Back to your point, the Republicans did a wonderful job in the 1994-2000 cycle in changing a myriad of things.
Perhaps they should make it a rule that everyone gets 6 years, and you're out. Period. Would see to it that the "good old boy" network of the Kennedys, the Spectors and such cannot keep power forever.
Thread
Posts in chronological order
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Haystacks Calhounski wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Back to your point, the Republicans did a wonderful job in the 1994-2000 cycle in changing a myriad of things.[/QUOTE]
That was during the Clinton administration.
If you ask a Democrat what made things so much better back in the 90s they would thank Clinton, and if you ask a Republican the same question then they would thank a Republican controlled congress.
Even when things are working the right way, there's still a biased opinion on who should get praised for doing what. Same as the blame game when things are going wrong.
That was during the Clinton administration.
If you ask a Democrat what made things so much better back in the 90s they would thank Clinton, and if you ask a Republican the same question then they would thank a Republican controlled congress.
Even when things are working the right way, there's still a biased opinion on who should get praised for doing what. Same as the blame game when things are going wrong.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]magicalfreddiemercury wrote: [/QUOTENAME]What will change is the right-wing religious agenda pervading nearly every thing this administration has tackled.
[/QUOTE]
One thing I will contest is the public's commonly held belief that being Republican is all about religion. [/QUOTE]
My comment was about this administration and how it's managed to pass it's right-wing religious agenda. With fellow republicans in control, the president has had more leeway - as we've seen repeatedly during his frighteningly long 6 years in office - didn't he say god told him it was right to go into Iraq?
Perhaps the entire party isn't all about religion but the way the line between church and state has been blurred under the watch of this republican majority and its born-again president certainly makes one question the party's agenda.
[/QUOTE]
One thing I will contest is the public's commonly held belief that being Republican is all about religion. [/QUOTE]
My comment was about this administration and how it's managed to pass it's right-wing religious agenda. With fellow republicans in control, the president has had more leeway - as we've seen repeatedly during his frighteningly long 6 years in office - didn't he say god told him it was right to go into Iraq?
Perhaps the entire party isn't all about religion but the way the line between church and state has been blurred under the watch of this republican majority and its born-again president certainly makes one question the party's agenda.
This whole thread is fuckin' retarded starting from the article itself and following Haystack's arguments.
First he calls people who chose to vote Democrat "stupid", then claims that he's not politically biased because "Republicans and Democrats suck, but Republicans suck a little less".
OK, let's suppose I was forced to listen to Paris Hilton's album or Kevin Federline's. Though I truly wish not to pick either one, I end up choosing Paris Hilton's because I have the feeling it might be the least worse. Do I deserve to be called "stupid" for making a pick between two horrendous choices?
I mean, how are we supossed to take this guy seriously condemning stupidity and answering back with an absolutely stupid argument?
Now that's just fuckin' stupid.
First he calls people who chose to vote Democrat "stupid", then claims that he's not politically biased because "Republicans and Democrats suck, but Republicans suck a little less".
OK, let's suppose I was forced to listen to Paris Hilton's album or Kevin Federline's. Though I truly wish not to pick either one, I end up choosing Paris Hilton's because I have the feeling it might be the least worse. Do I deserve to be called "stupid" for making a pick between two horrendous choices?
I mean, how are we supossed to take this guy seriously condemning stupidity and answering back with an absolutely stupid argument?
Now that's just fuckin' stupid.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Mr.Jingles wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
OK, let's suppose I was forced to listen to Paris Hilton's album or Kevin Federline's. [/QUOTE]
How dare you imply that either one sucks!!
OK, let's suppose I was forced to listen to Paris Hilton's album or Kevin Federline's. [/QUOTE]
How dare you imply that either one sucks!!
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Haystacks Calhounski wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTENAME]Haystacks Calhounski[/QUOTENAME]
You are one insanely [QUOTENAME]STUPID[/QUOTENAME] fuck.
I wanted you to know that.[/QUOTE]
I'm stupid because the idiot that Nancy Pelosi hand-picked to run the Intelligence Committee is completely clueless??
Wow. That's some twisted logic. [/QUOTE]
No.
You are stupid because you believe that a) the republicans actually do things right every now and again b) the democrats are incapable of doing anything other than fucking up.
For your information, two years ago, Bush was interviewed by a Dutch journalist, and asked to point out Iraq, Afghanistan and the Netherlands on a map (with the names of the countries removed). He placed them in West Africa, Central Africa and South-East Asia respectively.
I think that puts your Shia-Sunni matter in perspective.
Oh by the way, the difference between those two groups is so small, that the answer your democrat gave is pretty much correct. Ask a theologian if you won't take my word for it. He'll tell you the same thing.
You are one insanely [QUOTENAME]STUPID[/QUOTENAME] fuck.
I wanted you to know that.[/QUOTE]
I'm stupid because the idiot that Nancy Pelosi hand-picked to run the Intelligence Committee is completely clueless??
Wow. That's some twisted logic. [/QUOTE]
No.
You are stupid because you believe that a) the republicans actually do things right every now and again b) the democrats are incapable of doing anything other than fucking up.
For your information, two years ago, Bush was interviewed by a Dutch journalist, and asked to point out Iraq, Afghanistan and the Netherlands on a map (with the names of the countries removed). He placed them in West Africa, Central Africa and South-East Asia respectively.
I think that puts your Shia-Sunni matter in perspective.
Oh by the way, the difference between those two groups is so small, that the answer your democrat gave is pretty much correct. Ask a theologian if you won't take my word for it. He'll tell you the same thing.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]magicalfreddiemercury wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]magicalfreddiemercury wrote: [/QUOTENAME]What will change is the right-wing religious agenda pervading nearly every thing this administration has tackled.
[/QUOTE]
One thing I will contest is the public's commonly held belief that being Republican is all about religion. [/QUOTE]
My comment was about this administration and how it's managed to pass it's right-wing religious agenda. With fellow republicans in control, the president has had more leeway - as we've seen repeatedly during his frighteningly long 6 years in office - didn't he say god told him it was right to go into Iraq?
Perhaps the entire party isn't all about religion but the way the line between church and state has been blurred under the watch of this republican majority and its born-again president certainly makes one question the party's agenda.
[/QUOTE]
I don't believe he ever said that God told him to do something, but his insistence that "God is on our side" does not make it a religious issue. It is merely a ploy to gain the support of conservative Christians. You have to maintain the support of your followers, no matter who they are. I figure, tell them whatever you want, as long as the goals are not compromised.
It's funny how many people use that as an argument as to why we shouldn't be at war. "Bush said 'God'" "OMG HE MUST B RONG!"
[/QUOTE]
One thing I will contest is the public's commonly held belief that being Republican is all about religion. [/QUOTE]
My comment was about this administration and how it's managed to pass it's right-wing religious agenda. With fellow republicans in control, the president has had more leeway - as we've seen repeatedly during his frighteningly long 6 years in office - didn't he say god told him it was right to go into Iraq?
Perhaps the entire party isn't all about religion but the way the line between church and state has been blurred under the watch of this republican majority and its born-again president certainly makes one question the party's agenda.
[/QUOTE]
I don't believe he ever said that God told him to do something, but his insistence that "God is on our side" does not make it a religious issue. It is merely a ploy to gain the support of conservative Christians. You have to maintain the support of your followers, no matter who they are. I figure, tell them whatever you want, as long as the goals are not compromised.
It's funny how many people use that as an argument as to why we shouldn't be at war. "Bush said 'God'" "OMG HE MUST B RONG!"
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: [/QUOTENAME] I don't believe he ever said that God told him to do something, but his insistence that "God is on our side" does not make it a religious issue. It is merely a ploy to gain the support of conservative Christians. You have to maintain the support of your followers, no matter who they are. I figure, tell them whatever you want, as long as the goals are not compromised.
