3
   

Bush supporters' aftermath thread II

 
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Feb, 2006 01:51 pm
Nimh

Spot on, methinks.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Feb, 2006 01:51 pm
Which leads to the question: Did any of the Kings complain about any "pimping"?
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Feb, 2006 01:52 pm
Exactly! Thanks Nimh.

Plus, your quote line is great, I bet most people don't get it.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Feb, 2006 01:52 pm
Thomas wrote:
Which leads to the question: Did any of the Kings complain about any "pimping"?


They have not.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Feb, 2006 01:57 pm
thomas

If you can download any of the funeral, I recommend it. An incredible thing filled with joy and sadness and humor and color. Even George Bush Sr. was a hoot, as loose and funny as I've ever seen him. Clinton was at his best too. And the singing and the poetry...incredible stuff.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Feb, 2006 01:57 pm
dyslexia wrote:
Lash is like totally Goth.

So? Never seen a black Goth?




Ehm...


Me neither, really. Whassup with dat?
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Feb, 2006 01:59 pm
nimh wrote:
dyslexia wrote:
Lash is like totally Goth.

So? Never seen a black Goth?




Ehm...


Me neither, really. Whassup with dat?


In the "down is up" mode. The closest I've seen is a negative I have of dyslexia.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Feb, 2006 02:02 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
The thing is, its really hard to imagine that anybody can disagree with her who is at least reasonably educated on current events or who has any capability for intellectual honesty.

And according to Foxfyre, Ann Coulter is a benchmark of education and intellectual honesty.

Yes, really, she really said that.

Shocked Shocked Confused Razz Laughing Laughing

Talk about outside the mainstream ;-)
0 Replies
 
Anon-Voter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Feb, 2006 02:06 pm
nimh wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
The thing is, its really hard to imagine that anybody can disagree with her who is at least reasonably educated on current events or who has any capability for intellectual honesty.

And according to Foxfyre, Ann Coulter is a benchmark of education and intellectual honesty.

Yes, really, she really said that.

Shocked Shocked Confused Razz Laughing Laughing

Talk about outside the mainstream ;-)


Does that surprise you about Foxfyre??

Anon
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Feb, 2006 02:09 pm
nimh wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
The thing is, its really hard to imagine that anybody can disagree with her who is at least reasonably educated on current events or who has any capability for intellectual honesty.

And according to Foxfyre, Ann Coulter is a benchmark of education and intellectual honesty.

Yes, really, she really said that.

Shocked Shocked Confused Razz Laughing Laughing

Talk about outside the mainstream ;-)


Okay Mr. 'In-the-Mainstream", find the statement or paragraph presented as fact in the piece I posted earlier today and tell me where it is wrong, incorrect, or out-of-the-mainstream. Take your time. I'll wait.
0 Replies
 
JustWonders
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Feb, 2006 02:48 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Quote:
Cyclops - the Democrats have no credibility on security. None. They are simply not serious. They are anti-Bush.


What do you mean when you say this? It sounds like what the Republicans like to call a Known Fact(tm)! You can't fall back on Defense as the trump card every election, especially when your party is screwing it up so badly.

Cycloptichorn


Cyclops - perhaps you missed the article in the NYTimes yesterday (someone posted it somewhere in this forum) pointing out that the Democrats are basically already pondering why they blew '06 and the elections are still months away. If you can drag yourself away from the talking points of DU or dailykos, you'd realize that the first sentence of that article pretty much says it all. The Democrats have failed - absolutely no-holds barred failed - to come up with anything on their own to attract voters.

Quote:
Democrats said they had not yet figured out how to counter the White House's long assault on their national security credentials. And they said their opportunities to break through to voters with a coherent message on domestic and foreign policy ?- should they settle on one ?- were restricted by the lack of an established, nationally known leader to carry their message this fall.


What part of "Should they settle on one" do you not understand? It's not that they don't have a nationally known leader to carry their message - it's that they DON'T HAVE A MESSAGE.

The whole NSA controversy will particularly be a political loser for you Democrats and lefties. And don't start up with all that baloney about how we're scared and Dubya is playing on our fears. It's the exact opposite. It's precisely because of the president's strong stance that the vast majority of us are not afraid to go about business-as-usual, including traveling the nation/world. It's the Democrats who are scared - scared they won't be able to come up with a PITHY AGENDA for their '06 and '08 campaigns. Hilarious, because you either have one or you don't. It's not something you can "find".

