Davis Terminated! Arnold becomes Gov...

[84_GT350]

Originally posted by Mr 5 0
[B]Originally posted by 84_GT350 :
Oh, I 'get it' alright. Both you and Snake have a mindless hatred for Republican office holders that you can't help venting. Yeah, I 'get it' very clearly. As for your 'respect': I do ppreciate that but it has no bearing on what I post to anyone. My last post - again, directed at Snakeman - reflected his rather nasty little attack on Arnold Schwarzenegger and President Bush. I responded in kind, as I always do. You previously posted fairly calm messages to me and I replied in the same manner. Post nasty diatribles and you'll receive the same tone from me. Reaping and sowing I believe it's called.

AHHHHHHH! No...apparently you still don't f@cking get it. I DO NOT "mindlessly hate" republican office holders. I simply dislike those who I believe are not up to the task and/or who are doing a bad job. It has NOTHING TO DO WITH POLITICAL AFFILIATION. I don't know how I can make that any clearer so there it is.

All I've seen from you is calling a wildly successful actor with a degree in Economics and the holder of a huge fortune made in business as well as movies - 'a moron' and you insinuate that he ran for his ego which is nonsense, in my opinion, which is what all our exchanges amount to, for the most part. Guess what? Many Americans do want prayer in schools and think your dismissal of a successful president like George W. Bush is based on nothing but silly criticisms like his pronounciation of 'nuclear' and the fact that his father was once president. You willfully ignore his successes in favor of issuing petty insults and you seem to believe that equates to rational argument when it's simply childish name-calling.

His acting career doesn't even have the slightest bearing on his intelect. Next thing ya know you'll be telling me Steven Segal is a genius because he's a successful actor. I'll give a little on the economics degree but a degree doesn't necessarily dictate intelligence either. There's plenty of degree-holding professionals out there who don't have a clue. Perhaps I should've made my reasons for my dismal thoughts of our fair president more clear. Besides having the grammar of a 10 year old and, in my estimation, the intelligence to boot, here's some more reasons. First, our economy is in one of the the worst states it's been in my admittedly short lifetime. People are loosing jobs left and right and I haven't seen a single thing done about it yet (I'll throw in yet...let's see if he can pull something out of his @ss on this one). His "leave no child behind" program does absolutely nothing but put a higher stress on teachers and an economical strain on already wafer thin city and state budgets. So far, I've seen no REAL progress in the "war on terror". Yes, our men and women fought in Afghanistan and are still in Iraq and god only knows wherelse but the fact is we're still supposed to be in a "constant state of alert". IMHO, he's left our people in harm's way way too long and he seems to be just itching for any chance to keep them there. He's also done the diplomatic equivalent of thumbing his nose at anyone who doesn't agree with us like their opinions are invalid...great foreign policy tactic.

Your low opinion of Bush and Gore is yours to hold but don't be so shocked and annoyed when others - like me - challenge you on it. That's how adults interact when they have political opinions so you had better get used to it if you want to go around bashing politicians based on little more than superficial nonsense like their accents.

I'm neither shocked nor annoyed at anything except the fact that you've completely ignored anything I've said regarding my political affiliation (or lack thereof). You still lace your posts with words like "liberal" or "democrat". Guess what...I'M NOT EITHER ONE. Unless you feel like calling me a liberal because it either makes you feel better or because I tend to do my own thinking instead of choking down whatever my political friends tell me to think. I think I cleared the rest of that up in the above paragraph.

'Hate'? Nice try at projection but I wasn't the one who called Governor-elect Schwartzenegger a 'moron' and spews contempt for the president...that would be: you. Want to try again? You did get one thing half-right. The political system in the United States is 'classically' liberal, but that has zero, nada, no relation to the political liberalism we're discussing here, of the current Democrat variety which borders on socialism. I suggest you be more cautious about attempting to lecure anyone you don't know about politics as they may know a whole lot more about it than you've leared in that Poli-Sci class you slept through, based on what you've posted here.

