RoadBikeReview.com's Forum Archives - Non-Cycling Discussions


Archive Home >> Non-Cycling Discussions(1 2 3 4 )


Where are you now Dems?(50 posts)

Where are you now Dems?bill105
Nov 25, 2003 12:31 PM
The economy just grew at 8.2%, the fastest rate in 20 years over the last 3 months. Where are all the hand wringing, George Bush nay sayers now? If I'm not mistaken, thats several quarters in a row and consumer confidence is at a 14 month high. This is still the Clinton/Gore economy, right? I guess Daschle, Dean, Kennedy and Hitlery contributed to this expansion. Too bad the best thing that could have happened to the Dems in the 2004 election would have been if the economy had tanked another 8.2%.
Just waitTypeOne
Nov 25, 2003 12:35 PM
I am glad to hear the news. But if foreign investors wake up and look at our deficit someday, uh oh. I am concerned about the longterm consequences of this economy.
right and war is always good for an economy....african
Nov 25, 2003 1:51 PM
except a world war.
Election 04 = Light at the end of the tunnel. (nm)czardonic
Nov 25, 2003 12:51 PM
Good luck with that (nm)TJeanloz
Nov 25, 2003 12:55 PM
He's right, even more good times. nmNo_sprint
Nov 25, 2003 1:00 PM
Don't need it. I'll pass it on to the millions w/o work. (nm)czardonic
Nov 25, 2003 1:00 PM
It'll only be thousands by then (nm)TJeanloz
Nov 25, 2003 1:12 PM
Excepting, of course, the frictionally unemployed et. al.
I hope so. (nm)czardonic
Nov 25, 2003 1:15 PM
Not if the dems have anything to do and cont'u "building"No_sprint
Nov 25, 2003 1:21 PM
their voter base with the "dependent".
Not if the dems have anything to do and cont'u "building"bill105
Nov 25, 2003 1:45 PM
the way the dems are screwing the women and latino judge nominees, those are 2 scetions of the voter base they can kiss goodbye. them and the south cause we left a llloooonnngggg time ago.
Good luck with <i>that</i>. (nm)czardonic
Nov 25, 2003 2:04 PM
THOUSANDS? In which CITY? LOL! nmOldEdScott
Nov 25, 2003 2:40 PM
I'm sure you know I wasn't serious (nm)TJeanloz
Nov 25, 2003 2:43 PM
On ths board it's hard to tellOldEdScott
Nov 25, 2003 2:45 PM
but from you, yes.
Election 04 = Light at the end of the tunnel. (nm)bill105
Nov 25, 2003 1:03 PM
yeah, that light is a train
re: yeah, that light is a trainczardonic
Nov 25, 2003 1:14 PM
Does the sign on the front say "Unfunded Homeland Security Mandates"?
re: yeah, that light is a trainbill105
Nov 25, 2003 1:34 PM
no, its a huge banner that says, "No terror attacks on U.S. soil since 2001". i have no doubt there will be more but the fact is there havent been any. i choose to not live in fear and side with the part of the government thats says we'll mess up whoever does attack us. and thats a slippery slope youre on with unfunded mandates. that cuts both ways now that we know how congressmen on both sides like to add spending that isnt even related to security in security spending bills. point in case, did you read the news about the city cops who used their security funding to but new leather jackets?
I'm not much for faith-based security.czardonic
Nov 25, 2003 1:45 PM
If there haven't been any attacks on the US, it is not because of Bush's War on Terra. You can no more prove it is than I can prove it isn't, which is pretty thin ice to be jumping up and down on waving your pom-poms for President Jr.

Fear is the cornerstone of the Bush/GOP agenda, and the fearful are their base (maybe you are the exception). You don't go around jailing people and starting wars because you are not afraid. Save your circular logic for the next Bush love-in.
how about faith based insecurity?bill105
Nov 25, 2003 1:52 PM
our next love in is in november of 2004. maybe we'll party at chucky cheese. and thats right, we want to scare everybody, and kick old people and run down the interstate freshly mowed through a tall stand of 100 year old redwoods with oil spewing out the backs of our humvees all the while running over baby ducks and rabbits.

