Put the Shoe on the Other Foot

[LegalEagle 22]

If we had a Democratic president and Democratic congress, and the world was exactly as it is today, what would the Republicans be saying?

My point is that although we are warned of "spin," both parties do it relentlessly. We have got to learn to tune that out and think for ourselves.

When I hear Liddy or Steve Gill or Shawn Hannity talk it amazes me that they are so biased yet (with a straight face) claim that others are "spinning" and they are just pointing out the truth. What would those cats be saying today under my hypothetical question?

THINK PEOPLE - THIS SHOULD BE OUR COUNTRY AND WE SHOULD NOT MINDLESSLY FOLLOW ANY PROPAGANDA!

[CarolinaTiger 0]

i think, therefore i am -- CT circa 2004

does it surprise you that people gravitate toward people who think as they do?

[TrueBlue72 0]

You ask a hypothetical question, but one that is highly improbable. If the dems were in control of the nation, they would still be wringing their hands and trying to figure out a response to 9/11. They might have lobbed a few cruise missles at the Taliban, but only if the poll numbers were going down and they were very worried about the upcoming election. Yes, the Republicans would be talking, but surely not about the same issues!

As a former truly independent voter, I have completely sworn off anything to do with the dems until they change direction and leadership. It seems that the top leadership of the democratic party are hoping and praying for bad things to happen to the US, solely for their political gain. I know some will say its all about politics, but someone has to put the good of the American people ahead of their politics! For the last 20 years, it has seemed to me that the Republicans have done a much better job at that than the Democrats.

[LegalEagle 22]

You ask a hypothetical question, but one that is highly improbable. If the dems were in control of the nation, they would still be wringing their hands and trying to figure out a response to 9/11. They might have lobbed a few cruise missles at the Taliban, but only if the poll numbers were going down and they were very worried about the upcoming election. Yes, the Republicans would be talking, but surely not about the same issues!

As a former truly independent voter, I have completely sworn off anything to do with the dems until they change direction and leadership. It seems that the top leadership of the democratic party are hoping and praying for bad things to happen to the US, solely for their political gain. I know some will say its all about politics, but someone has to put the good of the American people ahead of their politics! For the last 20 years, it has seemed to me that the Republicans have done a much better job at that than the Democrats.

As a former and current independent voter, I respectfully disagree.

By the way, I anticipated the "it would never be this way under the Dems" response, but I hope you can see that the resort to that response is an excuse to avoid the import of my query.

[CarolinaTiger 0]

If we had a Democratic president and Democratic congress, and the world was exactly as it is today, what would the Republicans be saying?

is the import of your query?

i imagine the dem constituents would be irate w/ the democratic leadership, and the republicans would be more or less pleased w/ the response to the attack & to terror that the administration had put forth.

for it to be any different would mean people are blindly partisan, and we all know that isn't the case.

aren't hypothetical questions great!

[CCTAU 3,369]

You ask a hypothetical question, but one that is highly improbable.  If the dems were in control of the nation, they would still be wringing their hands and trying to figure out a response to 9/11.  They might have lobbed a few cruise missles at the Taliban, but only if the poll numbers were going down and they were very worried about the upcoming election.  Yes, the Republicans would be talking, but surely not about the same issues!

As a former truly independent voter, I have completely sworn off anything to do with the dems until they change direction and leadership.  It seems that the top leadership of the democratic party are hoping and praying for bad things to happen to the US, solely for their political gain.  I know some will say its all about politics, but someone has to put the good of the American people ahead of their politics!  For the last 20 years, it has seemed to me that the Republicans have done a much better job at that than the Democrats.

As a former and current independent voter, I respectfully disagree.

By the way, I anticipated the "it would never be this way under the Dems" response, but I hope you can see that the resort to that response is an excuse to avoid the import of my query.

Legal speak?

The bottom line is that republicans feel the need to have a strong country and liberals/demoncrats think that we should just live and let live. We found out on 9/11 that if we take the liberal attitude it will be live and let die. Just so long as its not me dying.

I like the republican view better. You may not. That's why demoncrats have the freedom sell out their neighbor just so they can be happy.

