Scott Mclellan tells us what those of us with brains already knew.

Status
Not open for further replies.
According to this thread and basically the past several decades Conservatism is nothing but shitting your pants apoplexy and hate.

All you have to do is bitch about Libruls and be 'agin taxes and accuse every non-retarded person in this country of being a commie and you are in.

Yes I am looking at you thrust and company.
 
[quote name='Msut77']According to this thread and basically the past several decades Conservatism is nothing but shitting your pants apoplexy and hate.

All you have to do is bitch about Libruls and be 'agin taxes and accuse every non-retarded person in this country of being a commie and you are in.

Yes I am looking at you thrust and company.[/QUOTE]This is some of the funniest shit I've seen on CAG in ages. :rofl::rofl::rofl:
 
[quote name='Liquid 2']This is some of the funniest shit I've seen on CAG in ages.[/QUOTE]

It would be funny if only it was not completely true.
 
[quote name='Msut77']It would be funny if only it was not completely true.[/quote]

So true...ask Scott Mclellan.
 
[quote name='Msut77']Do you have anything at all to contribute?[/QUOTE]

Do you? You're the one trying to stifle discussion, kid.


Probably because you know you're wrong. :cool:
 
[quote name='Liquid 2']Do you? You're the one trying to stifle discussion, kid.


Probably because you know you're wrong. :cool:[/QUOTE]

Not allowing idiots to make shit up is not stifling discussion.
 
[quote name='Msut77']Not allowing idiots to make shit up is not stifling discussion.[/QUOTE]

You have to be a joke account.


But seriously, where's your buddy Pitt? I want a reply. I know he read my post, and I hope that he hasn't chickened out after talking shit like he did.
 
[quote name='Liquid 2']I'm waiting for your reply, Pitt. :cool:[/quote]

Reply to what liquid?

This is the only question you posed:

I think that's rather self-evident, don't you? :cool:
Click to expand...

My answer is an unequivocal "YES!" It is self evident who the dumb peices of shit are: the ones who re-elected Bush: Conservatives/Republicans.
 
[quote name='Liquid 2']You have to be a joke account.[/QUOTE]

Nope, sorry.


BTW you answered my question even though you probably did not mean to.
 
[quote name='pittpizza']Reply to what liquid?

This is the only question you posed:



My answer is an unequivocal "YES!" It is self evident who the dumb peices of shit are: the ones who re-elected Bush: Conservatives/Republicans.[/QUOTE]

So, you can't answer to the rest of my post? Cool, that's what I was checking.
 
[quote name='Msut77']Nope, sorry.


BTW you answered my question even though you probably did not mean to.[/quote]

Yep, nothing at all to contribute. Hey, at least he/she stopped quoting thrust.

Answers are responses to questions. What questions did you pose? (Hint: None).

Here is a question I pose to you though: How do you refute all the nice things (
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']
Small government
Non-intrusive government
Fiscal responsibility
[/QUOTE]

Problem is that nowadays political views are seldom defined by big picture things like these--which is how distinctions should be made.

It seems now the definition between liberal/conservatives these days tends to focus more on stances on hot button social issues like abortion, gay marriage and on downl the line.

The liberals raise taxes stuff is still around I guess, but other than that all the shit getting tossed out is more social stuff like gay rights, immigration policies and so forth.

Bush is definitely socially conservative-faith based initiative, wanting an amendment against gay marriage etc. So he gets the label even though he doesn't fit it in terms of government size/spending etc.--which is what should really define conservatism.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Problem is that nowadays political views are seldom defined by big picture things like these--which is how distinctions should be made.

It seems now the definition between liberal/conservatives these days tends to focus more on stances on hot button social issues like abortion, gay marriage and on downl the line.

The liberals raise taxes stuff is still around I guess, but other than that all the shit getting tossed out is more social stuff like gay rights, immigration policies and so forth.

Bush is definitely socially conservative-faith based initiative, wanting an amendment against gay marriage etc. So he gets the label even though he doesn't fit it in terms of government size/spending etc.--which is what should really define conservatism.[/QUOTE]

Listen, I have asked (what literally a dozen times?) various posters who make the same spiel over and over to name an actual current conservative politician.

So far no luck, I am not even using hyperbole in my previous posts.
 
Good points Dmaul.


[quote name='Msut77']Listen, I have asked (what literally a dozen times?) various posters who make the same spiel over and over to name an actual current conservative politician.

So far no luck, I am not even using hyperbole in my previous posts.[/quote]


You've got an answer Msut. When you ask who is a conservative politician, the answer is the same:

"Not Bush"

I love it, nobody wants to call a sinking ship what it is, especially when it means that all other ships by the same manufacturer will sink along with it (as Bush has seriously hurt the republican/conservative party). Perhaps irreparably, but we will see.



THats it for me tonight. (Off topic) Tomorrow I will dive one of the deepest wreck dives of my life and I'm really excited, so I'm off to bed at midnight on a Friday. For any interested it's called the Ancient Mariner and it's off the coast of Deerfield Beach, FL: http://www.nauticalcurrents.com/ancientmariner.htm
 
[quote name='Liquid 2']Are you saying that in order for one to advocate a mode of governing, there must be a politician who represents that mode first?[/QUOTE]

If you would like to be taken seriously (and lets not kid ourselves) then yes, that is usually how it goes here in realityville.

I swear I am patenting Calvinball Conservative.
 
msut and pitt are proof that...

Liberalismisamentaldisease.jpg
 
I'm always disappointed that, despite an abundance of great American political theorists, people still reference entertainers/hacks like Coulter, Franken, Savage, or Rush as sources of political wisdom. No wonder we're fucked.
 
Oh now you did it, Ramstoria, you are about to be told by pittpizza that he's putting you on ignore. It will be funny to, because he can't see what I say unless someone quotes me. Let's see how psychic I am....

[quote name='msut77']Listen, I have asked (what literally a dozen times?) various posters who make the same spiel over and over to name an actual current conservative politician.

So far no luck, I am not even using hyperbole in my previous posts.[/quote]
In proven policy, there really isn't any. However, there may be a few congressmen/senators that are close, I'd have to read up on them more before I could answer. The only two politicians that I can think of off the top of my head that I MIGHT consider conservative are Ron Paul and Bob Barr. I still have enough issues with both, though, that I wouldn't back them yet.

Likewise, I'm still waiting for msut or pp (or anyone) to list one single thing Bush has pushed for or passed that might be universally considered a conservative policy. Nothing PP listed is conservative, which ironically proved our point, that Bush never was conservative.

I can only name one myself: Tax Cuts. And they didn't mean dick because spending went through the roof. Tax cuts without spending cuts mean nothing.

Bush, like all republican presidents, sold themselves as conservatives to get elected. Usually, and especially in Bush's case, they turn out to be more liars and turn their back on core conservative ideals. Bush turned out to be more liberal than Gore likely would have been on many issues. I was calling Bush a liberal before the last election and he more than proved that true.

I'll give the Democrats one thing - they are so shitty at lying about their socialist intentions, they rarely try anymore. At least you know what your getting. But Republicans bait and switch, which in my book is worse.

When Obama gets elected and he practically puts us in the EU, many people will be happy and call that progress. I won't.

dmaul, he may be against gay marriage, and I guess that could be considered a conservative social ideal. But much like his views on abortion, he's too impotent to change policy on those issues. And imo, outright apathy towards enforcing long established immigration law more than cancels those so-called "conservative ideals" out.
 
Yeah, there really isn't a true conservative. At least not in the mainstream, I'm sure there are some true conservatives in congress etc. that I'm not aware.

I don't really get the argument. I'm pretty fucking liberal and I hate bush, but he's not a true conservative. Like I said, he's socially conseverative, but he's certaintly not conservative in terms of gov't spending or the size of gov't.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']Oh now you did it, Ramstoria, you are about to be told by pittpizza that he's putting you on ignore. It will be funny to, because he can't see what I say unless someone quotes me. Let's see how psychic I am....

[/QUOTE]

ya know, i only put that image up to stir up the hornets nest. never read the book myself.


while msut and pp asked for conservatives that are actually conservative, i thought about naming libertarians like paul & barr but really didnt want to bring it up or get into it.

but i think we might generally agree, libertarian is the new conservative (or traditional, depending on how you look at it).
 
