Cheeseburger_in_paradise Posted November 22, 2004 Share Posted November 22, 2004 Lets see, to get her vote, all we have to do is fund those welfare programs she likes that kept her starving friends alive. Wait a second, we did. Oh, I see, we taxed the rich to do it and she doesn't like that. Maybe in her next letter she will tell us how to pay for those programs. We also have to be pro-choice and pro civil unions. Wait a second, we were. We have to be against privatizing social security. Wait a second, we are. We have to be for a higher minimum wage. Wait a second, we are. We have to be against flat taxes and a fed. sales tax. Wait a second, we are. We have to be pro-union. Wait a second, we are. We have to be strong on protecting the environment. Wait a second, we are. We have to be for separation between church and state. Wait a second, we are. We have to be for rolling back the excesses of the Pat. Act. Wait a second, we are. Oh wait, people were rough on the President unlike the kid gloves treatment oh so gentlemanly conduct of the Republican party. Ann Coulter writes a book accusing every democrat in the nation of treason and it is the left that is disrespectful. John Ashcroft accused everyone who thought maybe the Patriot Act went further than necessary of sympathizing with terrorists and it is the left that is vitriolic? Perhaps she is the one person in the world who has not heard of hate spewed by Rush Limbaugh, Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Bob Jones, Dobson, Coulter, Hannity, Liddy or Schlesinger over the last 12 years or so. Yeah, the left finally fought back and started to give as good as its taken, shame on them. We should just do what Bush did to get her vote. Take the exact opposite of every position she holds, eschew her every value, smile a lot, wave some flags and repeat 9/11, 9/11, 9/11. That ought to do it. 129371[/snapback] She expressed seven clear points of what NOT to do. You're still not going to get it, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billsfanone Posted November 22, 2004 Share Posted November 22, 2004 In the states Bush won... with few exceptions he did not win by a landslide. Example, he won Ohio by 2%. In the states Kerry won... with few exceptions he did not win by a landslide. Example he won PA by only 2%. A philosophical gulf between Red & Blue states, or Red & Blue people simply does not exist. In most cases a Red is Red and a Blue is Blue by only a few percentage points. People saying "fyou to the south" or calling "middle America flyover country" really need to get a grip. People referring to the left & right coasts as out of touch need a reality check of their own as well. The people/party who continue to perpetuate the false Red v. Blue argument will have it explode in their face, and lose the next election cycle. 126784[/snapback] Excellent post!!!! I said the same thing, far less eloquently, a few weeks ago... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted November 22, 2004 Share Posted November 22, 2004 She expressed seven clear points of what NOT to do. You're still not going to get it, though. 129392[/snapback] And I pointed out no less than ten different issues in which the democrats reflected exactly her views. It didn't matter to her. In your hurry to agree with her, you are not exactly using a critical eye for anything she says. Maybe if you read her post as closely as you read mine, you might see some of the contradictions which are so obvious I can't believe you are missing them. I can only conclude that you are just ignoring them as they might get in the way of your already made up mind. Her 6th and 7th point for instance complain about Bush haters and post election anger at the red states. Where is the balance? If this upsets her, then why was the same and even worse from Bob Jones, Dobson, Limbaugh, Hannity, Coulter, Schlesinger etc, etc, etc, etc, etc not enough to keep her from voting for the party she whose platform she says she rejects almost in total? That doesn't seem to you to be at all inconsistent? Tell me, since I don't get it and you do, why this is not inconsistent? Her 4th point, well Kerry said over and over and over and over that he wouldn't put our national security in the hands of any other nation. Not good enough for her. What was he supposed to do? Slice his palm with a switchblade and swear a blood oath? You don't see her comment that she learned in "high school" that you don't put stock in what other people think to be just a tiny bit dismissive and naive? Kerry wasn't talking about smoking a joint because your friends are, he was talking about having allies in a wartime effort. Any fool who has even a vague understanding of military history understands that all things considered, it is better to have allies than to not have allies. She is worried about taxing the rich yet she thinks all those programs that helped her poor friends were worthwhile. Again, you don't see an inconsistency there? She isn't explaining her vote to us, she is explaining it to herself so she doesn't have to take responsibility for the consequences of her vote, the election of a President and a party with which she entirely disagrees. I agree with her on one thing, that kind of sophistry really does need explaining. I can see why she felt the need to draft an open letter explaining why, although it looks on the surface that she is an idiot who voted against he own views, it is really the fault of the democrats for not finding a way to appeal to her contradictions. See, Bush isn't her fault and if Roe gets overturned and all this other stuff she does not want to see happen happens, these "dumbest ideas ever", it aint her fault now is it? She needs to take some personal responsibility, she voted for Bush, fair and square. I can live with it. So should she instead of rationalizing it and discovering that surprise, surprise, turns out it isn't her fault after all. She is no snake handling evangelical. She just votes like one so pardon me if I don't really care that deep down there is a difference. She is like all these "moderate republicans" who are pro-choice, against banning gay marriage and support separation between church and state. Who cares if they are or are not? Those are not issues important enough to them to effect their voting so who cares if they are pro-choice or not? Who cares if they are gay lovers or gay bashers? The result is the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted November 22, 2004 Share Posted November 22, 2004 wave some flags and repeat 9/11, 9/11, 9/11. That ought to do it. 129371[/snapback] seemed to be more successful than shouting Haliburton! or Flightsuit! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted November 22, 2004 Share Posted November 22, 2004 seemed to be more successful than shouting Haliburton! or Flightsuit! 129648[/snapback] Well to be fair they did toss in a "liberal" helping of "family values, family values and family values" along with "flip-flopper, flip-floppr, flip-flopper" to name just a few choice morsels. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Satan Posted November 22, 2004 Share Posted November 22, 2004 Well to be fair they did toss in a "liberal" helping of "family values, family values and family values" along with "flip-flopper, flip-floppr, flip-flopper" to name just a few choice morsels. 129665[/snapback] You need to find another voter registration project to work off some of your hostilities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cheeseburger_in_paradise Posted November 22, 2004 Share Posted November 22, 2004 And I pointed out no less than ten different issues in which the democrats reflected exactly her views. It didn't matter to her. Now you're starting to get it. In your hurry to agree with her, you are not exactly using a critical eye for anything she says. Maybe if you read her post as closely as you read mine, you might see some of the contradictions which are so obvious I can't believe you are missing them. I can only conclude that you are just ignoring them as they might get in the way of your already made up mind. Not agreeing, just understanding. Her 6th and 7th point for instance complain about Bush haters and post election anger at the red states. Where is the balance? If this upsets her, then why was the same and even worse from Bob Jones, Dobson, Limbaugh, Hannity, Coulter, Schlesinger etc, etc, etc, etc, etc not enough to keep her from voting for the party she whose platform she says she rejects almost in total? That doesn't seem to you to be at all inconsistent? Tell me, since I don't get it and you do, why this is not inconsistent? Dobson? You got to be kidding. I don't think any of those, except for maybe Coulter sunk to the same level as the Bush haters. But that's just me. Her 4th point, well Kerry said over and over and over and over that he wouldn't put our national security in the hands of any other nation. Not good enough for her. What was he supposed to do? Slice his palm with a switchblade and swear a blood oath? You don't see her comment that she learned in "high school" that you don't put stock in what other people think to be just a tiny bit dismissive and naive? Kerry wasn't talking about smoking a joint because your friends are, he was talking about having allies in a wartime effort. Any fool who has even a vague understanding of military history understands that all things considered, it is better to have allies than to not have allies. We had allies. Everyone that participated in Gulf War I, except for France. Plus some new ones that were formally part of the Soviet Union. Germany didn't help with Gulf War I. She is worried about taxing the rich yet she thinks all those programs that helped her poor friends were worthwhile. Again, you don't see an inconsistency there? And those programs are not going away because Bush is President. She isn't explaining her vote to us, she is explaining it to herself so she doesn't have to take responsibility for the consequences of her vote, the election of a President and a party with which she entirely disagrees. I agree with her on one thing, that kind of sophistry really does need explaining. I can see why she felt the need to draft an open letter explaining why, although it looks on the surface that she is an idiot who voted against he own views, it is really the fault of the democrats for not finding a way to appeal to her contradictions. Illustrates her point perfectly. She doesn't agree with you about everything, so she is an idiot. I love it. See, Bush isn't her fault and if Roe gets overturned and all this other stuff she does not want to see happen happens, these "dumbest ideas ever", it aint her fault now is it? She needs to take some personal responsibility, she voted for Bush, fair and square. I can live with it. So should she instead of rationalizing it and discovering that surprise, surprise, turns out it isn't her fault after all. She is no snake handling evangelical. She just votes like one so pardon me if I don't really care that deep down there is a difference. She is like all these "moderate republicans" who are pro-choice, against banning gay marriage and support separation between church and state. Who cares if they are or are not? Those are not issues important enough to them to effect their voting so who cares if they are pro-choice or not? Who cares if they are gay lovers or gay bashers? The result is the same. 129642[/snapback] Did you know Billy Graham is a life long Democrat? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted November 23, 2004 Share Posted November 23, 2004 Did you know Billy Graham is a life long Democrat? 