[LegalEagle 22]

You ask a hypothetical question, but one that is highly improbable.  If the dems were in control of the nation, they would still be wringing their hands and trying to figure out a response to 9/11.  They might have lobbed a few cruise missles at the Taliban, but only if the poll numbers were going down and they were very worried about the upcoming election.  Yes, the Republicans would be talking, but surely not about the same issues!

As a former truly independent voter, I have completely sworn off anything to do with the dems until they change direction and leadership.  It seems that the top leadership of the democratic party are hoping and praying for bad things to happen to the US, solely for their political gain.  I know some will say its all about politics, but someone has to put the good of the American people ahead of their politics!  For the last 20 years, it has seemed to me that the Republicans have done a much better job at that than the Democrats.

As a former and current independent voter, I respectfully disagree.

By the way, I anticipated the "it would never be this way under the Dems" response, but I hope you can see that the resort to that response is an excuse to avoid the import of my query.

Legal speak?

The bottom line is that republicans feel the need to have a strong country and liberals/demoncrats think that we should just live and let live. We found out on 9/11 that if we take the liberal attitude it will be live and let die. Just so long as its not me dying.

I like the republican view better. You may not. That's why demoncrats have the freedom sell out their neighbor just so they can be happy.

Sorry, guess I'm ignorant. I thought we had a Republican President and Congress when the 9/11 attack occurred. In fact, I could have sworn they had been in office for over a year when that happened. Boy if Clinton hadn't had oral sex in the White House, it would never of happened.

[CCTAU 3,369]

You ask a hypothetical question, but one that is highly improbable.  If the dems were in control of the nation, they would still be wringing their hands and trying to figure out a response to 9/11.  They might have lobbed a few cruise missles at the Taliban, but only if the poll numbers were going down and they were very worried about the upcoming election.  Yes, the Republicans would be talking, but surely not about the same issues!

As a former truly independent voter, I have completely sworn off anything to do with the dems until they change direction and leadership.  It seems that the top leadership of the democratic party are hoping and praying for bad things to happen to the US, solely for their political gain.  I know some will say its all about politics, but someone has to put the good of the American people ahead of their politics!  For the last 20 years, it has seemed to me that the Republicans have done a much better job at that than the Democrats.

As a former and current independent voter, I respectfully disagree.

By the way, I anticipated the "it would never be this way under the Dems" response, but I hope you can see that the resort to that response is an excuse to avoid the import of my query.

Legal speak?

The bottom line is that republicans feel the need to have a strong country and liberals/demoncrats think that we should just live and let live. We found out on 9/11 that if we take the liberal attitude it will be live and let die. Just so long as its not me dying.

I like the republican view better. You may not. That's why demoncrats have the freedom sell out their neighbor just so they can be happy.

Sorry, guess I'm ignorant. I thought we had a Republican President and Congress when the 9/11 attack occurred. In fact, I could have sworn they had been in office for over a year when that happened. Boy if Clinton hadn't had oral sex in the White House, it would never of happened.

I thought it was more like 8 months. But then again, I'm no lawyer?

And yes, If Clinton had been as concerned about terrorism as he was about geting a BJ, then it might not have happened. We've already established that. Let's move on.

[TrueBlue72 0]

I wouldn't characterize you as ignorant, LegalEagle just out of touch with reality, LOL!!!

President Bush had been in office less than 8 months on 9/11 and was having a very difficult time getting his appointees for many critical security positions confirmed due to the democrats in congress. They actually used the filibuster tactic to avoid confirming new appointees!!!!! It takes more than 8 months to overcome 8 years that the dems were dismantling our national security operations and building walls between our law enforcement branches.

Clinton was offered Bin Laden head on a platter and refused, even thought he knew that Al Queda was a threat.

So, of course Bush was responsible for allowing the attacks to happen!!!!! Its very unlikely that the majority of the American people will be hoodwinked into believing that!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Tiger Al 0]

I wouldn't characterize you as ignorant, LegalEagle just out of touch with reality, LOL!!!

