mine does. What are you failing to comprehend here?
My only failing is in your absolute willful unwillingness to answer a simple question:
Yes or No
Did you say it, think it?
You know exactly what you are doing OLD man. Since you been around alot longer than me, you know exactly what you are doing.
Objection:
failure to answer the question
Don't forget that an omission (in this case) is an admittance. Thus you have apparently answered me. Thank you.
Guilty.
retiredman
02-03-2007, 09:39 PM
My only failing is in your absolute willful unwillingness to answer a simple question:
Yes or No
Did you say it, think it?
You know exactly what you are doing OLD man. Since you been around alot longer than me, you know exactly what you are doing.
Objection:
failure to answer the question
Don't forget that an omission (in this case) is an admittance. Thus you have apparently answered me. Thank you.
Guilty.
I thought Kerry might win. I hoped he would... but, as I said, after having won the popular vote ijn 2000 only to have lost the election by a vote of 5 to 4, I really was not about to make predictions.
So tell me again... what is the big deal? What is the huge difference you feel you need to make between wanting and hoping Kerry would win and confidently predicting he would win? I fail to see the importance of this line of reasoning
CockySOB
02-03-2007, 10:42 PM
I hoped Kerry would win...not because I thought he was our best candidate (Clark surely was),b ut because I thought he was a damned sight better than the moron we have now.... and my hopes were not realized. I'll bet anyone from the right a lot of money today, candidates unseen, that the democrat, whoever the hell he or she is, will win in '08 because of the stench of Iraq that will permeate the republican ticket.
look...I know that the determination as to whether a candidate will win is made up of the sum total of all of the individual decisions about that candidacy and that opponent and that world, national, and local situation., I have been around a long time - obviously a lot longer than YOU - and I know well enough to NEVER state that a candidate WILL win, only that I hope mine does. What are you failing to comprehend here?
Dude, you just contradicted yourself in less than a single page.
retiredman
02-03-2007, 10:51 PM
2008 is an extraordinary event. Bush has so soured the electorate on his party that you all could run Mother Theresa and we could run William Gacy and we would still be odds on favorites......
dude.
retiredman
02-03-2007, 10:53 PM
and my first quote was a wager.....if you don't think I know what the fuck I am talking about..name a dollar amount and we'll MAKE that wager...unless, or course, you are all hat and no cattle.... which is it?
CockySOB
02-03-2007, 11:05 PM
and my first quote was a wager.....if you don't think I know what the fuck I am talking about..name a dollar amount and we'll MAKE that wager...unless, or course, you are all hat and no cattle.... which is it?
Whether you know what you're talking about or not isn't the issue here. You state your belief that "the democrat, whoever the hell he or she is, will win in '08." The emphasis here is on the "will win" part. Now you want to back-pedal and call it a wager? Get serious. It was a rhetorical statement covering your belief and nothing more. (You are the fan of rhetorics, no?)
And then you go and claim that "I know well enough to NEVER state that a candidate WILL win." A statement which directly contradicts your previous statement.
I can understand your bluster though - it is probably embarrassing to get caught in such an obvious contradiction. Don't sweat it, I'm sure that many of the Democrat Party can share your embarrassment. And probably a good number from the Republican Party too, come to think of it. Doesn't it make you feel good the know that your words are as consistent as a politician's?
retiredman
02-03-2007, 11:13 PM
Whether you know what you're talking about or not isn't the issue here. You state your belief that "the democrat, whoever the hell he or she is, will win in '08." The emphasis here is on the "will win" part. Now you want to back-pedal and call it a wager? Get serious. It was a rhetorical statement covering your belief and nothing more. (You are the fan of rhetorics, no?)
And then you go and claim that "I know well enough to NEVER state that a candidate WILL win." A statement which directly contradicts your previous statement.
I can understand your bluster though - it is probably embarrassing to get caught in such an obvious contradiction. Don't sweat it, I'm sure that many of the Democrat Party can share your embarrassment. And probably a good number from the Republican Party too, come to think of it. Doesn't it make you feel good the know that your words are as consistent as a politician's?
fuck you asshole...here is what I said:
]I'll bet anyone from the right a lot of money today, candidates unseen, that the democrat, whoever the hell he or she is, will win in '08 because of the stench of Iraq that will permeate the republican ticket.
now...if you want to say that I am backpedalling by calling THAT a wager, then it is clear that you are an illiterate moron.