I used the word "hate" simply because that's what your disdain for anyone left of conservative seems closest to. Just because I called Arnold a moron doesn't mean I hate him...can't say I know the man personally. Just because I don't think he's up for the job is a far cry from hating him. Now who's being a projectionist? As far as classical liberalism vs. practical liberalism, I'm quite aware of what you're saying. Just pointing out that in the eyes of the rest of the world we're ALL liberals (yes, that includes you) so I don't see the point in throwing that word around. I also think your views on the democratic party are pretty skewed. I'd say they're pretty far off from socialism. What's your next trick? Call them all pinkos or commies? But if that happens then I call you a reactionary and it just never ends. You know...political parties don't always have to be like two little school kids calling each other names. Like it or not we have a bicameral political system and you're going to have learn to get along with "leftists" or "liberals" or whatever name you want to paint on them or else nothing will ever get done. And I assure you...I've been quite awake in all of my poli-sci classes and my american government classes so don't discount my knowledge just because you don't like what I have to say. I've given you that courtesy and I'd appreciate it returned.

Ooooh, I love it when liberals try to play the psychoanalysis card. Unfortunately, ridicule is what Snakeman's opinions deserve and that's what they got. You want a serious, factual discussion? I gave you that. You want to post stupid name-calling attacks on Republicans you don't like: you get ridicule. Do you still not understand how this works, yet? Pity.

You still speak of republicans and democrats as seperate beasts. In reality they're much more alike than I'm sure you'll ever admit. Everybody wants pretty much the same things done but has different ideas on how to get there. They also resort to the same petty name calling and bickering. When you speak with such intolerance it makes anything you say hard to take seriously.

Are you sure you're really a college student or are you just faking it here? Do you not understand hyperbole. If you don't, look it up. New at political discussions on the internet, perhaps? You really need to learn how to determine and separate a rather clear overstatement meant in jest to a serious remark. Really.

Trust me....if I didn't understand hyperbole I wouldn't have been able to stomach much of what you've said. And honestly...with the remarks you've made I'm honestly not sure when you're serious and when you're not. You know...like when somebody says enough things that are ridiculous or sarcastic you begin to wonder when they're serious and when they're not?

Get a clue. Contrary to what some Professor told you and you swallowed whole because you liked what he said: the United States was founded by serious, religious men who used Christian principles and respected and admired the Judeo-Christian heritage that the folks on the Mayflower brought with them in 1620 and that ran through America in 1776 and has continued to do so up until today.

Yes...FOUNDED. And that's even a stretch if you consider landing in a pretty random place and then chasing/killing off the native peoples and taking whatever you want then enslaving other to do what you don't want to do part of judeo-christian beliefs (unless I missed that part in philosophy of religion. If you have documents that say otherwise please send them my way). It may have been FOUNDED on those principals but it is far from BASED on those principals. Not to be a huge downer...but you're talking about 380 years ago. Last I checked a lot has changed. If we were so judeo-christian there'd be no seperation of church and state as many christians seem to like to cram their message down anyone's throat whether they want to hear it or not (and this is coming from the son of a fairly democratic ex-priest). Simply put, religion holds ABSOLUTELY NO BASIS in modern day politics other than as a platform to win the votes of other church/temple goers or as a finger-pointing campaign like prayer in schools or the ten commandments on judicial buildings. It's all just soundbytes.

No one asked about your 'religious' beiefs here but since you saw fit to inject them: that 'unknowable God' stuff may make you feel better about rejecting religion so you can do as you please without any guilt and I understsnd that but you apparently have no clue whatsoever as to what Christianity is truly about. Your agnosticism is yours to cling to but your ignorant attempts to dismiss Christianity are not appreciated and show little tolerance for others. I tolerate all religions as well as atheists and agnostics but I do not accept what they choose to believe. They feel the same about my religion, of course. No problem, but the bashing of Christianity in America is getting too obvious to ignore and I will oppose that when I see it.