When Bush ran for president in 2000, he ran as a conservative. In 2004, he also ran as a conservative. Did he actually act like a conservative as president? That depends on the definition of conservative. I think that there are three types of conservatives.
1. Small government conservatives:
They want the government to have as little influence in people's lives as possible.

2. Fiscal conservatives:
They want the government to live within its means, and for people to be fiscally resonsable.

3. Social Conservatives:
They are against abortion, gay marriage, and want abstinence only taught in schools. Social conservatives are sometimes called the religious right.

Now, has Bush run the the country using option 1 or 2? The answer is no. He has increased government, and brought us trillions of dollars in debt. However, he has done number 3. He has supported making abortion and gay marriage illegal. Just because someone says they are conservative does not mean they adhere to all three ways.
 
Exactly what I was saying. Bush is 100% socially conservative, but he certainly has run the country based around small gov't or being fiscally conservative.
 
[quote name='fullmetalfan720']When Bush ran for president in 2000, he ran as a conservative. In 2004, he also ran as a conservative. Did he actually act like a conservative as president? That depends on the definition of conservative. I think that there are three types of conservatives.
1. Small government conservatives:
They want the government to have as little influence in people's lives as possible.

2. Fiscal conservatives:
They want the government to live within its means, and for people to be fiscally reasonable.

3. Social Conservatives:
They are against abortion, gay marriage, and want abstinence only taught in schools. Social conservatives are sometimes called the religious right.

Now, has Bush run the the country using option 1 or 2? The answer is no. He has increased government, and brought us trillions of dollars in debt. However, he has done number 3. He has supported making abortion and gay marriage illegal. Just because someone says they are conservative does not mean they adhere to all three ways.[/QUOTE]

That's a good and constructive post. But please list for me policies he enacted using number 3 that would make him a "conservative" president.

It's like this. After Obamba is president for 8 years, what if we look back on his record and it's like this:

  • Repealed the Patriot act.

  • Enacted tough consequences for hiring illegal aliens. Created a one strike, your out policy for illegal immigrants.

  • Pulls all troops across the world home, reduces active duty status by 1/2 and puts the half of what's left on the boarders.

  • Obliterates the IRS.

  • Obliterates the Department of Education

  • Vastly reduced welfare programs

  • Creates a flat, 22% tax, forcing government to make do with that income.

  • Puts us on a path to be back on the gold standard and deconstructs the Federal Reserve

  • Reduces the power of the federal government substantially, increasing the power of local government.

  • Set a program for us to become completely energy independent within 5 years. Promising to cut all reliance on the middle east within that time period, even if it meant drilling for oil off our own shores and on our own land. Setting aside all global warming alarmist policy until that happens.

Now if Obama did all those things, I don't think you or I could call him a liberal president. Most of the people that are in love with him now would likely be upset and/or disappointed for getting the opposite of what you were hoping. Much like Conservatives are with bush.

Actually, if he did all those things, I'd eat all my words, change my avatar to be similar to yours, and wish I try to get the laws changed to get him a third term.
 
He's not been 100% socially conservative, but he's done a lot of socially conservative things (or tried to).

-Tried to get amendment banning gay marriage
-Advancing faced based initiatives
-Appoint socially conservative leaning supreme court justices


Things of those nature.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']He's not been 100% socially conservative, but he's done a lot of socially conservative things (or tried to).

-Tried to get amendment banning gay marriage
-Advancing faced based initiatives
-Appoint socially conservative leaning supreme court justices


Things of those nature.[/QUOTE]

So.

Take my list above and pretend Obama did all those things.

I don't think it would matter if Obama still pushed for partial birth abortion, tried to get every state to recognize gay marriage, and promoted the continued secularization of America. If he did all those things I wrote above, he wouldn't be considered a liberal president.
 
Of course he won't do all those things.

Point is he will do (and try to do) things that are more socially liberal, while Bush has done things (and tried to do things) that are more socially conservative.

No president, and few elected officials period, will ever be 100% liberal or conservative in their thinking, much less in what the do.