CockySOB
02-03-2007, 11:26 PM
fuck you asshole...here is what I said:
]I'll bet anyone from the right a lot of money today, candidates unseen, that the democrat, whoever the hell he or she is, will win in '08 because of the stench of Iraq that will permeate the republican ticket.
now...if you want to say that I am backpedalling by calling THAT a wager, then it is clear that you are an illiterate moron.
Testy aren't you? The fact remains that your stated belief is that "the democrat, whoever the hell he or she is, will win in '08." And then you followed up by claiming that you never (NEVER) state that a candidate will win.
Perhaps you'd care to take a breather, Mr. MFM. I wouldn't want you to overwork your last functional brain cell. Your two statements are contradictory no matter how you want to slice them. Besides, an aspect of wisdom is in knowing when to remain silent. Are you wise? (And that my friend, IS a rhetorical question.) :thumb:
red states rule
02-04-2007, 08:30 AM
Testy aren't you? The fact remains that your stated belief is that "the democrat, whoever the hell he or she is, will win in '08." And then you followed up by claiming that you never (NEVER) state that a candidate will win.
Perhaps you'd care to take a breather, Mr. MFM. I wouldn't want you to overwork your last functional brain cell. Your two statements are contradictory no matter how you want to slice them. Besides, an aspect of wisdom is in knowing when to remain silent. Are you wise? (And that my friend, IS a rhetorical question.) :thumb:
He gets testy whenever he is confronted with facts and has nothing to respond with
He loved Kerry since they both have a low opinion of the US military and feel the masses are to stupid to understand what is really going on
Grumplestillskin
02-04-2007, 01:13 PM
Testy aren't you? The fact remains that your stated belief is that "the democrat, whoever the hell he or she is, will win in '08." And then you followed up by claiming that you never (NEVER) state that a candidate will win.
Perhaps you'd care to take a breather, Mr. MFM. I wouldn't want you to overwork your last functional brain cell. Your two statements are contradictory no matter how you want to slice them. Besides, an aspect of wisdom is in knowing when to remain silent. Are you wise? (And that my friend, IS a rhetorical question.) :thumb:
It's quite obvious what he said. His statements are not contradictory at all taken in context. Your petty play making and desire for the win supercedes any imaginery victory you might have. Maybe you need to brush up on your comprehension and not be so cocky. ;)
If staying silent were wisdom you'd have hardly made a post...
Gunny
02-04-2007, 01:57 PM
you keep telling yourself that....conservatives are not numerous enough to unite around anyone. Will you "unite" around Rudy? Pro-choice, adulterous Rudy? will you "unite" around McCain? maverick un-conservative McCain? Will you "unite" around Romney? mormon, northeastern moderate Romney? Will you "unite" around Newt? conservative, to be sure...but he's got that intern-fucker thing working against him... the republican party IS split... neocons, northeastern moderates, religious wackos.... yeah...I can "hope" for a split in the republican party, like I can hope that the rooster will make some noise when the sun comes up.
"thanks for playing...Jim...tell him about his parting gifts"
your party is FUCKED in 2008, and I am dancing in the street knowing that it will happen!
You're making a backward argument. Whether or not conservatives are numerous enough to unite around anyone and who they will or will not unite around are two, separate subjects.
Conservatives have proven over the past decade that when they DO unite, y'all get to sit outside and look in. THAT is my point.
That and the fact that the only time Democrats have won the Presidency since LBJ was when the Republicans were split, or didn't bother to run anyone worth voting for. A total of 12 years out of 28.
Whether or not the Republicans come up with someone that will unite Republican and conservative voters remains to be seen. I will admit, the current lineup doesn't foster much hope.
But just to piss on your dance, didn't Slick Willy have his way when he first entered office? And where'd it get him? Gridlock. So you can dance on that the same way you keep fooling yourself concerning "taking control of Congress." Majority of seats does not equal control.
Grumplestillskin
02-04-2007, 02:16 PM
That and the fact that the only time Democrats have won the Presidency since LBJ was when the Republicans were split, or didn't bother to run anyone worth voting for. A total of 12 years out of 28..
And you think Dukakis and Mondale were worth voting for? :laugh:
red states rule
02-04-2007, 03:37 PM
And you think Dukakis and Mondale were worth voting for? :laugh:
I was glad the Dems went with them. They were great examples of what Dems really want and think
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.