Here we go again

By the way Brandon, you have now been unable to provide the calm, objective scrutiny to refute 2 of my statements which makes your 90% statement false.

No.

it's not that average American is stupid....it's that he's gutless. And none more than the republicans. If McCain wins.... and at this point it's a toss up... it will be the same way they have been winning.... variations on the theme vote for me no matter what I do to you or perish in a fiery inferno or of some horrible enemy inflicted plague.

Freeduck

Reread what you originally posted and tell me that you have posted an objective commentary.

REPUBLICANS: You're sore winners. You refuse to accept accountability. You cast your opponents as EVIL Admit your damned failures you bastards!

DEMOCRATS: Your sin is that you are afraid of the Bad Guys, and are not willing to act like the Good Guys you actually are.

Is this really supposed to be a fair minded analysis of the failure of each side's positions?

What a laugh!

"Here we go again..."

Bickering with one another, favoring personal attacks over susbstance debate, insisting on the absolute correctness of our position.

Terrible, terrible.

If only the Republicans would realize and admit they are wrong, and the Democrats realize they are right and have the balls to stick to their message, everything will be honkey-dorey.

Thank you Freeduck for a post that so well definesthe Democratic mindset.

Priceless.

Yeah see, he's doing exactly what he's complaining about.

I don't recall FreeDuck saying it was an "objective commentary."

Could you point that statement out to the rest of us?


Or are you just going to insist on the absolute correctness of your position without any evidence to back it up?

Nice parsing.

You're right, of course, she didn't write: "Herein lies objective commentary," but it's pretty obvious that she implied that she was "reasonably" laying out the faults of both positions.

Why not, however, wait for Freeduck to tell us whether she intended objectivity or blatant bias?

I'm guessing everyone is kinda sick of every thread turning into a stairway to nowhere, so I can understand. What I don't understand is how a nation which is supposed to be the global bastion of freedom could charge a dictator on the otherside of the world with the killings of thousands of people and then roll into the said country, securing oil interests along the way, setting up what any country can see is permanent bases, killing many more civilians than the original dictator, and then have the audacity to assume the moral high ground...

After bombing Iraq for god knows how long, their surprised that some might want to take vengeance. If someone dropped a bomb on your house and killed your entire family, wouldn't you do the same? Wouldn't it spur you into a fervor of demonsterous proportions to claim some type of revenge against the perpetrators? And on top of that they know that millions around the world can sleep at night without fear of bomb threats at 2am, wouldn't you think, 'Why me?'. Wouldn't you want a reason why? Then rolls in fundamentalist religion to give them a reason why and the arms to do something about it.

Do you really think the Pentagon, the brain of American military intelligence, didn't know this would happen? Do you think the intelligence nerve center is stupid? No, so why? How could anyone understand cruelty on such a scale it boggles the mind, not just in Iraq but everywhere, by every superpower, by every dictator, by every militia. People just love killing people, I don't, but I guess I'm just a freak of nature (or I haven't had enough bombs dropped on my family yet).

Obama, McCain, Palin, it doesn't matter their just talking points, the agenda is what matters and we couldn't care less.

"Bomb, Bomb, Bomb.
Bomb, Bomb Iran." -Barbara Ann by the Beach Boys.
-McCain's attempt at humor, an inhumane dialogue that was met with laughter, how revealing. We really are a stupid bunch of vampires.

Got Vicariousness? Sure do.

Come on America rain your nuclear arsonel upon the world, cleanse your world of the weak, take all for yourself, I'm beyond caring.

Mother Earth would be better off without us.

Are objectivity and blatant bias the only 2 choices?

If so, then you have done nothing but demonstrate blatant bias.

Finn, I'm just blowing off steam. I find it strange, however, that you of all people feel it is your duty to point out bias wherever you find it. Priceless indeed.

This one seems like a stretch. There may be agency procedures, or other governmental statements of "best practices" which dictate that hiring and firing should be done without consideration of politics or loyalties, but the practice of employing people who are sympathetic to their management in government jobs is probably very widespread. For a government office holder to fire someone for political reasons doesn't strike me as unusual, and I doubt that it violates any law passed by the US congress. I would be very surprised if Democrats didn't make politically based appointments too.

Cimmawwwwn!

When will you finally quit denying that you're fundamentally evil, and own up to your anti-good bias!

Jeeesus.

Actually, Duck, you don't know how right you are.

Although the reasoning in your initial post is slanted a bit - as one would expect - you are essentially accurate.

But you're not looking deep enough. The differences between conservatives and lib/progressives go far beyond a presidential election.

Want a couple examples? I say Ronald Reagan, and most conservatives will get a warm feeling. You libs/progressives want to puke.

You see Ted Kennedy come out to address your convention, and it brought tears to your eyes. Most conservatives still see a fraud who let a young girl drown. And want to puke.

Just being frank here...

My take? I would never trust a congress and executive branch controlled by the dems. The left wing of that party has become far too strong - witness Nancy Pelosi as Speaker - and uncontrolled leftists would doom this country, in my opinion.