you cant dispute that al-qaeda has been at the least disrupted and most of their leaders killed or jailed. the war on "terra" is working. and i do disagree on the jailing part. if you arent planning against the united states you dont have anything to worry about.
I can dispute anything you can't prove.czardonic
Nov 25, 2003 2:02 PM
Please me to point one significant Al Queda plot that has been foiled by Bush's War on Terra. Just show me on major, or even minor, but specific threat that Bush has been able to prevent from occuring on American soil. No one is more anxious than I to hear the Good News about George W. Bush.
LOL Freak boy hardonic. He'll dispute ANYTHING! LOL nmNo_sprint
Nov 25, 2003 2:05 PM
I can dispute anything you can't prove.bill105
Nov 25, 2003 2:07 PM
sorry, but my nsa clearance was revoked and my cia frequent shoppers card was ripped up in an escalator and my dog ate my fbi decoder ring. do you seriously believe the government tells or even intends to make known what they know to the american public?
That's what I thought. (nm)czardonic
Nov 25, 2003 3:18 PM
Happy days are here again!!!!filtersweep
Nov 25, 2003 4:02 PM
War? What war?

A few dead US GIs a day won't bother anyone.

Hey, I'm right here. GW still attacked a sovereign nation for no discernable reason. That fact cannot be changed. We are a nation loathed by much of the world- due wholly to his neo-con foreign policy. We are going into huge deficit spending.

Seriously, I've never understood why it is OK to spend a billion dollars a day on a dubious campaign to Americanize Iraq, but any domestic "entitlement program" is taboo. Or the ironic morality issues that abortion is a horrible "sin" that should be prohibited by law, but we need to go to war (kill, kill, kill) with Iraq because a bunch of Saudi nationals financially supported by Bin Laden (hiding in Afghanistan) drove a few planes into a few buildings in the US.
"OK to spend a billion dollars a day ...oldbutslow
Nov 25, 2003 7:50 PM
on a dubious campaign to Americanize Iraq, but any domestic "entitlement program" is taboo."

This difference, at least as I see it. One begets long term independence; the other begets long term dependency.
Oooo I like that! Mind if I use it? nm :O)Live Steam
Nov 25, 2003 7:57 PM
Oooo I like that! Mind if I use it? nm :O)oldbutslow
Nov 25, 2003 9:00 PM
Be my guest!
Independence?filtersweep
Nov 26, 2003 5:55 AM
Iraq was perfectly independent prior to the US invasion.

I truly fail to see how we will foster independence in Iraq (or why it is the US obligation to do so in the first place). We all know that Iraq's economy will be entirely dependent of exporting oil to western nations.

My god, our "allies" the Saudis are ruled by a monarchy?!

Hey, I'm no advocate for entitlement programs- just pointing out the irony- and this "tax-cut and spend" administration will eventually have to pay the piper.
Independence?oldbutslow
Nov 26, 2003 6:30 AM
If a nation is a land of people, I don't believe the Iraqi people considered themselves independent.

I happen to believe that Dubya is the first President in a long time to think beyond the next election cycle. Can you imagine, say 20 years from now, a completely free, democratic and oil rich society right smack in the middle of the Mid East? We wouldn't need to worry abouty Iran, Syria, Libya, et al. I believe this to be Bush's goal and if accomplished could be the greatest strategic move of the last 50 years.

Of course, I could be wrong. Only time will tell. One thing, I think it's foolish to judge our current conflict like some commodity on the stock exchange - quarterly reports don't mean jack.

BTW, the Saudi's are not our allies. Trading partners, yes. Allies, no way.

Happy Thanksgiving
Jeez, Doug, you allow this taunting but ban body paint?Cory
Nov 25, 2003 5:22 PM
This is the worst sort of pointless namecalling and baseless stereotyping ("Hitlery" doesn't even make sense, for God's sake--BUSH is the one killing people in wholesale lots), but we're not mature enough to see women in body paint? Man, if that's Libertarian, it's no wonder your presidential candidates always look like they're waiting for instructions from the Mother Ship.
I don't make the rules; just enforce them nmDougSloan
Nov 25, 2003 9:11 PM
Hitlery, Hitlery, Hitlerybill105
Nov 26, 2003 5:38 AM
WASHINGTON -- Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton will spend Thanksgiving in Afghanistan before traveling to Iraq with a former Army paratrooper turned senator to meet with soldiers and ask questions about the United States' ongoing nation-building efforts.