Oi...again...as I stated, I don't "reject" religion. I merely don't see any point in picking one, blindly following it, and calling all those who don't believe what I believe wrong. Please, don't tell me I know nothing about religion. As I said, I'm the son of an ex-priest so I know enough not to know it. I'm just lucky enough my parents (my father especially) was kindly enough not to ram it down my throat. I can see your parents didn't afford you this courtesy. Again...I'm not dismissing christianity...but I'm not embracing it either. Nor will I dismiss any other religion because they can't all be right and there's an excellent possibility that none of them are. I know how it must drive you nuts to know there are others out there with different ideas about god and that you can't stop them. The reason people bash christianity in America is because the spotlight as of late has been on a lot of negative things that the church is committing and then deposing. I'm not sure people are knocking the religion as a whole, but rather generalizing it for bad acts of a few(priests molesting boys, the nomination of an openly gay bishop which, while not bothering me, seems to really piss off 700 Club fans). Trust me, this I get. But I also realize that many of christianity's bigger symbols are simply codes of living that any man of any faith can embrace. Everything from the parables of the bible to the ten commandments. There's nothing special there...just stories and rules that, if you're a good person regardless of your faith, you already live by anyway.

Really? I have never heard a Democrat say a bad word about Bill Clinton and he is held by many Democrats to be the finest president in the last-half of the 20th century. Clinton is often favorably compared to Bush for his oh-so-impressive speaking abilities and of course, the great economy 'he' made possible in the 1990's....a cherished Democrat myth. You apparently don't get out much in political circles and seem to have little understanding of the things on which you try to convince us you actually know something about.

Ok...hopefully this will get across my lack of political loyaties. I totally agree. Clinton was a total @ss who disgraced the job with his very presence. I'll compare him to Bush only in the light that I think they've both done this (unless, as I stated before, Bush can pull something out of @ss real quick). While you may not agree that he made the economic upturn in the 90's possible (I honestly don't care if he did or not...he's still a dickweed), you have to realize that people will give him credit for it. I doubt many of the decisions Bush is handing down are his own, but people will give him credit for those as well. All of the presidents of the last 50 years have only been as good as the people they have doing their thinking for them.

Trust me, die-hard liberals would think you were doing just fine with your mindless name-calling and inane statements here. You're right out of the Democrat playbook only you delude yourself that you're some kind of rugged political independent. Not a chance. As for me: I'm a conservative Christian and I vote Republican. Not ashamed to be partisan one bit and do not apologize for it. We need partisans but hiding behind the 'independent' tree is just being too wishy-washy to take a real stand, politically, while pretending you're an independent thinker. I don't see any of that in your posts, just witless Republican-bashing and name-calling to elected officials.

Apparently I need a copy of this "playbook" of which you speak because you still haven't gotten the fact that I'm neither liberal nor a democrat. Perhaps this post will clarify why I make the distinctions I make and if they don't then I can't help you. For what it's worth, I think staunch political loyalties are a huge mistake. If that's the case then this country is screwed. Nothing will ever get done because of pety difference and partisan bickering not to mention endless philibusters on bills that could help the people of this country. As I said before...the main function of any given government is the protection and well-being of it's citizens. I don't see that with a purely partisan attitude. There need to be people out there like myself and many others who just call it like they see it with no across the line voting and support of initiatives and ideas that are actually good rather than voting on who those ideas are coming from.

Yeah, and there you have the empty liberal version of what the war on terror is about. You are so far wrong that it's rather sad, actually. Here's a crash course in political and foreign policy reality: America is under an unrelenting attack from radical Islamists and it did not begin and end on 9/11/01. The current administration is doing everything in their power to halt the spread of terrorism to America by cutting it off at it's knees in the middle east, where it florishes and grows. Liberals think this is a bad thing, apparently, and do nothing but attack the president and whine about the war in Iraq. The majority of Americans, despite the 24/7 trumpeting of the liberal media that attack Bush, see the war on terror as necessary and vital to our security and way of life. No one wants another 9/11. That the Bush administration is fighting terrorism on many fronts in many ways is clear and that is what is turning Americans away from the always-negative, weak-on-defense Democrats that want to defer our national security to the United Nations and have the approval of France before making a move against our enemies. That foolish attitude and the constant attacks on Bush trun normal people off and probably ensure a Bush re-election in 2004.

