Political Irony

Micro, you can clip little quotes out of DU all day long, it still doesn't change the fact that DU bans people for holding views antithetical to far left ideology. Not for language, not for rudeness, not for personal attacks, but for ideas. Michael Moore did the same before shutting his forums/fora (whichever you prefer) down.

The Democratic National Committee set up a giant cage which became the only legal place one could protest in the sewer, er... city of Boston.

And Lt. (junior grade) Kerry couldn't give a straight answer even if he sent it by laser semaphore.

:rolleyes:
 
Again with the specious arguement...'most people this, most people that...' Just because it is your perception that 'most people' believe the President to be responsible for job growth does not make it so. The fact that he is demonstrably not responsible for it is not a moot point, it is exactly the point. It is also your perception that those folks who, through no fault of their own, find themselves unemployed would automatically hold it against the President. This thought is ludicrous.
 
Not to mention BS like this.

But I'm sure you will find a quote online somewhere where a leftist swears to (whatever leftists swear to) that he was just helping a little old lady across the street.

Whatever, one day the leftists will have pushed once too often. They've had quite a run since the suppurating venereal discharge days of the 1960s, but all things must end.
 
I don't recall anyone writing off 'working class' (what an insipid label) democrats as gays and communists. For having an alleged rep as a resonably bright fellow, you demonstrate lousy reading and comprehension skills.
With that in mind, I'm not surprised that you don't understand the connection between our prosecution of the war on terror and the need to follow through with regime change in Iraq. I won't flog that dead horse here as there are reams of documentation on tis subject available on the net for anyone with even the most rudimentary computer skills.

Again the phrase...'to an awful lot of people'...Do you personally know 'an awful lot of people'? Have you conducted a scientific poll regarding their attitudes, ideas and preferences? How would you quantify 'an awful lot'? More than 5? Fewer than 100? The entire population of Bum Tickle, Iowa? Do you know firsthand what they believe or are you just parroting what you take in from the media?

Re. protests at the Dems Boston Convention. The powers that be in that fair city established a 'protest zone' in a gravel strewn vacant lot some distance from the Fleet Center. It resembled a holding pen at a concentration camp, complete with chain link and barbed wire. No street protests were allowed. The media, except the Daily Show, refused to cover it. Repubs., for the most part, had to remain at work, picking up the slack from Dems. who abused a weeks worth of 'sick leave' to go nominate their buffoon.
 
Reading comprehension:
The march consists of an amazing amalgam of communists, socialists, gays, greens, Naderfolk, masked anarchists (who bugged out after torching a huge paper mache and wood framed dragon in the middle of the parade route), one worlders, left over flower children, hippies, yippies, peaceniks, hippie wanna bees and never wases.
Click to expand...
Did I miss the "and regular joes" part of that list, or are you certain from your startiling visual analysis of the C-Span feed that no one you would deem to call "normal" made it to the march?

"Lotta people?" Yeah, all the swing votes that are not ardent Democrats or Republicans, but have decided to vote against GW because of the US involvement in Iraq. My 59 year old Mother is one of them, and she doesn't even own a paper mache' dragon. The hard core Dems and Reps are going to vote the way they always do, which is why elections are decided on the perceptions of those who don't sing Kumbiya or call themselves "dittoheads".

If Bush does lose, it's because he failed to convince this statistically significant portion of the population that it's all for the best, despite the institutional anger of 9-11.
 
I stand my my previous post. No, I did not see anyone in the march that even remotely looked like Joe or Jane Lunchbox. Did you watch the march or are you working from 'talking points'?

With alldue respect, no one said that your mother owned a papier mache dragon, but if she falls for the stuff that Kerry is peddling and can't connect the need for regime change in Iraq with the overall war on terror then I would say that we had found the source of your comprehension problem.
 
Fred,
If we ask questions over at Democratic Underground, we get banned.
Click to expand...

So I went and read the rules that you must agree to get a login:
We ban conservative disruptors who are opposed to the broad goals of this website. If you think overall that George W. Bush is doing a swell job, or if you wish to see Republicans win, or if you are generally supportive of conservative ideals, please do not register to post, as you will likely be banned.
Click to expand...
Which is kind of stupid, but still the rules the site is built around. Really, what did you expect? They established their site to argue democrat issues, and republican viewpoints don't really fall into that narrow window.

No, I'm not a member, I just don't see how you can use a Dem only site as an example of denying free speech. This site also limits what can be discussed.
 
G, I'll continue to pretend that you aren't being outright insulting to me.

but if she falls for the stuff that Kerry is peddling
Click to expand...
How did you determine that her opinion comes from Kerry, or any other Democrat source?