How? First, I'll agree with most of you that Bush will be judged as one of our worst presidents. Because of Iraq? No, because of the outrageous increases in federal spending under his watch.

Which would be loose change compared to an unrestrained left wing government.

More taxes on more of us.

More government control over every aspect of our lives. And yes, more of a police state under the dems, I believe.

Foreign policy? Things would be loves and kisses until we were attacked again, then we would see the typical OVER reaction (like Vietnam) and then watch out.

Like Clinton and Carter, a dem pres will cut military bases, cut military programs, and weaken our armed forces to free up money for social programs.

Then, when we need them, they will over react to the situation, to prove their toughness.

Four more years of Bush? Wouldn't want that. Not all that happy with McCain, either.

But the dems sure are not the party of financial restraint or military preparedness. Especially the left wing of the party, which is calling the shots these days...

Blow away Freeduck.

I don't mind your bias, I just find it amusing when you so thinly disguise it as objectivity.

Bemoaning partisanship when all you really bemoan are Republican bastards and the failure of Democrats to trounce them is disingenuous as best.

When did I say it was objective? I admit that I try to be objective, but the way that your party has hung this country out to dry, and the fact that there are still so many like you who can still so strongly believe that it upholds your principles and that, damn the facts, its still the superior party, well, I have trouble seeing things from your perspective.

It is truly a shame that we only get to choose between two deeply entrenched and flawed political parties, but how do you trick yourself into believing that, as badly as the Republicans have fucked up lately, our best bet is to keep them in power? Youre like an abused wife still telling your sister that really, hes a good man, it will get better. I mean, they have completely abandoned almost every one of your beloved principles. Small government? Nah. Balanced budget and fiscal responsibility? Fuhgetaboutit. Free market? As long as it doesnt involve any big companies who make lots of political contributions going under, fine. Maybe you can answer me, Finn. Which one of your beloved conservative principles does the Republican party still hold to?

Err, not really. Reagan was in power when I was in elementary school. My opinion of him is that he was a gifted leader who probably made some good and some bad decisions. However, the way Republicans fawn over him (and then have the balls to mock Obama supporters as idol worshippers) does make me want to puke. Is there anything in DC that you havent succesfully named after him? I still remember when your leaders ordered the airport named after him but wouldnt pay to change the signage.


You are too full of ass-umptions. Again, Ted is not my hero. I hardly know anything about him.


I guess that makes me Al.


I would say because of both. Additionally, incompetence, infringing on civil liberties, cronyism, politicizing the justice department, etc...


I agree that one party controlling both non-judicial branches is generally dangerous. However at this point, I think rewarding this party with more power is more dangerous. Let the Democrats take the leadership position, then return Congress to the Republicans in two years.

Not supported by the facts, but even if it were, the people you voted into office (I am assuming twice) have put us in a position where we have bills to pay. Who should pay them?


Right. I see the Dems passing federal legislation to prevent a brain dead woman from dying in peace. I see the Dems making legal assertions that the president has the right to declare any citizen an enemy combatant on his whim and as such strip him of any and all constitutional rights. I see the Dems introducing domestic spying. I mean really, when do you see what is right in front of your face?


Where do you get this stuff?


Maybe, maybe not. But at this point they ARE the party of competence.

Thomas. Did I mention that I want a one world government? And that I want it to be communist. (Holds pinky finger up to corner of mouth.)

So.. what does

"violated Department policy and federal law"

mean in your world?

The investigation of the actions found in several instances that the actions
"violated Department policy and federal law". Now you doubt it violates any law. Care to provide anything to actually dispute official findings?

What do you think "federal law" means when the DoJ lawyers use the term?

You are aware which party got the US involved in Vietnam?

You're a bit young, but ask some of your older brethren their feelings on Reagan. Or just read the pages here. But that's why I used the word 'most.'

Anyway, I'll agree with you that split power does seem to lead to better government. Reagan was at his best with a dem congress, as was Clinton with the repubs. They seem to keep each other honest.

One of my problems, Duck, is living in CA and watching what one unrestrained party has done to this once great state. From school spending to property rights to crime to livability, things are bad and getting worse with the dems in power.

Schwarzenegger, though registered a repub, is not really opposition after trying to reform the public pension system in the state a couple of years ago and having his hat handed to him.

CA is very lib/progressive, with virtually all state positions filed by dems. The left wing of the party is king here, no moderates allowed. And it shows.

This, at the federal level, where the left would be able to cut our military (again) to fund social programs scares the **** out of me.

Property rights, gun rights, free speech. And taxes? No proof? When has the left NOT redistributed income?

List for me the federal law passed by the Congress that politicized hirings and firings violates, and don't just link me to something. You tell me. Don't tell me it's already been stated. Just answer the question.

The point I was arguing against was the claim that this administration has been a disaster, and politicized appointments or firings hardly qualifies, being utterly common in government.

And, by the way, don't introduce five other topics. Just tell me the specific law, passed by Congress which forbids politization of appointments.