Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 01-26-2009, 11:36 AM
 
26,307 posts, read 49,245,631 times
Reputation: 31909

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Mo's View Post
Scary that an "American" would ever want something like this (one party rule) to occur isn't it? . . .
True. But then again, that is EXACTLY what the GOP wanted, with the Bush / Rove / DeLay plan for what DeLay called "A permanent Republican majority." The GOP's "permanent Republican majority" lasted less time than Hitler's "Thousand Year Reich." So much for delusions of endless control and absolute power.....
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-26-2009, 11:39 AM
 
Location: North Cackelacky....in the hills.
19,567 posts, read 21,915,702 times
Reputation: 2519
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike from back east View Post
True. But then again, that is EXACTLY what the GOP wanted, with the Bush / Rove / DeLay plan for what DeLay called "A permanent Republican majority." The GOP's "permanent Republican majority" lasted less time than Hitler's "Thousand Year Reich." So much for delusions of endless control and absolute power.....
Does that excuse the left wanting it for themselves?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-26-2009, 11:53 AM
 
Location: Southern Maryland
172 posts, read 279,648 times
Reputation: 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike from back east View Post
True. But then again, that is EXACTLY what the GOP wanted, with the Bush / Rove / DeLay plan for what DeLay called "A permanent Republican majority." The GOP's "permanent Republican majority" lasted less time than Hitler's "Thousand Year Reich." So much for delusions of endless control and absolute power.....
Irrelevant

I never said anything about the GOP wanting to have absolute power, nor do I care if the GOP does or did. Both parties think they have the recipe for the better path forward and feel they should always have control of the White House. As a voter I want as many choices as I can so I can vote for the ideals I feel represent our best path forward.... Wishing for the demise of one party is ignorant and irresponsible for any voter to perpetuate which is why I responded in the manner I did. This isn't about democrat vs republican, it's about our freedom of choice as voter's.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-26-2009, 12:28 PM
 
Location: Dorchester
2,603 posts, read 4,854,666 times
Reputation: 1090
You guys ever notice that there are like three lefties who appear on the first page of a thread throwing out wild unhinged accusations, insults, and just general lunacy. Then when you reply to them they disappear?

To reply to some of the posts here: THe two party system is so far the best that democracy has come up with. Obviously one party would be bad for everyone and if you have three or more parties then you will end up in a situation where the president who wins was only approved by like 20% of the people.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-26-2009, 12:30 PM
 
Location: North Cackelacky....in the hills.
19,567 posts, read 21,915,702 times
Reputation: 2519
Quote:
Originally Posted by TomDot View Post
You guys ever notice that there are like three lefties who appear on the first page of a thread throwing out wild unhinged accusations, insults, and just general lunacy. Then when you reply to them they disappear?
Ever thought they might be the same person.....

Sock puppets are popular among left leaning types for some reason...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-26-2009, 02:07 PM
 
35,016 posts, read 39,247,460 times
Reputation: 6195
Quote:
Originally Posted by golfgod View Post
Among all the other daily marching orders that the right wing talkers, and RW posters here and elsewhere, keep propogating this one is the most laughable. I've read it on here a few times the last couple of days as well as heard it from Limbaugh and Fox News. It's like the last 8 years' of idiotic policies never happened and Obama is starting with a clean slate.

Among other bits of complete BS that keep popping up over the last couple of months:

*61 former Gitmo inmates now in Al-Queda. Of course NO ONE can confirm this number. The PENTAGON, who the right reveres in most things says 18 confirmed 43 SUSPECTED. No names, no incidents, just a number. Of course the higher number is seized upon and parrotted, most recently by Hannity and Guiliani. Why either of these two losers has any credibility with anyone with a brain is beyond---oh, never mind.

*UAW workers earn $73/hour. So totally refuted that it's not worth mentioning, except by posters here who claim that "my neighbor's brother in law earns much, much more than that"!

*FDR's policies made the Great Depression worse. Technically, by listening to the Republicans in '37/'38 it's true. But then, those weren't his policies, he listened to the Rs. Always backed up with the BS line that, "most economists agree". Kind of like their line that "most scientists agree" that global warming is a myth. It doesn't matter how many times you tell them these people are convinced that Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck and Karl Rove are economists and scientists!

*Barney Frank caused the financial crisis. He and the CRA (community reinvestment act). Of course this is backed up by the same "economists" cited above.

golfgod
Thanks for gathering these nutty talking points into one post. I would add:

Bush's 2005 inauguration cost $42M;

The economy was sound until the Democrat-majority Congress moved in;

The housing crisis is the result of ACORN and Bill Clinton forcing lenders to hand money away to bad risks;

Obama is out to squelch freedom of speech/install the Fairness Doctrine;

Obama supporters call Obama "the Messiah" and believe he will solve all their problems;

speaking of ACORN, Obama bought the election, and what he didnt buy ACORN grabbed for him via vote fraud.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-26-2009, 02:11 PM
 
Location: New York, New York
4,906 posts, read 6,862,350 times
Reputation: 1033
Quote:
Originally Posted by delusianne View Post
Thanks for gathering these nutty talking points into one post. I would add:

Bush's 2005 inauguration cost $42M;

The economy was sound until the Democrat-majority Congress moved in;

The housing crisis is the result of ACORN and Bill Clinton forcing lenders to hand money away to bad risks;

Obama is out to squelch freedom of speech/install the Fairness Doctrine;

Obama supporters call Obama "the Messiah" and believe he will solve all their problems;

speaking of ACORN, Obama bought the election, and what he didnt buy ACORN grabbed for him via vote fraud.
Both of you forgot keep repeating Carter was worse!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-26-2009, 02:34 PM
 
Location: Columbia, SC
37,462 posts, read 19,350,528 times
Reputation: 14999
Quote:
Originally Posted by lamexican View Post
Both of you forgot keep repeating Carter was worse!
ANYTHING to take the focus off of Bush/Cheney.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-26-2009, 02:48 PM
 
3,555 posts, read 7,866,439 times
Reputation: 2346
captain worley wrote, about Clinton;
Quote:
Although the bad economy wasn't really his fault, he did pretty much gut the military.
"Bad economy", he left a surplus and a balanced budget. Yet that is "bad"? If he "gutted" the military how was Bush able to use it so soon, 2001 in Afghanistan and 2003 in Iraq? Military budgets (even gutted ones) have a long lead time. If that was "gutting", what do you call what Bush has done with it, multiple deployments, billions $$ of destroyed (and not yet replaced, that'll have to be done by Obama) equipment?

golfgod
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-26-2009, 03:10 PM
 
Location: New York, New York
4,906 posts, read 6,862,350 times
Reputation: 1033
Quote:
Originally Posted by golfgod View Post
captain worley wrote, about Clinton;

"Bad economy", he left a surplus and a balanced budget. Yet that is "bad"? If he "gutted" the military how was Bush able to use it so soon, 2001 in Afghanistan and 2003 in Iraq? Military budgets (even gutted ones) have a long lead time. If that was "gutting", what do you call what Bush has done with it, multiple deployments, billions $$ of destroyed (and not yet replaced, that'll have to be done by Obama) equipment?

golfgod
Not to forget the gutting of the military was initiated by Cheney and daddy Bush in the first place!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:16 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top