I bet they are sssooooooo glad she's finally going to Iraq! She has done so much in the war on terror. I wonder how they will be able to move a whole room out of the New York Hilton? I bet Bill goes to check out the Army babes and to make sure they steal all the ashtrays and MRE's and maybe switch the labels around on all the walkie talkies. It would boost Hitlerys credibility if she took the Dixie Chicks though.
Doug, point of order, I thought we wereOldEdScott
Nov 26, 2003 5:43 AM
required to use !s in H!tler references. If the rule has been changed and the gloves are off, I'm ready to let rip!
well, in my viewDougSloan
Nov 26, 2003 6:59 AM
In my view, the "H" word should not be used at all, except in a proper historical reference. It is too loosely applied as an epithet, but should be reserved for only those humans approaching the "H" man himself in evilness. Saddam would qualify, if we would have let him.

I don't care for the "H" word applied to HRC (hehe). "Hillarity" is more appropriate, in my view.

Nonetheless, the site rules and regulations do not mandate or prohibit any particular usage or spelling. You are limited only by your good sense and peer pressure.

Doug
All RIGHT! OK, watch out you Repub Nazis! TheOldEdScott
Nov 26, 2003 7:34 AM
Thousand Year Reich is about to crumble! 'Adolf' Bush is gonna go! Yeah, yeah, you can do the Heil Hitler salute all you want as he goosesteps into your town to extort another $30 or $40 million for his 're'-election, but the Reichstag will FALL!

Ahem.
All RIGHT! OK, watch out you Repub Nazis! Thebill105
Nov 26, 2003 8:20 AM
goosestep? do people still do that? i've seen dems waltz around a position, run from making a stand, dance around the facts, tiptoe through political correctness and stomp on us with taxes, but i havent seen anybody goosestep in years!
LOL! Not bad.OldEdScott
Nov 26, 2003 8:29 AM
But you might want to come to our new Repub governor's inauguration next week. I understand the Governor, Cabinet and selected party faithful plan to goosestep the entire length of Capitol Avenue in the inaugural parade, just as a special treat and as footage for future TV ads.
All RIGHT! OK, watch out you Repub Nazis! Thebill105
Nov 26, 2003 8:32 AM
goosestep? do people still do that? i've seen dems waltz around a position, run from making a stand, dance around the facts, tiptoe through political correctness and stomp on us with taxes, but i havent seen anybody goosestep in years!
but it's so wrong it's ludicrousDougSloan
Nov 26, 2003 8:51 AM
Calling Republicans Nazi's is either just slanderous or shows a fundamental misunderstanding of ideologies.

From what I understand, Nazi ideology was for strong central control, a totalitarian socialist regime. It largely ignored the value of human life, allowing or causing murders of millions and human experimentation.

Which American party is more similar? Republicans are for less central control of our lives, more capitalist/free market than socialist, and take more steps to protect human lives, particular innocent, unborn human lives. They are more likely to oppose new technologies that involve human experimentation (cloning, e.g.).

Democrats are more for strong central control of many aspects of our lives, particularly business. They are more socialist, favoring redistibution of wealth and welfare programs. They disfavor protection of the unborn innocent human lives, largely be re-defining them as not human ("just a fetus"), just as the Nazi's re-defined Jews and others as non-human to justify their murders.

So, which party really has more in common with the Nazi National Socialist Party?

Doug
and another thingDougSloan
Nov 26, 2003 9:06 AM
The Iraq war is about *removing* a murderous totalitarian socialist dictator. Which party supported that more and which opposed it more? Do Democrats support Nazi-like regimes?

Doug
and another thingNo_sprint
Nov 26, 2003 9:12 AM
He's either *spinning* up or has run away, based on past experience.
Are you actually asking me a question, orOldEdScott
Nov 26, 2003 9:51 AM
just making polemical points? We've already discussed this at length. You're so stuck on the misleading 'socialist' moniker in the Nazi name that there's hardly any discussion possible. 'Socialist' in the Nazi party name was a matter of political convenince. I had no relation to any reality. HITLER WAS RADIBLY ANTI-SOCIALIST and ANTI-COMMUNIST, and the German economy was not socialist. It was pro-small business (sound familiar?) and, yes, some big industries were pressed into national service for the war (just like here).