The vast majority of people aren't extremists and lie more towards the middle, thus we'll never see a coverment that has a leader who can be considered a true liberal or conservative president.

It's shades of gray, not black and white.

If Obama did the things you mentioned, he'd be considered a fairly liberal president for sure. Just like Bush is considered conservative by many/most, though he isn't on many accounts.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']So.

Take my list above and pretend Obama did all those things.

I don't think it would matter if Obama still pushed for partial birth abortion, tried to get every state to recognize gay marriage, and promoted the continued secularization of America. If he did all those things I wrote above, he wouldn't be considered a liberal president.[/QUOTE]

No, anyone who did that would not be a socially liberal president. However, that does not mean they can't be fiscally liberal or support other liberal issues.
 
Dmaul you're wasting your time. He was conservative when things were going okay, when they starting going to shit he is no longer conservative.

Yet he is still republican isn't he? And that is the conservative party.

You can nit pick and grasp at strings all you want to try to make yourself believe he isn't conservative even though most admit he is socially conservative, and probably would be fiscally conservative if he didnt spend billions in Iraq.

Which also reminds me that aggressive war-hawkish foreign policy is more conservative than liberal. So in foreign policy and social issues he is conservative, and would be fiscally if not for the war.

But hey, I wouldn't want to tie myself to Bush now either so I get the attempts to paint him as something else. "Who that guy!? He's not on MY team! Sure he WAS, and it's how he got elected, but now that he is unpopular he is not anymore."

You can take the most liberal of the liberals, and hte most conservative of hte conservatives and nit pick and find things that that are not liberal/conservative respectively. Still, at the end of hte day it amounts to little more than nitpicking to try to differentiate a loser from your side.

I'll not ignore Ramstoria b/c he is not stupid and actually makes some probative posts. He is better than using Irena Sendler as a pretext to bash Gore.

WHy not read Savage's book Ramstoria? WOuld you consider Savage COnservative?

BTW, none of this has ANYTHING to do with the original topic at hand, which I've tried repeatedly to get us back onto. But if you all want to keep debating the fine points of what exactly "conservative" means, by all means continue. It's just played out and boring.

Moreover, just because the idiot son of an asshole failed at enacting conservative policies (b/c they suck) doesn't mean he isn't conservative. He sure tried.

Anyway, lets get back to laughing our asses off at the consertavies and republicans b/c McClellan basically admitted that he worked for a corrupt, self interested, individual agenda pushing pseudo-dictator. HA ha ha ha ha!! As if the republicans/conservatives needed any more damage done to their party.
 
[quote name='pittpizza']

Yet he is still republican isn't he? And that is the less liberal/socialist party than democrats. [/quote]
Fixed for accuracy.



I'll not ignore Ramstoria b/c he is not stupid and actually makes some probative posts. He is better than using Irena Sendler as a pretext to bash Gore.
Click to expand...
Oh give him time. And if he continues to make your arguments look shallow, you'll ignore him too. (way to go for proving double standard there too, ignoring me for a savage reference)

BTW, none of this has ANYTHING to do with the original topic at hand, which I've tried repeatedly to get us back onto. But if you all want to keep debating the fine points of what exactly "conservative" means, by all means continue. It's just played out and boring.
Click to expand...
Answer:
[quote name='pittpizza']
This made me LMFAO at all the conservatives on CAG. What do you think of this ya dipshits?[/quote]
Because your original point is flawed. As long as you continue to group Conservatives and Republicans together, you'll continue to have OT responses, because your wrong. And some people don't like slanderous inaccurate lying propaganda thrown around, and will respond to it.

Further, your OP made no sense because you refer to republicans, then bash conservatives that agree with you. Grow up and smell your own childish red BS.


Anyway, lets get back to laughing our asses off at the consertavies and republicans b/c McClellan basically admitted that he worked for a corrupt, self interested, individual agenda pushing pseudo-dictator. HA ha ha ha ha!! As if the republicans/conservatives needed any more damage done to their party.
Click to expand...

And off he goes kids, after all the logical reasoning that's been thrown at him over the months in this thread... PP still continues to think Republicans and Conservatives are one in the same. Here is a hint: Pick a word between Conservatives and Republicans when you post, because they aren't interchangeable.

He absolutely refuses to acknowledge that Republicans are not conservatives, and haven't been since the early 90's.

Let me reach back into my "logic for 10 year olds" bag and hope it sticks this time:

Just because Repulicans are more Conservative than Democrats Does not make Republicans conservative. Just like Democrats being more socialist than the Republicans does not make them communist.

When you finally understand that, and get it through your head, your posts might start making sense.
 
[quote name='pittpizza']Dmaul you're wasting your time. He was conservative when things were going okay, when they starting going to shit he is no longer conservative.
[/QUOTE]


I still think you mix up the social conservatives (most people define liberal/conservative by stance on social issues--especially people not very in to politics) with the true, hard core conservatives touting low taxes, minimal government etc.

The latter--which included thrustbucket and some of these other guys, never really supported Bush beyond maybe at the time seeing him as the lesser of two evils vs. Gore and Kerry--since democrats are even more big government, big spending than Bush etc.

The social conservatives supported him, and many still do, as they care about abortion, gays not having rights to marry, and those sorts of things. He has lost some of those people even for sure.

Anyway, my point is I think your thread here is a bit off base. I don't think the true conservatives (i.e. the libertarians and their ilk) ever thought Bush was a true conservative. It was the social conservatives, and those aren't the people you are arguing with in this thread for the most part.

I don't agree with thrust very often, but he summed it up nicely and I'll quote it for you since you have him on ignore:

[quote name='thrustbucket']
Just because Repulicans are more Conservative than Democrats Does not make Republicans conservative. Just like Democrats being more socialist than the Republicans does not make them communist.
[/QUOTE]

You're trying to paint things too black and white. The republican party isn't very conservative anymore, and the democratic party isn't all that liberal either. Moderates on both sides rule politics in the US. And as such true conservatives and true liberals are pretty disenchanted with their respective (or former) parties.
 
[quote name='RAMSTORIA']Michael A. Weiner[/QUOTE]

Way to prove everything single I said and show yourself to be a complete waste of life at the same time.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']I still think you mix up the social conservatives (most people define liberal/conservative by stance on social issues--especially people not very in to politics) with the true, hard core conservatives touting low taxes, minimal government etc.

The latter--which included thrustbucket and some of these other guys, never really supported Bush beyond maybe at the time seeing him as the lesser of two evils vs. Gore and Kerry--since democrats are even more big government, big spending than Bush etc.

The social conservatives supported him, and many still do, as they care about abortion, gays not having rights to marry, and those sorts of things. He has lost some of those people even for sure.

Anyway, my point is I think your thread here is a bit off base. I don't think the true conservatives (i.e. the libertarians and their ilk) ever thought Bush was a true conservative. It was the social conservatives, and those aren't the people you are arguing with in this thread for the most part.

I don't agree with thrust very often, but he summed it up nicely and I'll quote it for you since you have him on ignore:



You're trying to paint things too black and white. The republican party isn't very conservative anymore, and the democratic party isn't all that liberal either. Moderates on both sides rule politics in the US. And as such true conservatives and true liberals are pretty disenchanted with their respective (or former) parties.[/QUOTE]

OMG.

Dmaul, I sometimes disagree with you, but thank you for the best post of the thread. Hopefully PP finally gets it now.

You're trying to paint things too black and white. The republican party isn't very conservative anymore, and the democratic party isn't all that liberal either. Moderates on both sides rule politics in the US. And as such true conservatives and true liberals are pretty disenchanted with their respective (or former) parties.
Click to expand...

Really? How many people that would consider themselves proudly Liberal, dislike Obama or wish there was someone better?
Yes that's a serious question.
I've yet to see a liberal complain Obama isn't liberal enough.

It seems to me that the entire federal government, both sides of the aisle, have moved quite a bit left. Leaving those that would call themselves Conservative behind. But I could be wrong, I'm willing to listen to evidence to the contrary.
 
dmaul, cons are like deluded cult members constantly excommunicating each over this or that piece of dogma.

They cannot even agree on what makes a "true" conservative and no offense but your own personal definition means nothing.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']Really? How many people that would consider themselves proudly Liberal, dislike Obama or wish there was someone better?
Yes that's a serious question.
I've yet to see a liberal complain Obama isn't liberal enough.