Hating Bush and being goofy on national security isn't "pithy".
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Feb, 2006 03:02 pm
Staying away from talking points is good advice, JW. But you never take it yourself. Your last post constitutes precisely what are precisely the main talking points of the RNC..."Dems have no strategy, no message, no leader". "Hating Bush isn't a policy". "Dems are weak on defence." We see it all repeated regularly by you, by others here, daily on Fox, and hourly on all the main right wing sites.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Feb, 2006 03:03 pm
To underline JW's good observations, here's a piece from the LA Times, the Left coast equivalent of the NY Times and pretty much say ing the same thing. It even references the NY Times piece I posted yesterday:


One sorry mess of a party
by Jonah Goldberg
LA Times
February 9, 2005

AND FOR ANOTHER week, the Democrats managed to hold themselves hostage to, well, themselves.

Item 1: Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, the wunderkind of the Democratic Party who, we've been told, not only transcends race, partisanship and personal ambition but actually sails above such concerns like the Winged Victory of Samothrace, received his first shellacking this week by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.).

ADVERTISEMENT

McCain says Obama promised to join in a bipartisan lobbying reform effort but reneged in favor of backing the Democrats' more partisan effort. So McCain ?- the dashboard saint of bipartisan reform efforts ?- turned Obama into epistolary roadkill.

In an archly sarcastic letter, McCain apologized for not realizing that Obama was more interested in "self-interested partisan posturing," adding that "I'm embarrassed to admit that after all these years in politics, I failed to interpret your previous assurances as typical gloss."

Item 2: Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) returned a campaign contribution from Wal-Mart while gladly pocketing cash from Paul Newman, Reese Witherspoon and other Hollywood liberals. She even took a wad of dough from Jerry Springer, who made his fortune proving that nothing is too vile to broadcast. Clinton served on Wal-Mart's board from 1986 until 1992, and in that time the company was hardly any more "worker-friendly" ?- to borrow a liberal term ?- than it is today. It's just a bigger company now, with the same policies she oversaw. When asked if she ever fought for "progressive" policies when she was a director of the company, she replied, "Well, you know, I, that was a long time ago, I have to rememberÂ…. "

Item 3: The New York Times ran a state-of-the-art Democratic self-recrimination story, highlighting the party's inability to make political hay from such supposedly obvious Republican vulnerabilities as Hurricane Katrina and the National Security Agency wiretapping. The article was festooned like a Christmas tree with baubles of self-doubt and ornaments of denial hanging from every branch: the Democrats are "frustrated" by the party's "tangled" problems and their inability to exploit this "pivotal moment," etc.

Some Democrats are furious that their party doesn't have its own ideas. Other say they do have ideas, they're just keeping them secret for now. That sounds a lot like the high school geek who insists that his girlfriend is really hot but lives in an undisclosed location in Canada.

Others say agendas aren't that useful anyway. "People said, 'You can't beat something with nothing,' " House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) told the Times, even though Democrats did exactly that on Social Security. "I feel very confident about where we are," she assured the paper.

And all this happened by Wednesday ?- and leaves out Jimmy Carter's shabby and even mildly ghoulish exploitation of Coretta Scott King's funeral.

"A man may take to drink because he feels himself to be a failure, but then fail all the more completely because he drinks," George Orwell once observed. This seems to capture nicely the dynamic of the Democrats' shame spiral. Success in politics is measured by winning elections. On this score, Democrats have been failures for a while now. In response, they're getting drunk on a brew of partisanship and Bush-hating.

It is amazing how obvious ?- OK, even trite ?- is the Democratic plight. Democrats need the money and energy of their "progressive," blog-addicted base, but in order to get it, they turn off mainstream voters. In other words, they can't get escape velocity.

Clinton's Wal-Mart refund is a perfect illustration not merely of her hypocrisy but of the quicksand she is now in. She thinks it's a winning message to say she's too good for Wal-Mart's money but not Hollywood's. That's not exactly red-state savvy.

Obama allowed himself to be seduced by the elixir of Democratic self-righteousness at the expense of making real headway on lobbying reform and hitching his wagon to the most popular politician in America.

And Pelosi has become enamored with the idea that one needn't be for anything, as long as one is opposed to Bush. No doubt that's the feedback she's getting in her echo chamber.