Plus, I believe you know me well enough to know that my Nazi refernces are done humorously, mainly to get your goat (and some others here) because you react so wildly. If I have to listen to 'Dumocrats' and 'Hitlery' every day, I can surely whip out a nutty Nazi reference once in a while. It is OBVIOUSLY humor.

I do not think either party in America has even faint Nazi leanings, and you know that very well. YOU, however, have just posted a few hundred words slandering me and MY party for that very offense! Hell, we're not Nazis, we're Commies and we're TREASONOUS! Get that straight.

Nevertheless, I won't get into other salient points of Nazi ideology like racism, sexism and anti-Semitism, and how each might reflect on Democrtas and Republicans in American history. Wouldn't be fair, eh?
rhetoricalDougSloan
Nov 26, 2003 10:45 AM
Sure, when you use the Nazi term, I know you're being fascist, I mean facetious, or attempting humor, but many people are not. You are undoubtedly the most reasonable Democrat in the Forum, so it's not really fair to consider what you alone think and say and ignore your comrades. You are the best case, not the normal case or worst case. So, while you concede that some discussions are mere humor or sporting, others certainly do not; they mean it.

Republicans today are no more racist, sexist, or anti-Semitic than Democrats. As you noted, your work is done. If you want to get historical, then let's do it completely. Don't have to remind you of the party of the President who freed the slaves and the party of the reconstructed South that opposed it. That wouldn't be fair, now would it?

Doug
It would only be fair if you noted that the partyOldEdScott
Nov 26, 2003 10:58 AM
of Lincoln subsequently turned its back on the progressive principles of the great man, and that the opposition party in the South matured to adopt principles more racially progressive that Lincoln ever imagined, agreed. :-)
illustrating my point...DougSloan
Nov 26, 2003 11:06 AM
My point is that where we are today is really, if not all, what counts. Democrats can't continue to rest on their '60's civil rights laurels any more than Republicans can for freeing the slaves. "Where are we now?" -- "What have you done for me today?" -- is what matters.

So, as I think you actually want to point out, Democrats can't rest upon past success. They must look forward, and they must look forward with a different attractive offering than the Republicans. Isn't that the problem?

Doug
Yeah, I believe that's the point I've beenOldEdScott
Nov 26, 2003 11:16 AM
laboriously making in these posts. People say, "What do Dumocrats WANT?" and about all we have to say in return is, "Well, look around you -- we want THIS. THIS is what we've been working for."

But people pretty much take THIS for granted.

Then the Repubs come along and promise what sounds like great stuff: Tax cuts! Less government! And people don't see the connection between the Repubs neat-o promises and the loss of the THIS that they're taking for granted.

So Dems are then in a Chicken Little position of squawking that terruble sh!t is on the way, that one brick at a time the Repubs are dismantling the structure, usually in the middle of the night. It's an unappealing position, and it doesn't inspire people.

It is, however, the very definition of America that's at stake, and somehow that urgency needs to be conveyed.
hmm; not so sureDougSloan
Nov 26, 2003 11:27 AM
I don't think Republicans want to undue the "this" that people want. They are not going to undo civil rights laws, a "safety net" for people who need it, ... (what else are we talking about?).

Now, they may well attempt to modify programs and laws to correct unfairness, abuse, waste, etc. Nothing wrong with that. The problem is that the Chicken Littles almost always exaggerate the claims of the falling sky, attempting to make people believe that curbing affirmative action is equivalent to reinstating slavery. They lose credibility.

So, I do not think "the very definition of America" is at stake. If anything, Republicans see their goals as a move toward the more traditional definition of America -- freedom for all, including freedom from and oppressive government, not just physically, but economically, too. [As an aside, to me, there's not much difference. Taking my money (taxes) is the same as taking my freedom and a part of my life. For the most part, money is nothing more than an exchange for my labor and a portion of my life that I'll never get back. So, taking my hard earned money is the same as taking my freedom. I may not be the only one who thinks that way, either.]

Doug
And this is a discussion as old asOldEdScott
Nov 26, 2003 11:50 AM
America herself. We will not resolve it today.

With that, I'm off to catch a plane.

Happy Thanksgiving everyone!
have a good one; good luck in the airports... nmDougSloan
Nov 26, 2003 11:54 AM