It seems to me that the entire federal government, both sides of the aisle, have moved quite a bit left. Leaving those that would call themselves Conservative behind. But I could be wrong, I'm willing to listen to evidence to the contrary.[/QUOTE]

I was talking about the extreme leftists. Socialists, communists, the uber-environmentalists, the far left stance on every social issue etc. That's what a true liberal would be, in my view.

Just like a true conservative would be super far right--small as possible government, little to no taxes, the far right standeon every social issues.

That's the point I was getting at with the things aren't that black and white comment, most people don't take those types of positions. There really aren't many extremists on either side.

Both positions are extremists, and a small minority. The extreme liberals are more rare thant he extreme conservatives probably though, which is why you (and I) haven't heard any liberal people complain about Obama.

Conservatives are getting a worse shake of things as there are a lot of libertarians etc. who have to hate how things have gone with Bush and McCaine, where as most liberals happy with Obama and have just been pissed about 8 years of Bush.

[quote name='Msut77']
They cannot even agree on what makes a "true" conservative and no offense but your own personal definition means nothing.[/QUOTE]

And neither does yours, or Pitt Pizza's. No offense, as I tend to agree with liberals more. But this thread sucked from the start with the "dipshits" comment.

It's just troll thread, and just the type of partisan non-sense that makes it so hard to get anything done politically in this country.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']But this thread sucked from the start with the "dipshits" comment.

It's just troll thread, and just the type of partisan non-sense that makes it so hard to get anything done politically in this country.[/QUOTE]

Until about a year and half ago the Democratic party (and the hardcore Left far-far before that) had about as much political power as the Amish.

Your poltroonish putziness aside about it being "partisan bickering" Conservatives are at fault for supporting the lying craven dickbags that have been running the Republican party for decades. The mess you see today is the logical conclusion of the Conservative movements goals. The endless war, the budget problems etc. were all pretty much planned.

If reality makes you sad fuck off for all I care. A post-partisan solution to today's problems is almost literally impossible because it would require cons to quit blaming half-imaginary "commies" for everything. The past few years have not exactly made me charitable.
 
[quote name='pittpizza']

WHy not read Savage's book Ramstoria? WOuld you consider Savage COnservative?

[/QUOTE]

Yes, I would consider Savage conservative. But that doesn't mean that I listen to him daily, or that I even agree with him on more than a couple points. You seem keep to equating someone with some conservative values or is willing to defend the ideal as conservatism as a hard core conservative or republican. Blanket statements like those are why people are arguing with you so much. The fact of the matter is I have no party affiliation, I've voted for Democrats, Republicans, and third-party candidates in the past. And I bet if we went over issues one by one you'd find that I have a "liberal" view point on some and a "conservative" view point on others. Guess what, so does most of America. But just because I'm willing to support the principal conservative ideal (the big 3 were laid out by thrust earlier in the thread, and most would agree with those) doesn't make me a conservative-right-wing-nut-bush-lover.


BTW, none of this has ANYTHING to do with the original topic at hand, which I've tried repeatedly to get us back onto. But if you all want to keep debating the fine points of what exactly "conservative" means, by all means continue. It's just played out and boring.
Click to expand...

The reason why the thread has derailed so much is because Mclellan wrote a book about something that in your own words, "those of us with brains already knew." That goes for liberals and conservatives.

Essentially, this is is like starting about someone who wrote a book about the sky being blue.

[quote name='Msut77']Way to prove everything single I said and show yourself to be a complete waste of life at the same time.[/QUOTE]


You must have missed the part where I explained it was a joke. Oh and it's Dr. Michael A. Weiner
 
[quote name='RAMSTORIA']You must have missed the part where I explained it was a joke.[/QUOTE]

I have a hard time telling your jokes from your actual posts.
 
[quote name='Msut77']
If reality makes you sad fuck off for all I care. A post-partisan solution to today's problems is almost literally impossible because it would require cons to quit blaming half-imaginary "commies" for everything. The past few years have not exactly made me charitable.[/QUOTE]

And it would take the liberals to quit blaming the conservatives for everying when democrats in congress voted in favor of the Iraq war etc.

