War Eagle 96 10 Posted December 16, 2003 Share Posted December 16, 2003 I'm not going to copy and paste some right-wing article, I just want to know everyone's thoughts. The Democrat Party (it's not "democratIC party", by the way) and the left "in general" has positioned itself to benefit from failures by America. Here's what I mean: If the stock market crashes, we don't reduce the deficit within a year, we never find Osama, Iraq becomes a quagmire, Sadaam escapes, the Sears tower is brought-down killing thousands of people, we never find the WMD that were there before the war, or suicide bombings increase dramatically the libs win! How have they put themselves in a position to benefit from our failure. What happened to pride in America? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger Al 0 Posted December 16, 2003 Share Posted December 16, 2003 What in the world are you smoking? The Democrat Party (it's not "democratIC party", by the way) and the left "in general" has positioned itself to benefit from failures by America. This was a train wreck from the beginning. It is actually called the DemocratIC Party. Or, is the other one really called the Republic Party? How could you think that any large group of Americans, especially as large as the Democrats, could benefit as a whole by the US failing??? If the stock market crashes... ...then Democrats lose money. The companies we work for lose money. If that company happens to be traded in the market, it loses twice!!! we don't reduce the deficit within a year... Fat chance of that happening, anyway. we never find Osama... And, what...he only targets Republicans??? Iraq becomes a quagmire... Too late there. Again, are the people killing soldiers and Iraqis only targeting Republicans??? Are only Republican tax dollars going for the war effort. Are only Republican supporters getting the fat contracts...oh, forget that one. Saddam escapes... If THAT were to happen then I doubt he'd be contributing to Dubya's re-election fund, so we MIGHT benefit from that one. Or, that's just stupid. the Sears tower is brought-down killing thousands of people... I don't see any political gain in that. we never find the WMD that were there before the war... Well, Bush DID base 80% of the war on that one. That won't be America's failure, it'll be George W. Bush's failure. suicide bombings increase dramatically the libs win! I'm getting dizzy...are we almost done? How have they put themselves in a position to benefit from our failure? We only benefit from America's failure in the twisted fantasies of the (hopefully) few. What happened to pride in America? What happened to your common sense? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AURainman 6 Posted December 16, 2003 Share Posted December 16, 2003 I am afraid this post could be based on watching 30 minutes of a democratic political debate. When the debates weren't about slamming Howard Dean and they were about issues, the issues were always how POOR the country was under GWB. The Democrats have been beating the "Bush is a miserable failure" drum for almost a year now. Should, 1. The economy recover 2. Bin Laden be caught 3. the Troops all make it safely home 4. WMD turn up 5. Saddam be fairly tried Would the Dems be crushed? No. Of course not. They are Americans too. However, even YOU have to admit, it would crush their campaign. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CShine 0 Posted December 16, 2003 Share Posted December 16, 2003 War Eagle 96 suffers from a delusion that has become common on the right. He has bought into the ridiculus right-wing spin that says if you simply point out the plainly obvious failings of Bush and the Republicans that that means you hate America and want the whole country to fail. On the contrary, I hate to see botched government policies, and when I see them being botched I want to see them corrected so that America WILL SUCCEED. Some Republicans are just so blinded by their raving hatred of the left that they can't see the truth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DKW 86 7,447 Posted December 16, 2003 Share Posted December 16, 2003 War Eagle 96 suffers from a delusion that has become common on the right. He has bought into the ridiculus right-wing spin that says if you simply point out the plainly obvious failings of Bush and the Republicans that that means you hate America and want the whole country to fail. On the contrary, I hate to see botched government policies, and when I see them being botched I want to see them corrected so that America WILL SUCCEED.Some Republicans are just so blinded by their raving hatred of the left that they can't see the truth. The difference between the right and left is not that great. We pointed out the failings of Clinton. They made excuses. They see problems with Bush. We see him doing some very good things. Things that are just now starting to pay off. They might not, but I bet they will and soon. Our perceptions are different. They see corrections that need to be made to Bush's Adm. We saw corrections that needed