President Bush had been in office less than 8 months on 9/11 and was having a very difficult time getting his appointees for many critical security positions confirmed due to the democrats in congress.  They actually used the filibuster tactic to avoid confirming new appointees!!!!!  It takes more than 8 months to overcome 8 years that the dems were dismantling our national security operations and building walls between our law enforcement branches. 

Clinton was offered Bin Laden head on a platter and refused, even thought he knew that Al Queda was a threat. 

So, of course Bush was responsible for allowing the attacks to happen!!!!!  Its very unlikely that the majority of the American people will be hoodwinked into believing that!!!!!!!!!!!!

Ladies and gentlemen, are you ready to play...The Blame Game!!! You know how it works: We gather together a group of pompous, self-aggrandizing hypocrites who whip out that accusatory finger of guilt and gladly point out exactly who's to blame for your lot in life, chosen from an extensive list known as, "Anyone but us!" Let's meet the scapegoats, shall we?

The favorite target of all right wing-nuts is former President Bill Clinton. His two terms were wracked with important controversies ranging from smoking pot as a college student to firing thieves in the travel office to having oral sex with someone other than his wife. Yes, blaming Clinton will always score our contestants points but the value of those points is minimal since he's such an easy mark. Remember, any good that came from his administration was always the result of the republican-led Congress and any bad was Clinton's fault. Here's some examples: Corporate scandals-Clinton's fault. Dot-com bust-Clinton. Economic prosperity-Republican Congress. Economic failures-Clinton. Reduction of military personnel-Clinton*. *Can be republican Congress, though, depending on the context of the argument. So, blame him early and often to increase your score!

Following Clinton in a close second is the Democratic Party. The scourge of the nation, this group can easily be blamed for anything and everything because, with the exception of Sen. Zell Miller, who only plays a Democrat, they are more driven by corporate sponsorships than NASCAR and are, as a result, "out of touch" with the problems of this country. Points are only slightly greater than Clinton's due to the process known as "The Miller Quotient" which, to the chagrin of conservatives, must be considered. Any variations on the names "Democratic Party" "Democrats" and "Liberals" will score an automatic point and usually increases the weight of the blame. To score, always accentuate the negative and deny or transfer the responsibility for positives to an undeserving republican and you're sure to make it to the next round.

Next, "Big Government." We're not sure exactly what this means, but when used strategically it will score points, especially when connected with social programs. Attaching a "Clinton Rider" to any blame of "Big Government" increases its' point value by 50%. Care must be exercised, however, when using the "Big Government" blame-shift in defense of the current administration.

Blaming the "Liberal media" can, much like blaming Clinton, be used in almost every argument to shift responsibility away from the republicans and onto anyone else. Since there is no such thing, culpability for the blame-shift is difficult to prove and can be useful in defending against rock-solid accusations of the GOP and its' co-conspirators. Someone writes or prints something unflattering to conservatives...they're a liberal with an axe to grind so they're not credible. BAM!!! Scoring points using this method can be tricky, however. One of the most fatal traps for the unwitted conservative to fall into is to levy a charge of "liberal media bias" in defense of a charge, only to be shown the same information from the "Non-Liberal media." This results in a reduction of points because of sheer demonstrable stupidity, so be careful. There are only a few safe sources (duh!) that fall into this category and they are: Fox News and any of its' personalities (even alan colmes because of the Miller Quotient), Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter, Laura Ingraham, National Review, Townhall, FreeRepublic, NewsMax, CNSNews, Washington Times/New York Post/Wall Street Journal editorals and any of these publications writers. The only caveat is if they fall into the following group, in which case, they are to be treated as hardcore liberals.

Conservatives turned whistleblowers can be the hardest entity to blame because of their once-trusted positions in conservative society. As such, the "enemy" will use them against you as much as possible because they have inside information and were thought highly enough at one time to be given a job, making their credibility harder to taint. They are best ignored in the hopes that they'll just go away but when that doesn't work, a deft hand will be necessary to diffuse and blame them. When done, though, their "blame value" makes them attractive, high point targets.

And now, the host of The Blame Game, Tiger Al!