It's funny how many people use that as an argument as to why we shouldn't be at war. "Bush said 'God'" "OMG HE MUST B RONG!"[/QUOTE]
http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2005/10_october/06/bush.shtml
For the record, I didn't use that as an argument against the war - there are so many other arguments against it anyway. However, if his drive to wipe out Islamic extremism was based on what he perceives as 'the word of god', well, then, there is a definite problem there, wouldn't you say?
I hope you're being sarcastic when you say his insistence that 'god is on our side' doesn't make it a religious issue. Given that, the fact we're supposed to be fighting religious extremism, and the guy's propensity for religious references, and you clearly have a religious motive for his actions.
He's a religious fanatic and proud of it. He's like the Islamics who cannot see a separation of church and state. In Islam, there is no separation between living and worshiping. The two are intertwined. So it is, it seems, for Bush.
He even had a former head-of-state squirming in his seat -
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/061021/world/schroeder_s_memoirs
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6115719/
http://www.blessitt.com/gwbletter.jpg
It's funny how many people use that as an argument as to why we shouldn't be at war. "Bush said 'God'" "OMG HE MUST B RONG!"[/QUOTE]
http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2005/10_october/06/bush.shtml
For the record, I didn't use that as an argument against the war - there are so many other arguments against it anyway. However, if his drive to wipe out Islamic extremism was based on what he perceives as 'the word of god', well, then, there is a definite problem there, wouldn't you say?
I hope you're being sarcastic when you say his insistence that 'god is on our side' doesn't make it a religious issue. Given that, the fact we're supposed to be fighting religious extremism, and the guy's propensity for religious references, and you clearly have a religious motive for his actions.
He's a religious fanatic and proud of it. He's like the Islamics who cannot see a separation of church and state. In Islam, there is no separation between living and worshiping. The two are intertwined. So it is, it seems, for Bush.
He even had a former head-of-state squirming in his seat -
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/061021/world/schroeder_s_memoirs
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6115719/
http://www.blessitt.com/gwbletter.jpg
I'm not saying that it is determinable to what degree of religious intent Bush acts, but what I am saying is that it is indeterminable.
What a politician says is ultimately geared toward what he wants to do. That could be either performing his job, or just getting elected again. You know what? Saying you're a Christian gets you more votes. Therefore, when a politician appears religious...or a "family man," that is indicative of nothing.
We should only focus on what a politician does, rather than what he or she says to promote it.
What a politician says is ultimately geared toward what he wants to do. That could be either performing his job, or just getting elected again. You know what? Saying you're a Christian gets you more votes. Therefore, when a politician appears religious...or a "family man," that is indicative of nothing.
We should only focus on what a politician does, rather than what he or she says to promote it.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: [/QUOTENAME]I'm not saying that it is determinable to what degree of religious intent Bush acts, but what I am saying is that it is indeterminable. [/QUOTE]
Which is precisely why he's so frightening.
Which is precisely why he's so frightening.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]magicalfreddiemercury wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: [/QUOTENAME]I'm not saying that it is determinable to what degree of religious intent Bush acts, but what I am saying is that it is indeterminable. [/QUOTE]
Which is precisely why he's so frightening.
[/QUOTE]
But by what I said, anyone could be so frightening.
And I don't think any President could be "frightening," so to say.
Which is precisely why he's so frightening.
[/QUOTE]
But by what I said, anyone could be so frightening.
And I don't think any President could be "frightening," so to say.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]magicalfreddiemercury wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: [/QUOTENAME]I'm not saying that it is determinable to what degree of religious intent Bush acts, but what I am saying is that it is indeterminable. [/QUOTE]
Which is precisely why he's so frightening.
[/QUOTE]
But by what I said, anyone could be so frightening.
And I don't think any President could be "frightening," so to say.[/QUOTE]
A Vice President could...
Specially when he's holding a gun.
Which is precisely why he's so frightening.
[/QUOTE]
But by what I said, anyone could be so frightening.
And I don't think any President could be "frightening," so to say.[/QUOTE]
A Vice President could...
Specially when he's holding a gun.