to be made to Clinton's and were never made. I see Tiger Al's point. But I have to say I see a bit more that should be allowed to be finished during the next few months. I said a while back tyhat Bush would be gaining in the polls soon. I stand by that. I now see Bush going up against a very liberal Dean that is unliked by many Democrats. I also think that the big story here is Gore and Hillary prepping for the 2008 election. The reason they dont run in 2004? They know they likely lose. The last thing Hillary wants to be seen as is normal, human. She has to be Superwoman. It's her image to the Dems. I think this election is soon over. But do not underestimate the resolve of the Rep to win it all again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bammanmr 0 Posted December 16, 2003 Share Posted December 16, 2003 I also think that the big story here is Gore and Hillary prepping for the 2008 election. You have got to kidding me. That's some of the most pathetic political 'news' I've heard in a while. I guess nothing was learned from the last time a personality-free democratic candidate tried to boost his chances by having a woman as a running mate. Geeez. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
War Eagle 96 10 Posted December 16, 2003 Author Share Posted December 16, 2003 So, I guess no one saw Dean's press conference yesterday. He said, he congratulated Bush and the troops on the capture of Sadaam, BUT he didn't think it would keep American's safer. You guys don't think that statement positioned Dean to look "better" if attacks on troops actually do increase in the coming days. I don't mean he actually wants American's to die... just seems many liberals have positioned themselves so that IF they do die...they'll benefit politically. I really don't think it's that hard to see. And on the economy. You don't think liberal canidates have positioned themselves to hope the economy does not fully recover in the next 12 months, so they can benefit politically and regain power? Everyone knows cutting taxes increases spending and economic growth and increases the govt's influx of cash over time. It worked for Kennedy, Reagan and can everyone see, to the dems detriment, it's workING for Bush? No Al, I know you don't want you retirement savings to disappear, but would you really mind if it droped off, Bush wasn't reelected and it recovered after Dean or someone was elected? It would be okay then wouldn't it? I just don't see why this is such surprising stuff. On terrorism and another 911 type attack on U.S. soil. Yeah, I know specific dem canidates don't specifically want people to die. At the same time, you don't think --with the way many liberal canidates (besides Lieberman maybe) have positioned themselves...that if something aweful were to happen that they would say...see!see!see! Bush doesn't know what he's doing! And you don't think they have positioned themselves to benefit from something terrible? What I'm trying to demonstrate is the liberal's desire to be opposed to everything a conservitive thinks...even if it hurts the country. And Al, the whole "ic" thing at the end of democrat that people always add incorrectly when discussing the party...well, all I can tell you is you're wrong. It's kind of like saying that this country is a Dermocracy, which people often do incorrectly. It's actually a Representative Republic, but smart-people get it wrong all of the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarolinaTiger 0 Posted December 16, 2003 Share Posted December 16, 2003 nothing too new about the post... if bad things happen, the out-of-power party gets to point at it and say things like, "if we were in charge..." if, on the other hand, gooder (sic) things happen than whatever bad things happen, then the out-of-power party really needs issues that a majority of Americans care about. while the dems may have their pet peeves w/ bush & the pubs, thus far none has risen to a level such that a majority of people care about them... and the good Lord knows they've tried to find something to stick. who knows, if they keep repeating something long enough, maybe they'll convince a majority of voters a change needs to be made in '04. but to do that, they'll need something more than what they've got now...and that something may indeed be a 'bad' thing happening...or it may be they find an issue (or issues) that a majority of people care enough about to vote for. the election is still a long way away...much can change between now & then that can swing things in the dems favor for the 04 election...let's just hope it's not a bad thing that does it... ct Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