Maybe she, and I, and four other people in the US actually arrive at their opinions and convictions by viewing, reading and thinking without guidance from a political mouthpiece, or Mommy. Can you imagine having an opinion that didn't come from Rush or O'Reily? My God, there may even be left leaning people who don't idolize Michael Moore or the Clintons!


I know, it's a little hard to take all at once. Don't max yourself out. But you may find some utility in realizing that everyone who isn't on your page isn't mentally impaired or brainwashed.
 
What I find interesting is that whenever I talk to Conservative people (namely those at competitive sporting events, gun shows, etc) I get a whole host of opinions on topics ranging from gun control to NAFTA, and for the most part, while the opinions are consistent with Conservative values, they aren't just regurgitated talking points.

On the other hand, when I speak with Liberals (which I spend the majority of my time doing, as I am a teacher AND I live in NY), I hear the same phrases over and over again. After one young hippy from Cornell spouted off that the war in Iraq was for "oil", I asked her to explain what she meant. She stared at me for a moment and replied (I swear I'm not making this up) "You know, we went into Iraq to get their oil. We're thieves." That's all she had and she couldn't explain it further. And this person is a teacher, ladies and gentlemen.

Liberal thought, in my view, rests on certain people's prediliction to be selfish and lazy:
Don't want a kid? Abort it. It's too hard to raise a family, but not too hard to have sex.
Don't want to work? Collect welfare. And sit around all day smoking pot. Working and facing reality is difficult.
Don't want to take the time to understand how firearms work? Ban them as "evil". Things that are unknown are scary.

Don't want to think for yourself? Just get a button that says "Bush Sucks", stick it on your hemp backpack, and wander around Union Square for a few hours trading quips with the other undesireables without actually knowing the issues. It's far easier to shout out "Bush is a murderer" than to take time and research foriegn policy. Plus, it's a heck of a lot cooler too. Goes back to the 60's protest movements -- "Hey, you don't like the Vietnam war either? Groovy, man, let's go back to my van and get it on!"

I think the irony here, regarding protesting, is that thousands of these people are marching around with their signs and placards and effigies demanding things of the government that don't concern the government at all:
Jobs? Nowhere in the constitution does it mention that the Federal Government has anything to do with job creation.
Healthcare? Ditto.
Education? Double ditto.
Gay marriage? Give me a break. There are nutcases strapping bombs to themselves and blowing up buildings in the name of "god", and all some people are concerned about is their marriage ceremony? Selfish liberals.

One of the groups that marched in front of Madison Square Garden on Sunday was "Young American Anarchists". College-aged, trust-fund kids who have never taken anything higher than a Poli Sci 100 course. Another was the "Hip Hop Summit Action Network". Great. Politics brought to us by misogynistic, violent singers. And my favorite: "The Immigrant-Worker Solidarity Day of Action" -- people who don't belong in the country protesting against the country. Lazy, short-sighted, selfish people, with nothing but time on their hands and a fanatical glint in their eyes.
 
Fyre...

Be careful that you're not outright insulting to Handy.
We wouldn't want to offend any of the Bush sucks/is a moron/is a murderer/is a liar/ is an illegitimate president group.
 
Again, I'm not part of any group you would like to conveniently pigeon hole me in. You'll note I have taken none of the stupid positions you've stated - those came from your 'fertile' imagination.


I'm just the one guy receiving your insults and personal attacks. Do you always get so whiny when someone merely disagrees with you?
 
Well, Handy and I have disagreed on topics in the past, but I would never outright insult him -- ad hominem attacks weaken any position.

But I feel more than comfortable saying that anyone who votes for Kerry simply because they think "Bush sucks" is an idiot. Basing one's philosophy and subsequent political decisions on a palpable, yet ignorant hatred of a candidate is foolish and irresponsible.

I can appreciate the fact that someone may vote for Kerry without having an understanding of his stance on issues -- it's probably because Kerry doesn't have a stance on issues....

Everyone's entitled to their opinions -- after all, "opinions" are just facts that are impossible to be proved correct. "I hate milk" isn't an opinion, it's a preference. "I hate Bush" is typically a baseless and misguided statement, and when expressed as an "opinion", (without facts to back it up), it underscores the stupidity of the opiner. But I don't think Handy was doing that....
 
No, you're right...

What Handy was doing was attempting to hijack the thread by bringing up the issue of whether we should be in Iraq or fighting the war on terror at all. That horse has been flogged to death and was not the purpose of my initial post.

The people protesting in New York would be there, in the streets, regardless of what our government's policies were. They are not, as Handy says, 'working class' Democrats and do not even remotely represent any aspect of mainstream America. They are the fringe. They are, to the left, what skinheads and the Klan are to the right. That they are allowed to march, to protest, to gather and make themselves heard is their Constitutional right. That they harrass, intimidate, threaten and assault other citizens that happen to be Republican delegates should earn them a large dose of mace, jail time, a beat down or worse. They are not, contrary to Handy's assertion and their chant, what democracy looks like.
 
Wow, you must be Yoda.

You seem to be able to watch a parade and speak for the emotional state AND employment history of everyone in. You can read posts by me, that don't express any personal opinion, then label me anti-Bush, anti-Iraq.

G, you are a national treasure. Why are you surprised that you're the only one who "get's it"? After all, you're the only telepath among us.


You're right, I must have been hijacking this thread. You were looking for 40 posts of "Right on Gburner! Crazy leftist scum!", and got an argument or two instead. You poor man. I feel bad that anyone would treat you so poorly on a discussion board!
 
Last edited:
I'm told that I'm a reasonably bright fellow, but I also don't get the connection between fighting global terrorism and the deciding to topple a secular dictatorship. We have never had a problem with shiite Iraqi fundamentalists before the invasion, and our government reports no real connection between Sadaam and Bin Laden. I'm sure if the someone in the state department could outline the direct cause and effect knocking over Iraq and Muslim terrorism share Bush's detractors would have less to discuss.

But, to an awful lot of people, it does really look like a former 'oil baron' cabinet invaded an oil rich country based on two questionable premises (terrorism and WMD), at considerable expense to this country. A little nuts and bolts explanation of that process might make more sense to the largely working class Democrats than just writing them all off the as gays and communists.
Click to expand...

Amen, Handy! Though my personal belief is that the main catalyst behind the invasion was not oil/money/crony deals, it was simply that W believes that the stupid sheeple will rally round a wartime prez - so he sacrificed lives and billions of dollars that we DON'T HAVE by the way (deficit spending) to get re-elected, in my view. I don't have any direct evidence of this (which would be impossible to get without invading the brain of W), but this is the conclusion I must draw from the utter lack of Saddam having anything to do with (a) WMDs that could threaten CONUS, or (b) Terrorism connection (yeah right). Actually, there is one other reason for shrub's invasion - Saddam's potentially-present non-nuclear WMDs COULD threaten Israel, and there are lots and lots of rich Jewish Americans who worry about their "homeland" (understandably), and they have a lot of influence on the outcome of elections. This isn't said, but I believe that's the second real reason for the invasion - pleasing the American jewish constituency by eliminating potential WMDs of Saddam which threaten Israel (which he didn't have but we didn't know that for sure - we DID know he didn't have nukes) - of course they could not in any way threaten Americans. So, both these two reasons are purely illegitimate reasons in my view. I believe the 3rd reason was payback for trying to kill daddy, and a distant fourth was oil/crony/money. Main two being "rally round a wartime pres" and the jewish vote - both directly connected to re-election, without regard to the consequences of AMERICAN citizens. Having said all that, I still must vote for him, because a vote for Kerry is a vote for disarmament, clearly, given his vehemently anti-gun history, and that's THE most important issue, because keeping power in the hands of the people allows us to preserve a democracy, which in turn allows us to eventually run off the scoundrels like shrub (thank god for the 2-term prez limit amendment).
 
FF,

I can't say how important the Jewish/American connection is; US Jews tend to vote Democrat.


A wise man once opinioned to me that the war in Iraq was there to make an example of Saddam and give a reality check to any number of nations that were (erroneously) starting to believe that they possessed a credible military threat to the US. North Korea is actually a bigger threat, but the politics of invading China's loose ally are much touchier than Iraq, who has few local friends, and many enemies.

The problem with this thesis is that a) No one in the state department has expressed it in a way that is clear to the voting public. Which may be a good thing, as we tend to think of Nazis and evil high school principals when "examples are to be made". And b), we did it so poorly that we lost the affections of those allies that make invasions workable. The US has been working off a policy of being the strike force, and then letting other UN or NATO forces do the occuppying. This let's us do what we do well, and seperates the combatants from the police force, making the occuppied people less likely to see the occuppiers as anything other than "peace keepers". Also c), Kim Jong Il is so far into outer space that he might have missed the message.

If this administration had talked turkey about whatever was the "real" reasons for going to war they might have stemmed some of the suspician that it was an oil or vendetta thing. But the personal dossier of the Prez and VP are seriously working against them, as well as all the missteps of prison guards, military planners and subcontractors.
 
The fact that Hussein was responsible for the rape, torture, and murder of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi citizens is not enough of a reason to go to war? Do you honestly expect the government to justify its military actions to a citizenry that voted in greater numbers for the latest American Idol than for the Presidency?

And that's the ultimate irony...a bunch of unwashed masses marching and shouting about "civil rights" to a government that went to war to protect just that. I guess the fact that it was only a bunch of Iraqis that we were helping didn't exactly resonate with the hippie coalition. Perhaps if we were liberating marijuana fields....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top