In the Senate, Minority Leader Harry Reid has infuriated Republican moderates such as Arlen Specter more than GOP conservatives by obstructing legislation and hurling partisan insults. This is exactly the opposite strategy required for clawing out of the hole the Democrats are in. But anti-Republicanism trumps everything. And that's a roadmap for the Democrats to go ever deeper into the wilderness.
SOURCE
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Feb, 2006 03:04 pm
Jonah...a key player in the socialist press.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Feb, 2006 03:10 pm
Really? I haven't read his credentials quite like that, but if that's the case, you ought to really like him then.
0 Replies
 
JustWonders
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Feb, 2006 03:13 pm
blatham wrote:
Staying away from talking points is good advice, JW. But you never take it yourself. Your last post constitutes precisely what are precisely the main talking points of the RNC..."Dems have no strategy, no message, no leader". "Hating Bush isn't a policy". "Dems are weak on defence." We see it all repeated regularly by you, by others here, daily on Fox, and hourly on all the main right wing sites.


Since when are the NYTimes and USAToday "talking points" for the GOP?

When the Democrats have a cohesive message or a particularly good choice to demonstrate on national security (besides yelling and snark) I'll be sure to pay attention.
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Feb, 2006 03:19 pm
blatham wrote:
Staying away from talking points is good advice, JW. But you never take it yourself. Your last post constitutes precisely what are precisely the main talking points of the RNC..."Dems have no strategy, no message, no leader". "Hating Bush isn't a policy". "Dems are weak on defence." We see it all repeated regularly by you, by others here, daily on Fox, and hourly on all the main right wing sites.


Then please tell me,because I am truly curious...
What is the dems message for the country?
What is their platform?
What are their plans and goals if they regain power?

I have not heard one articulated by any Dem Leader,and I truly am curious.

What REASON is there to vote FOR them.instead of AGAINST the republicans?
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Feb, 2006 03:21 pm
JustWonders wrote:
blatham wrote:
Staying away from talking points is good advice, JW. But you never take it yourself. Your last post constitutes precisely what are precisely the main talking points of the RNC..."Dems have no strategy, no message, no leader". "Hating Bush isn't a policy". "Dems are weak on defence." We see it all repeated regularly by you, by others here, daily on Fox, and hourly on all the main right wing sites.


Since when are the NYTimes and USAToday "talking points" for the GOP?

When the Democrats have a cohesive message or a particularly good choice to demonstrate on national security (besides yelling and snark) I'll be sure to pay attention.


No you won't. Other than to figure out some tact to put it (whatever it is) in a negative light. You're a dyed-in-the-wool Republican. The chances of you voting Dem are what? That's fine, so far as it goes, but we might as well be honest about what is up and what is down.

"Talking points" aren't publications, of course. They are simple, easy to grasp bits of narrative which political strategists work very hard at formulating and getting into as many high profile outlets as possible.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Feb, 2006 03:23 pm
mysteryman wrote:
blatham wrote:
Staying away from talking points is good advice, JW. But you never take it yourself. Your last post constitutes precisely what are precisely the main talking points of the RNC..."Dems have no strategy, no message, no leader". "Hating Bush isn't a policy". "Dems are weak on defence." We see it all repeated regularly by you, by others here, daily on Fox, and hourly on all the main right wing sites.


Then please tell me,because I am truly curious...
What is the dems message for the country?
What is their platform?
What are their plans and goals if they regain power?

I have not heard one articulated by any Dem Leader,and I truly am curious.

What REASON is there to vote FOR them.instead of AGAINST the republicans?


Like JW, you don't have any reason to vote Dem. And we both know you won't. You could quite easily find the information you rhetorically seek but it isn't territory you have any interest in investigating.
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Feb, 2006 03:26 pm
blatham wrote:
mysteryman wrote:
blatham wrote:
Staying away from talking points is good advice, JW. But you never take it yourself. Your last post constitutes precisely what are precisely the main talking points of the RNC..."Dems have no strategy, no message, no leader". "Hating Bush isn't a policy". "Dems are weak on defence." We see it all repeated regularly by you, by others here, daily on Fox, and hourly on all the main right wing sites.


Then please tell me,because I am truly curious...
What is the dems message for the country?
What is their platform?
What are their plans and goals if they regain power?

I have not heard one articulated by any Dem Leader,and I truly am curious.

What REASON is there to vote FOR them.instead of AGAINST the republicans?


Like JW, you don't have any reason to vote Dem. And we both know you won't. You could quite easily find the information you rhetorically seek but it isn't territory you have any interest in investigating.


Oh really,you know what and how I vote?
I dont vote party,I vote ideas.
I have said it before,and I will say it again,just for you...

IF EVAN BAYH,A DEMOCRAT FROM INDIANA,RUNS,I WILL VOTE FOR HIM!!!

Is that plain enough for you?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2026 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 03/03/2026 at 08:50:20