Tiger Al: Thanks, Johnny. First up today on The Blame Game is our Contestant-In-Chief, President George W. Bush! Welcome President Bush. Are you ready to play The Blame Game?

President Bush: Well, uhh, TA, I wish you'd, uhh, umm, given me that, umm, question

to my, ahh, umm, handlers, I mean, umm, my communications, ahh, staff before, before, beforehand so they could, umm, you know, ahh, quiz, prep me, I mean.

TA: Sorry, sir. It WAS a trick question and you handled it brilliantly. Here we go. President Bush, our pre-war intelligence showed that Iraq possessed lots of WMD but, for three months prior to attack, UNMOVIC was unable to locate ANY of the weapons, yet you still insisted Iraq was an imminent threat to the US. Why?

PB: Well, TA, ahh, the intelligence was right but, if it wasn't, then that was because the previous administration had gutted the CIA, FBI, DIA and NSA to the point that, umm,

they were, ahh, unreliable. (***10 pts. for blaming Clinton)

TA: If that's the case then wasn't it apparent when UNMOVIC, using that intelligence, was unable to find the WMD's?

PB: Tiger Al, now, you know the rules. You get to ask one question then it gets to be someone elses turn!

TA: But, it's my show!

PB: Yeah, and you're a dang LIEberal Demoncrat who hates America!

TA: No, I just wondered why we went to war under false pretenses, that's all.

PB: I explained all this to the media but it's not my fault that they only want to print bad news. (***20 pts. for blaming media)

TA: OK. We'll come back to that one right after this short commercial break...

[TrueBlue72 0]

Al, I wasn't starting the blame game, as you suggest. Read above to LegalEagle's post where he was blaming Bush.

And in Washington, there was no hint of a blame game...... until the demoncrats tried to blame President Bush for the lax security measures that preceeded 9/11. You libs really hate it when you start such as this and the American people see right through it!!!!!!!

[TitanTiger 20,708]

If we had a Democratic president and Democratic congress, and the world was exactly as it is today, what would the Republicans be saying?

My point is that although we are warned of "spin," both parties do it relentlessly. We have got to learn to tune that out and think for ourselves.

When I hear Liddy or Steve Gill or Shawn Hannity talk it amazes me that they are so biased yet (with a straight face) claim that others are "spinning" and they are just pointing out the truth. What would those cats be saying today under my hypothetical question?

THINK PEOPLE - THIS SHOULD BE OUR COUNTRY AND WE SHOULD NOT MINDLESSLY FOLLOW ANY PROPAGANDA!

The only things I remember getting upset with Bill Clinton about were:

--Hillarycare

--The gays in the military fiasco (either be principled and change the policy or be principled and defend the current policy. "Don't ask, don't tell" was idiotic.)

--The handling of Mogadishu, Somalia. Complete cluster**** in every sense of the word.

--Disgracing the office by hitting on and getting a hummer from a 20 year old intern, lying about it, then acting like it was no big deal.

--The weak response to terrorist attacks by shooting a few cruise missiles into Afghanistan and an aspirin factory in the Sudan.

I want our Presidents to succeed and be leaders I can be proud of. I couldn't make myself be proud of having Bill Clinton as my President.

I say all of that to give the perspective that I don't write off any politician based on their party affiliation. For instance, one of my favorite Democrats, when I take everything into consideration, is Joe Biden. There are many things I disagree with him on, but most of the time I find him to be a thoughtful, considered, reasonable person.

Now, as to your hypothetical...if everything were exactly the same as it is now, but with a Democrat congress and President, I would be pretty happy (and not a tad surprised) that we had the cojones to actually DO something about terrorism other than give speeches. I'd be unhappy with the increased spending and expansion of government, I'd wish they'd have sent more troops into Iraq to begin with, I'd still think the French and Germans were the worst so-called allies since the word was invented, and I'd be ecstatic that such an animal as a pro-life Democrat exists.

My point is, I know I have some biases. But I have strongly held beliefs and viewpoints on how things ought to be done and I vote accordingly. I've yet to find a candidate that does everything just as I'd like them to, but if I waited to vote for that person, I'd never vote because that person doesn't exist.