War Eagle 96 10 Posted December 16, 2003 Author Share Posted December 16, 2003 but to do that, they'll need something more than what they've got now...and that something may indeed be a 'bad' thing happening... Thank you CT! and I want to add that when conservatives are out of power they don't fish for bad things to happen. If democrats would just cut taxes, fight the war on terrorism and increase military while in power...we wouldn't even need republicans! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donutboy 0 Posted December 16, 2003 Share Posted December 16, 2003 I'm not going to copy and paste some right-wing article, I just want to know everyone's thoughts.The Democrat Party (it's not "democratIC party", by the way) and the left "in general" has positioned itself to benefit from failures by America. Here's what I mean: If the stock market crashes, we don't reduce the deficit within a year, we never find Osama, Iraq becomes a quagmire, Sadaam escapes, the Sears tower is brought-down killing thousands of people, we never find the WMD that were there before the war, or suicide bombings increase dramatically the libs win! How have they put themselves in a position to benefit from our failure. What happened to pride in America? Nothing has changed in America. BOTH sides have always used the failures of the other side as a campaign issue rather than talk real issues. It's been shown over and over that the most effective campaign is a negative campaign. Why do you think the Republicans concentrated so hard on painting Al Gore as a liar and someone not to be trusted in 2000? Why do you think the Republicans coined the phrase "days of malaise" for the Jimmy Carter era? For several elections after Carter, the Democrats not only had to beat the Republican candidate but also Jimmy Carter. The Republicans made sure that he remained an issue until Bill Clinton was finally elected and reversed that image of Democratic failure. Bill Clinton himself was demonized by the Republicans even before he took the oath of office. Remember the "Dont Blame Me. I voted for Bush" bumper stickers that sprung up immediately after the 1992 election, so don't blame Democrats for busting Bush's chops at every opportunity today. We're through getting bashed by y'all and then turning the other cheek. BTW, it's Democrats and they belong to the Democratic Party. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
War Eagle 96 10 Posted December 16, 2003 Author Share Posted December 16, 2003 BTW, it's Democrats and they belong to the Democratic Party. Wrong--the word "democratic" describes an action, "to do something in a democratic way." A person is a "democrat" and a party is a "democrat" party. I know they call themselves the "Democratic National Committee," but it wouldn't be the first time they were wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tigermike 3,057 Posted December 16, 2003 Share Posted December 16, 2003 "What's it like being a Democrat, right now..." Is depressing the word you are looking for? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
War Eagle 96 10 Posted December 16, 2003 Author Share Posted December 16, 2003 "What's it like being a Democrat, right now..."Is depressing the word you are looking for? That was all I was looking for! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger Al 0 Posted December 16, 2003 Share Posted December 16, 2003 From Merriam Webster: Main Entry: dem·o·crat·ic Pronunciation: "de-m&-'kra-tik Function: adjective Date: 1602 1 : of, relating to, or favoring democracy 2 often capitalized : of or relating to one of the two major political parties in the U.S. evolving in the early 19th century from the anti-federalists and the Democratic-Republican party and associated in modern times with policies of broad social reform and internationalism 3 : relating to, appealing to, or available to the broad masses of the people <democratic art> 4 : favoring social equality Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donutboy 0 Posted December 16, 2003 Share Posted December 16, 2003 BTW, it's Democrats and they belong to the Democratic Party. Wrong--the word "democratic" describes an action, "to do something in a democratic way." A person is a "democrat" and a party is a "democrat" party. I know they call themselves the "Democratic National Committee," but it wouldn't be the first time they were wrong. Main Entry: dem·o·crat·icPronunciation: "de-m&-'kra-tik Function: adjective Date: 1602 1 : of, relating to, or favoring democracy 2 : often capitalized : of or relating to one of the two major political parties in the U.S. evolving in the early 19th century from the anti-federalists and the Democratic-Republican party and associated in modern times with policies of broad social reform and internationalism 3 : relating to, appealing to, or available to the broad masses of the people <democratic art> 4 : favoring social equality : not snobbish - dem·o·crat·i·cal·ly /-ti-k(&-)lE/ adverb I guess the dictionary is wrong too then. BTW, don't you just love the definition? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
War Eagle 96 10 Posted December 18, 2003 Author Share Posted December 18, 2003 How bout this def: Democratic Party- political party centered on using the police power of govt. to transfer wealth from achievers to non-achievers in order to increase or maintain power...ie "vote buyers" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.