So much for Republicans making us safer...

[bored]

Hmm, why not, you have about 50 of them yourself.

Hey! Heyheyeheyheyheyhey! Sinewave is the clone of me, dammit, not the other way around!

 

[jaguarr]

I don't blame ALL Republicans for this, but I DO blame the ones that are in charge. It's completely unacceptable. Period.

jag

 

[lazur]

i find it hillarious that you don't jump on fred_fury when he says "democrats hate the military", yet you get all huffy on me when i point out the truth about the republican party, mr. moderate. i know not every single member of the republican party had a hand in it, but pointing out the hypocrissy of a party that claims that only they can protect america while divulging nuclear secrets on the web. can you not see the hypocrissy of that or are you too busy trying to protect them from mean old me?

If Fred_Fury said that, then he's wrong. Maybe I just didn't see him post it?? Or do you think I have an all-seeing eye or something that I can refute every idiotic claim on this board system?

Pointing out that *some* republicans are corrupt is one thing. Pointing out that the ENTIRE PARTY is corrupt is something else completely.

This is PRECISELY what I was talking about when I stated before that you over generalize and lump ALL republicans into a neat little box.

And again, you're wrong, it's not the "hypocrisy of the party". It's the hypocrisy of a FEW *in* the party. Get it yet?

And I can't believe you're looking to someone else (Fred_Fury) as your justification for being pig-headed about this. This is about you - not Fred_Fury or anyone else. YOU.

 

[sinewave]

If Fred_Fury said that, then he's wrong. Maybe I just didn't see him post it?? Or do you think I have an all-seeing eye or something that I can refute every idiotic claim on this board system?

Pointing out that *some* republicans are corrupt is one thing. Pointing out that the ENTIRE PARTY is corrupt is something else completely.

This is PRECISELY what I was talking about when I stated before that you over generalize and lump ALL republicans into a neat little box.

And again, you're wrong, it's not the "hypocrisy of the party". It's the hypocrisy of a FEW *in* the party. Get it yet?

And I can't believe you're looking to someone else (Fred_Fury) as your justification for being pig-headed about this. This is about you - not Fred_Fury or anyone else. YOU.

i don't think the entire party is to blame, so i apologize if you misinterpreted my remarks, just like you misinterpreted john kerry's remarks earlier in the week. you hear what you want to hear and i can't change that, but i'll make more of an attempt to be clear about my opinions on members of the republican party in the future. let me clarify, the ruling republicans in washington, the ones who did this to try and justify the invasion of iraq, are hypocrits and morons. now that i think about it, i've never seen you complain when bush or someone from his administration claim that democrats (using your logic he means "the entire democratic party) are soft on terror. where's the outrage on that?

as for fred_fury's remarks, he's constantly making comments about the democratic party, so i doubt you've missed all of them and i can only assume that for some reason you just decided not to comment on them. if you've seen more than one of his posts you've seen him pull that, so i don't buy that you haven't noticed it.

the corruption thing is a completely different topic, so i'm not sure why you're lumping it in here, but, would you at least acknowledge the fact that the current, ruling republican has had more corruption scandals than the current minority democratic party? i don't see what's wrong with me stating that their party as a whole is more corrupt *currently* than the democratic party, as a whole, currently.

i'm not looking to fred_fury for justification for my comments, i'm using him and his comments to point out that, though you claim to be a moderate and find fault in both parties, you're quick to jump on anyone who makes negative comments about the republicans, but don't but don't follow through with your claim to moderatism (is that a word?) by jumping on people who post negative and over-generalized comments about the democrates. what's so difficult to understand about that?

 

[sinewave]

Hey! Heyheyeheyheyheyhey! Sinewave is the clone of me, dammit, not the other way around!

i'd be flattered to be your clone.

xoxoxo,
sinewave

 

[maxwell's demon]

sinewave- this is off topic, but have you ever watched any Hal Hartley films?

 

[sinewave]

sinewave- this is off topic, but have you ever watched any Hal Hartley films?

yes, i loved "henry fool". i don't think i've seen any of his others, though. is this about that actress from a couple of his films that died recently? that was sad.

 

[maxwell's demon]

yes, i loved "henry fool". i don't think i've seen any of his others, though. is this about that actress from a couple of his films that died recently? that was sad.

yeah it is, and yeah, it was.

 

[ShadowBoxing]

LAWL! Thats hilarious.

I'm with Darthphere. I give this a LAWL!

 

[sinewave]

yeah it is, and yeah, it was.

did they release the cause of death yet?