Yes, I'd pin most of the blame for the things I'm unhappy with about our government on republicans, but I'm not going to say the democrats in office have been doing a great job the past 8 years either, even with their limited power.

At any rate, I just don't like seeing discussions here starting with calling groups of people dipshits, or telling people to fuck off. But I guess I shouldn't expect reasonable discussion of politics on the net, and especially not on a stupid video game site as the audience here isn't the most mature in the world.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']And it would take the liberals to quit blaming the conservatives for everything when democrats in congress voted in favor of the Iraq war[/QUOTE]

And there we have it, the only thing you can even attempt to name is that some Democrats decided to trust Bush.

You seem to be confusing maturity with your fact free and asinine attempts at obfuscation.
 
I'm not trying to do anything other than suggest that bickering and name calling isn't going to help change the country for the better.

Pointing fingers and bitching about who's more responsible for the mess where in isn't productive, it's just wasting time dwelling on the past.

It's time to move on from that and work towards positive change in the future. Obama and his message give me a lot of hope (which is his intent) for future possibilities, and those will be more realized if we move forward by focusing on the issues and what we need to do in the future. Not wasting time bitching about past mistakes and who deserves the most blame for them.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']I'm not trying to do anything other than suggest that bickering and name calling isn't going to help change the country for the better.

Pointing fingers and bitching about who's more responsible for the mess where in isn't productive, it's just wasting time dwelling on the past.[/QUOTE]

Sticking your head in the sand is not a plan.

There is no way an honest person (even one with your non partisan posturing) can look back on the past and say a pox on both their houses and you seem to recognize (at the same time you express your wish to continue to act as an enabler).

Basically the cons want a do over. They want to bury their messy sheets and pretend the past few years never happened, that is by far the stupidest course of action. And you must be literally drooling into your keyboard if you think "oh sorry about the untold thousands dead, the treasury being drained, the torture and the spying) is going to cut it.

Not that cons ever said sorry mind you.

As for Obama, he certainly has not let Conservative politicians off the hook. He has no qualms with tying McCain (correctly I might add) to W's policies.

For one example:

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/06/07/1122702.aspx
 
I'm not saying you let them forget about it. Obama should 100% used it against them to help his case.

I'm saying you don't do it by calling conservatives dipshits etc. You use the evidence and facts to make your case in a professional way, and you let the voters speak by voting republicans out of office which they've been doing a great deal lately. That's how things change. Not with a bunch of name calling, bashing of whole ideological groups in society etc.

Obama is doing a great job of this and needs to keep it up.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']I'm not saying you let them forget about it. Obama should 100% used it against them to help his case.

I'm saying you don't do it by calling conservatives dipshits etc. You use the evidence and facts to make your case in a professional way, and you let the voters speak by voting republicans out of office which they've been doing a great deal lately. That's how things change. Not with a bunch of name calling, bashing of whole ideological groups in society etc.

Obama is doing a great job of this and needs to keep it up.[/QUOTE]

Stop dmaul, you can't convince people with reasonable discussion! Have you learned nothing in the vs. forum.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']I'm not trying to do anything other than suggest that bickering and name calling isn't going to help change the country for the better.

Pointing fingers and bitching about who's more responsible for the mess where in isn't productive, it's just wasting time dwelling on the past.

It's time to move on from that and work towards positive change in the future. Obama and his message give me a lot of hope (which is his intent) for future possibilities, and those will be more realized if we move forward by focusing on the issues and what we need to do in the future. Not wasting time bitching about past mistakes and who deserves the most blame for them.[/quote]

This is what I was going to post.

There is a lot of unnecessary, juvenile name calling in this thread. I fail to see the need of personal attacks during a pretty good discussion. :)
 
[quote name='RAMSTORIA']Stop dmaul, you can't convince people with reasonable discussion! Have you learned nothing in the vs. forum.[/QUOTE]

dmaul is the only one that has even come close to being reasonable although I do not care for his broderesque wanking about the tone of the discussion.

The rest (including you) have scurried away as soon as a light is shined on them like cockroaches.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
bread's done
Back
Top