129719[/snapback] So is Zel Miller, your point? All I am doing is taking her at her own words. She says she is pro-choice, she says she wants gays to be married yet she voted for the guy who wants to end choice and keep gays from getting married, even if he has to amend the Constitution to do it. I think voting for someone who you freely admit does not reflect the vast majority of your views is stupid. Her entire letter was an attempt to explain that somehow, despite all appearances to the contrary, that made sense. I don't agree. I find her explanations and excuses to be self contradictory and naive. Take the allies thing, we at least seem to agree that having allies is better than not having them. You say we had as many nations as we did in the Gulf War, she didn't. I don't know if 2 interpreters from Swaziland replaces a few thousand troops but if that is your measure of an ally, fine. When it comes to combat troops it was us, us, us, us and a the British. Was that the case in the Gulf War? I think that comparison is laughable but she didn't even manage that. Instead, her argument was some smart alek comment about what she learned in High School. If she thinks we did enough to get allies fine, that would be an educated opinion but it sounds to me that she just swallowed the Bush BS about "handing over our foreign policy to France". We will just have to disagree about Hannity and Limbaugh and the rest. You haven't had the pleasure of being called a baby killing, cowardly, immoral, unAmerican, femminazi loving, tree hugging, commie sodomite by them every day for the last 12 years or so. Live through a decade or so of dehumanizing deligitimizing rhetoric like that and come to me crying like a baby girl about the terrible Bush bashing that went on for all of 3 months. Boo-freaking-hoo. Maybe you didn't read Bob Jone's letter to Bush about the pagans who hate Christ? Maybe you missed Falwell saying that the 9/11 attacks were God's punishment of America for its indulgence of homosexuals? Perhaps you don't recall Limbaugh telling the NAACP to "get a liquor store and practice robberies" or when he called Chelsea the "White House dog"? Were you not around when Savage called asians "little soy eaters" or told a caller "you should only get Aids and die, you pervert." Tell me again about the left being vitriolic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted November 23, 2004 Share Posted November 23, 2004 So is Zel Miller, your point? All I am doing is taking her at her own words. She says she is pro-choice, she says she wants gays to be married yet she voted for the guy who wants to end choice and keep gays from getting married, even if he has to amend the Constitution to do it. I think voting for someone who you freely admit does not reflect the vast majority of your views is stupid. Her entire letter was an attempt to explain that somehow, despite all appearances to the contrary, that made sense. I don't agree. I find her explanations and excuses to be self contradictory and naive. Take the allies thing, we at least seem to agree that having allies is better than not having them. You say we had as many nations as we did in the Gulf War, she didn't. I don't know if 2 interpreters from Swaziland replaces a few thousand troops but if that is your measure of an ally, fine. When it comes to combat troops it was us, us, us, us and a the British. Was that the case in the Gulf War? I think that comparison is laughable but she didn't even manage that. Instead, her argument was some smart alek comment about what she learned in High School. If she thinks we did enough to get allies fine, that would be an educated opinion but it sounds to me that she just swallowed the Bush BS about "handing over our foreign policy to France". We will just have to disagree about Hannity and Limbaugh and the rest. You haven't had the pleasure of being called a baby killing, cowardly, immoral, unAmerican, femminazi loving, tree hugging, commie sodomite by them every day for the last 12 years or so. Live through a decade or so of dehumanizing deligitimizing rhetoric like that and come to me crying like a baby girl about the terrible Bush bashing that went on for all of 3 months. Boo-freaking-hoo. Maybe you didn't read Bob Jone's letter to Bush about the pagans who hate Christ? Maybe you missed Falwell saying that the 9/11 attacks were God's punishment of America for its indulgence of homosexuals? Perhaps you don't recall Limbaugh telling the NAACP to "get a liquor store and practice robberies" or when he called Chelsea the "White House dog"? Were you not around when Savage called asians "little soy eaters" or told a caller "you should only get Aids and die, you pervert." Tell me again about the left being vitriolic. 129833[/snapback] There's just nothing better than making the same argument in the same thread 5 or 6 different times. You feeling OK? I especially liked the "allies" part of it. Let's keep pretending Russia, China, France, and Germany were actually morally opposed to the war. Because they're like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted November 23, 2004 Share Posted November 23, 2004 There's just nothing better than making the same argument in the same thread 5 or 6 different times. You feeling OK? I especially liked the "allies" part of it. Let's keep pretending Russia, China, France, and Germany were actually morally opposed to the war. Because they're like that. 129841[/snapback] I could care less why they were not part of the war effort. That is not the point really. She was critical of the idea of allies. Prefectly sound criticisms of Kerry could have been made that he wasn't going to have any more luck than Bush did in getting any help from anybody anywhere. Also, the one you make that these allies are morally bankrupt. There are plenty of good arguments to make on this issue. She didn't make them though. She just coughs up some bromide about learning in High School that you don't put too much stock in what other people think. Sorry, I wasn't as impressed as those who cheered her letter. Sometimes the nail isn't driven on the first strike, you need to drop the hammer until its done. I have made the point in other threads that there is a change the democrats need to make but it doesn't have anything to do with the so called moral values crap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts