|
|
Post by cjyjtj on Oct 15, 2003 1:08:52 GMT -5
Besides Rick Davis?
Okay... just kidding, big guy.
Politicians. Both sides. I'm tired of them pissing at each other and ignoring everyone. I'm tired of them being more interested in the power game than in getting things done.
I'm tired of politicians trying to buy votes with my money.
And I'm tired of them using divisive methods to keep people at each others' throats to stay in power.
|
|
|
|
Post by RS Davis on Oct 15, 2003 1:15:48 GMT -5
Besides Rick Davis? Okay... just kidding, big guy. Politicians. Both sides. I'm tired of them pissing at each other and ignoring everyone. I'm tired of them being more interested in the power game than in getting things done. I'm tired of politicians trying to buy votes with my money. And I'm tired of them using divisive methods to keep people at each others' throats to stay in power. Amen, brother! - Rick |
|
|
|
Post by CJYJTJ on Oct 15, 2003 9:35:27 GMT -5
All it takes is watching some of the liberal crowd on CA, or the extreme of the right (dvb, juandos, Xman) who can't for the life of them have an original thought that wasn't sanctioned by a party committee to understand my point.
I laugh myself silly watching some of CardinalBabe's or Chuckles's efforts to fight admitting they could ever be wrong. Same thing with the above mentioned 3. Newsflash for those who don't bend from a given perspective: sometimes the other side has a point.
But you'll never catch Wiz giving in the the DNC's talking point's (he's admitted he posts the party line to others.) And as long as people can't move past fixed lines...
An example is a post I put up yesterday which detailed an analogy to there being a Second Civil War going on. Everyone who replied missed the man's point. It was disheartening, but it didn't surprise me that it went over their heads. I didn't bother replying because the people there were simply too fixated in the literal.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gabrielle on Oct 15, 2003 17:09:17 GMT -5
CJ, dahlin', sorry for the mental wedgie you're experiencing these days, but I for one have deliberately put my brain on a well deserved vacation. Stress was
having a naaaaasty effect on my delicate complexion.
Still... you're right about politicians, though...
|
|
|
|
Post by RS Davis on Oct 15, 2003 17:14:08 GMT -5
CJ, dahlin', sorry for the mental wedgie you're experiencing these days, but I for one have deliberately put my brain on a well deserved vacation. Stress was having a naaaaasty effect on my delicate complexion. Still... you're right about politicians, though... I agree, and it is great to see you over here! Check out the section called The Freedom Files and tell me what you think of my stuff!  - Rick |
|
|
|
Post by emilysrevolution on Oct 17, 2003 3:41:07 GMT -5
Here's a question for you guys. You mention hating to see the two parties squabble over power, never really discussing the issues, only ever playing the same dirty game over and over. I assume that by both parties, you mean, of course, Democrats and Republicans. But do you really think that if the Libertarians or the Green party or any other party out there had as much money and power as the Democrats and the Republicans do now, there wouldn't as much corruption within the newly powered parties as the old parties have today?
If you don't think that's possible, why?
If you do, what is your solution to political corruption for all of the parties?
|
|
|
|
Post by RS Davis on Oct 17, 2003 6:31:13 GMT -5
Here's a question for you guys. You mention hating to see the two parties squabble over power, never really discussing the issues, only ever playing the same dirty game over and over. I assume that by both parties, you mean, of course, Democrats and Republicans. But do you really think that if the Libertarians or the Green party or any other party out there had as much money and power as the Democrats and the Republicans do now, there wouldn't as much corruption within the newly powered parties as the old parties have today? If you don't think that's possible, why? If you do, what is your solution to political corruption for all of the parties? Hi Em! Well, I think it has more to do with the amount of contol the government has over our everyday lives, businesses, etc, more than the character of the two parties. If we had the limited government our founders had intended, there wouldn't be as much room for corruption, because we wouldn't have so many special interests trying to get the government to give it advantages and boondoggles. - Rick PS - Next time you come by, you should register.  |
|
|
|
Post by dr snootch on Oct 19, 2003 1:33:33 GMT -5
All it takes is watching some of the liberal crowd on CA, or the extreme of the right (dvb, juandos, Xman) who can't for the life of them have an original thought that wasn't sanctioned by a party committee to understand my point. I laugh myself silly watching some of CardinalBabe's or Chuckles's efforts to fight admitting they could ever be wrong. Same thing with the above mentioned 3. Newsflash for those who don't bend from a given perspective: sometimes the other side has a point. But you'll never catch Wiz giving in the the DNC's talking point's (he's admitted he posts the party line to others.) And as long as people can't move past fixed lines... An example is a post I put up yesterday which detailed an analogy to there being a Second Civil War going on. Everyone who replied missed the man's point. It was disheartening, but it didn't surprise me that it went over their heads. I didn't bother replying because the people there were simply too fixated in the literal. Double Amen! Nice forum Rick. |
|
|
|
Post by RS Davis on Oct 19, 2003 2:15:40 GMT -5
Double Amen! Nice forum Rick. Thank you, sir. Don't be a stranger! - Rick |
|
|
|
Post by CJYJTJ on Oct 19, 2003 10:33:24 GMT -5
Here's a question for you guys. You mention hating to see the two parties squabble over power, never really discussing the issues, only ever playing the same dirty game over and over. I assume that by both parties, you mean, of course, Democrats and Republicans. But do you really think that if the Libertarians or the Green party or any other party out there had as much money and power as the Democrats and the Republicans do now, there wouldn't as much corruption within the newly powered parties as the old parties have today? If you don't think that's possible, why? If you do, what is your solution to political corruption for all of the parties? I think you were the first to say parties as I said politicians intentionally, based on the DemoCRAPs and their rounds of debates. Yes, the political parties are that way, but so are the individuals. I get tired of the hypocrisy that is so thick you can slice it and serve it with coffee. Ted Kennedy is a wonderful example. The man should have been tossed after Chappaquiddick just as Gingrich was after the crap he pulled, which was MUCH less serious on the personal side. There are bums on both sides of the political aisle and it's a joke. Then you have some of the apologists who excuse because it's THEIR party. Racists who always expect blacks to vote Democratic, nimrods who think union should only vote Democratic, and leadbrains who think the only wise business move is GOP-GOP-GOP. |
|
|
|
Post by emilysrevolution on Oct 20, 2003 16:19:44 GMT -5
I think you were the first to say parties as I said politicians intentionally, based on the DemoCRAPs and their rounds of debates. Yes, the political parties are that way, but so are the individuals. I get tired of the hypocrisy that is so thick you can slice it and serve it with coffee. Ted Kennedy is a wonderful example. The man should have been tossed after Chappaquiddick just as Gingrich was after the crap he pulled, which was MUCH less serious on the personal side. There are bums on both sides of the political aisle and it's a joke. Then you have some of the apologists who excuse because it's THEIR party. Racists who always expect blacks to vote Democratic, nimrods who think union should only vote Democratic, and leadbrains who think the only wise business move is GOP-GOP-GOP. That is a beautiful monologue about why Dems and Reps suck and I do apologize about my earlier misrepresentation of your word choice. But let's not get our panties in a bunch, Darling. I find your response less like answers to my questions and more like answers given at a presidential debate. Sounds nice, gets you all excited, makes you think the guy giving you the answer knows a thing or two about a thing or two, but it doesn't really address the questions. You do point out my errors but you offer me neither opinion pertaining to the information I seek nor a solution to the problem of political corruption if you have one. A true politician. I am looking for ideas and little less semantics, if you will. My questions are as follows: do you think that some of the smaller parties out there today (i.e. Green/Libertarians), if they had the same power or financial backing as Republicans or Democrats do now, would they potentially be as corrupt. If you think that is impossible, why? If you believe that is not out of the realm of possibility, what would you do to change political corruption in our system today? If I sound cheeky, ask your moderator: it's because I am, but I don't mean any of this as fightin' words. I'm just looking for answers and I am not opposed to seeking opinions outside of my party affiliations if you're not. |
|
|
|
Post by CJYJTJ on Oct 20, 2003 16:43:31 GMT -5
That is a beautiful monologue about why Dems and Reps suck and I do apologize about my earlier misrepresentation of your word choice. But let's not get our panties in a bunch, Darling. I find your response less like answers to my questions and more like answers given at a presidential debate. Sounds nice, gets you all excited, makes you think the guy giving you the answer knows a thing or two about a thing or two, but it doesn't really address the questions. You do point out my errors but you offer me neither opinion pertaining to the information I seek nor a solution to the problem of political corruption if you have one. A true politician. I am looking for ideas and little less semantics, if you will. My questions are as follows: do you think that some of the smaller parties out there today (i.e. Green/Libertarians), if they had the same power or financial backing as Republicans or Democrats do now, would they potentially be as corrupt. If you think that is impossible, why? If you believe that is not out of the realm of possibility, what would you do to change political corruption in our system today? If I sound cheeky, ask your moderator: it's because I am, but I don't mean any of this as fightin' words. I'm just looking for answers and I am not opposed to seeking opinions outside of my party affiliations if you're not. You assume it was my intention to solve your or any other problem. You also assume I was wound up about something. Like many, you fail to be able to read something without assuming that rhetoric must be heated because strong or colorful words are used? I'm not sure as things are, there is a solution at hand. (Surely, Rick isn't one of those solutions, and neither are your cheeks, but I digress. Please, don't show us your cheeks, even if you feel they are a part of the solution, especially if you are cheeky.) As long as we have nimrods who are more interested in being bought off (see the ones who subscribe to the "1% of the richest" argument, for example, or those who are anxious to make sure every politician swears allegiance to some church) we're stuck with this problem. We're in a cycle where hate reigns supreme, and right now, it seems the left has taken the reigns as better masters of hate rhetoric. Whereas the right has been doing a fine job with its subtle message, the left is more blatant and downright nasty. One need merely read or listen to Carville, Moore, or Franken to understand this, muchless much of the Hollywood left. Fix the problem? Heck, try defining it.  |
|
|
|
Post by emilysrevolution on Oct 20, 2003 17:10:53 GMT -5
Hi Em! Well, I think it has more to do with the amount of contol the government has over our everyday lives, businesses, etc, more than the character of the two parties. If we had the limited government our founders had intended, there wouldn't be as much room for corruption, because we wouldn't have so many special interests trying to get the government to give it advantages and boondoggles. - Rick PS - Next time you come by, you should register. Hi baby. Yes, I will have to register, won't I? I will attempt it after this. Well, if we had the government our forefathers had intended, we wouldn't have a nation full of cowboys running around preaching about their 2nd amendment rights to conceal whatever weapons they want in their pockets at church. We would have well organized state militias protecting the people from the federal government. But that is not here and it certainly is not up there. I don't necessarily think it is a character flaw of the parties either. Of course, where you say less government involvement to rid the special interests, you know I will say something about a new regulation or law or something and call it Campaign Finance Reform to rid us of special interests. It is funny to me how Democrats are always accused of bearing bleeding hearts but we really don't trust the masses to do the right thing for the country as a whole on their own. I see that line of thinking as problematic and the road to chaos (which your wife will think is fine). I don't believe I can trust my fate to the good will of my fellow man because it is my fellow man's (or woman's) will that lynched blacks until they went to jail for it. It is my fellow person (let's be PC!) that continues to pay women less money to the dollar than men for the same work with the same qualifications ("Jesus. Not a feminist too?" you may be thinking). I want my ERA damn it. It is the Libertarians who believe the will of the people can be trusted at all times to do the right thing. It is actually very beautiful. I admire that about you guys. But enough of that. At least we can agree on part of the problem. Although, even with the limited government you believe our forefathers intended, would not there still be the power (if not also the money-- just from wealthy individuals who can afford to run) that corrupts politicians into playing the sleezy games that so many of us are tired of seeing. And then, would that not cross lines into the Libertarian and Green camps as well? Ricky, how would you even start to fix this government if you could, focusing first with the disgusting behavior of those who would ask us to vote them into positions of power? I mean, where would you go from here? And since there are corrupt people who make the choice to be corrupt plaguing our system, how do you make them stop? Emily |
|
|
|
Post by emilysrevolution on Oct 20, 2003 17:50:25 GMT -5
You assume it was my intention to solve your or any other problem. You also assume I was wound up about something. Like many, you fail to be able to read something without assuming that rhetoric must be heated because strong or colorful words are used? I'm not sure as things are, there is a solution at hand. (Surely, Rick isn't one of those solutions, and neither are your cheeks, but I digress. Please, don't show us your cheeks, even if you feel they are a part of the solution, especially if you are cheeky.) As long as we have nimrods who are more interested in being bought off (see the ones who subscribe to the "1% of the richest" argument, for example, or those who are anxious to make sure every politician swears allegiance to some church) we're stuck with this problem. We're in a cycle where hate reigns supreme, and right now, it seems the left has taken the reigns as better masters of hate rhetoric. Whereas the right has been doing a fine job with its subtle message, the left is more blatant and downright nasty. One need merely read or listen to Carville, Moore, or Franken to understand this, muchless much of the Hollywood left. Fix the problem? Heck, try defining it. Pardon me for assuming that you may wish to address the issues of the forum at hand by participating in the forum itself. Thank you for finding my failure as a guest of this forum and life in general. And if I seemed concerned about the heat, it was mostly because I thought I was beginning to sound a bit bitchy (the written word can be so easily misconstrued and I am just not sure about those damn faces up there) and that was not my intention. So, who is assuming what about who? Though, I will add that yours did sound an awefully passionate speech for someone who would have me believe you weren't a little wound about the issue. What is the use of colorful, strong rhetoric without an impassioned person behind it? Maybe you should just take the panties off (Shit. Now you know. Only a Democrat would go straight for the goods). Really, take 'em off. Oh, but I digress. Now back to the point. How would things have to be to have a solution? I think you just did define what you consider to be the problem. And it is not really enough to just complain and not consider any answers (I am pretty sure the answer is not Rick too and my cheeks are fabulous thank you for asking). Let me clarify that I do assume it is your intention to find a solution for at least some of the problems with our government else why are you here talking about it if not to simply play Devil's advocate? So let's just open the topic up a bit: have you considered any solutions to any problems with the government? Enlighten me. I would love to hear your concepts. Emily |
|
|
|
Post by CJYJTJ on Oct 20, 2003 18:01:51 GMT -5
Pardon me for assuming that you may wish to address the issues of the forum at hand by participating in the forum itself. Thank you for finding my failure as a guest of this forum and life in general. And if I seemed concerned about the heat, it was mostly because I thought I was beginning to sound a bit bitchy (the written word can be so easily misconstrued and I am just not sure about those damn faces up there) and that was not my intention. So, who is assuming what about who? Though, I will add that yours did sound an awefully passionate speech for someone who would have me believe you weren't a little wound about the issue. What is the use of colorful, strong rhetoric without an impassioned person behind it? Maybe you should just take the panties off (Shit. Now you know. Only a Democrat would go straight for the goods). Really, take 'em off. Oh, but I digress. Now back to the point. How would things have to be to have a solution? I think you just did define what you consider to be the problem. And it is not really enough to just complain and not consider any answers (I am pretty sure the answer is not Rick too and my cheeks are fabulous thank you for asking). Let me clarify that I do assume it is your intention to find a solution for at least some of the problems with our government else why are you here talking about it if not to simply play Devil's advocate? So let's just open the topic up a bit: have you considered any solutions to any problems with the government? Enlighten me. I would love to hear your concepts. Emily Emily, while I appreciate that you would love to get into my pants, I really don't wear panties. Plus, dear me, I don't know if you look that good. Heck, for all I know you may be no more attractive than Rick. And dear me, he's a real honker. But I digress. I like finding what the problem is first. Solving the problems come later. You assumed why I came here on your own. That's your error, not mine. You should never assume why anyone comes to a forum, or why they choose to participate. Your next error is assuming that what I choose to impart in a post to you is a complete answer in and of itself. Being a Democrat, I can see why that gets you in so much trouble. Democrats, being a self-limiting bunch, do tend to be "what I see is all there is" sorts of people. Thus, if I post that "The sun is shining" you are likely to assuming it always did shine, never rose, and will never set. Fear not, while you thought you were beginning to sound like a bitch, that surely wasn't the case. As to playing Devil's advocate, not me either. I am only my own advocate. As to the Devil, he has his own advocates. They are represented in the party of the Ass. Mr. Clark I believe is their frontrunner. |
|