This I can semi-agree with. I DO think there needs to be a war on terrorism but I don't think we're doing it the right way. America may be under unrelenting attack from radical groups (although some are in our backyards...not halfway around the world) but soon, if we keep up this trend, the rest of the world will be under unrelenting attacks from US. The only things I can see to criticize here are that we've gotten to the point that we're almost as bad as those we persue...we're (as I stated before) like a drunk in a bar swinging a bottle. Pretty soon it's going to be the diplomatic equivalent of "what the hell are you lookin at France?". I think we may have gone a bit too far on this. It also seems ike some think that now is a good time to get all of those people we just plain don't like. Take Cuba. The last time they were anything near what you could call terrorism was during the missle crisis. But hey...we can go after them because it'll look good to the hispanic community. You may not agree with Castro and his form of government but you can't say they pose any harm to us. Besides...he'll be dead soon and the Cubans can do whatever they want. I also don't believe vague thinly veiled threats being announced helps anyone. "Be on the look out...but we're not sure for what or for whom.". WTF is that? Does that mean that taxi driver who doesn't speak good english is a terrorist or that the nuclear missle cruising over my head is a threat? Plus I honestly don't see a huge reduction in the propensity to commit terrorism or in the chance of another attack. Go into their countries and piss them off even more....sounds like a good plan. Although that's a catch 22...can't exactly sit around and do nothing either. Lesser of two evils I suppose. Also, I'd like to see this liberal media you speak of. I watch quite a bit of Fox News, CNN, and MSNBC and besides those two jack@ss crybabies Donahue and Geraldo I haven't seem much. Unless you count Hannity's retarded step-brother Colmes (sp?)

Basically, I think you have only the smallest understanding of the way America was founded and the political system works. You spout the liberal line very well, then believe you're independent because - what - you didn't like Clinton? It's not personalities that matter, it's policy and ideology, of which you show little grasp. It may surprise you but I've read all the Democrat/liberalpositions many times and seen it debated and have debated it myself, more often than I like to. You see, I educate myself on the issues, the history and ideology behind the issue. You call people 'morons'. Big difference, clearly and painfully obvious. I suggest you either become educated on what you're posting about or quit now while you're ahead as this is going downhill real fast.

You couldn't have illustrated my point of you're inability to grasp anything I've said any better. I consider myself nothing...not an independent, not a democrat, not a republican. If I spout a "liberal line" it's only because I support those things which I believe are right and some (though certainly not all) may happen to be a bit to the left. Whether or not you and I agree has nothing to do with my place in the political spectrum. Your belief that I'm uneducated on issues and simply reduce myself to name calling is yours to keep but I assure you is greatly mislead. Just because I'm a good bit younger than you doesn't mean that I don't keep up with what's happening in our world (remember the word "our"...I'm sure it's been a while since you've used it) and do my reading on it. In fact it's most likely because of that age difference I have the open mindedness to see things for what they are and not for what some party tells me they should be. And before you accuse others of "name calling" I suggest you go back over your posts and count the number of times you used the terms "leftist" or "liberal" or some combination of the two of which I have stated numerous times I am neither. The funny thing is that I think you and I are more alike than you'd care to admit...we just believe in different means to the same ends. Although I'm sure you're inflexible enough to even realize that.

A friendly hint: Compared to Unit 5301, I'm a loveable teddybear. He's very sharp - and very cynical - and never gives an inch so I wouldn't advise even trying to debate him with the meager rhetorical weapons you possess.

This just confuses me...I don't have a clue what that's supposed to mean.