 

[maxwell's demon]

i don't think the entire party is to blame, so i apologize if you misinterpreted my remarks, just like you misinterpreted john kerry's remarks earlier in the week. you hear what you want to hear and i can't change that, but i'll make more of an attempt to be clear about my opinions on members of the republican party in the future. let me clarify, the ruling republicans in washington, the ones who did this to try and justify the invasion of iraq, are hypocrits and morons. now that i think about it, i've never seen you complain when bush or someone from his administration claim that democrats (using your logic he means "the entire democratic party) are soft on terror. where's the outrage on that?

as for fred_fury's remarks, he's constantly making comments about the democratic party, so i doubt you've missed all of them and i can only assume that for some reason you just decided not to comment on them. if you've seen more than one of his posts you've seen him pull that, so i don't buy that you haven't noticed it.

the corruption thing is a completely different topic, so i'm not sure why you're lumping it in here, but, would you at least acknowledge the fact that the current, ruling republican has had more corruption scandals than the current minority democratic party? i don't see what's wrong with me stating that their party as a whole is more corrupt *currently* than the democratic party, as a whole, currently.

i'm not looking to fred_fury for justification for my comments, i'm using him and his comments to point out that, though you claim to be a moderate and find fault in both parties, you're quick to jump on anyone who makes negative comments about the republicans, but don't but don't follow through with your claim to moderatism (is that a word?) by jumping on people who post negative and over-generalized comments about the democrates. what's so difficult to understand about that?

Regardless Lazur, we both know how poltics ar epalyed inthis country. one party is the symbol of "x", another of "y" . that's the problem witheth two party system. And as such, I (and probably, on some level you) both understood what Sinewave meant. as such, if presse,d and you had to answer the question : "which party, collectively, CURRENTLY, is the party of corruption?" could you reasonably answer thta is is the Democratic party over the Republican party?

There are a million reasons why this answer maybe be what it is, just as there are a million reasons why it maybe be an unfair or innaucrate question to begin with. But its how politics are played here, and its DEFINITLEY a tactic Rove has used for years AGAINST the whole democratic party. AS such, can you reasonably say it not fair to use that same tactic now?

No party can have it both ways.

 

[maxwell's demon]

did they release the cause of death yet?

hanging.

ok. im off to the city now. later

 

[sinewave]

Regardless Lazur, we both know how poltics ar epalyed inthis country. one party is the symbol of "x", another of "y" . that's the problem witheth two party system. And as such, I (and probably, on some level you) both understood what Sinewave meant. as such, if presse,d and you had to answer the question : "which party, collectively, CURRENTLY, is the party of corruption?" could you reasonably answer thta is is the Democratic party over the Republican party?

There are a million reasons why this answer maybe be what it is, just as there are a million reasons why it maybe be an unfair or innaucrate question to begin with. But its how politics are played here, and its DEFINITLEY a tactic Rove has used for years AGAINST the whole democratic party. AS such, can you reasonably say it not fair to use that same tactic now?

No party can have it both ways.

stop playing politics!

 

[sinewave]

hanging.

ok. im off to the city now. later

double

 

[Deuce]

i don't think the entire party is to blame, so i apologize if you misinterpreted my remarks, just like you misinterpreted john kerry's remarks earlier in the week. you hear what you want to hear and i can't change that, but i'll make more of an attempt to be clear about my opinions on members of the republican party in the future. let me clarify, the ruling republicans in washington, the ones who did this to try and justify the invasion of iraq, are hypocrits and morons. now that i think about it, i've never seen you complain when bush or someone from his administration claim that democrats (using your logic he means "the entire democratic party) are soft on terror. where's the outrage on that?

All posters in this thread are too uptight = p
Nothing constructive gets said= q

p > q. But, even if P = F, then the value of p > q is still T. Thus, I concur that, by equivalence, ~p v q.

 

[lazur]

i don't think the entire party is to blame, so i apologize if you misinterpreted my remarks,

I did not misinterpret your remarks. You said the "party" is the problem. You are wrong. Some *in* the party, yes, but not the PARTY itself.

just like you misinterpreted john kerry's remarks earlier in the week.

Wrong again. There was only one way to interpret Kerry's remarks. He SAID, point blank, if you don't get an education or do well in school, you will wind up in Iraq. Period. There's no other way to interpret that. Did he mean what he said? Obviously not, but he STILL said it.

you hear what you want to hear and i can't change that,

So do you.

but i'll make more of an attempt to be clear about my opinions on members of the republican party in the future. let me clarify, the ruling republicans in washington, the ones who did this to try and justify the invasion of iraq, are hypocrits and morons. now that i think about it, i've never seen you complain when bush or someone from his administration claim that democrats (using your logic he means "the entire democratic party) are soft on terror. where's the outrage on that?

Nope, because I agree with that one statement. On a whole, the "democratic party" is weak on defense. That's one of the trademarks that defines the democratic party just as "big government" defines the republican party. I agree with neither, but can see them none-the-less.

as for fred_fury's remarks, he's constantly making comments about the democratic party, so i doubt you've missed all of them and i can only assume that for some reason you just decided not to comment on them. if you've seen more than one of his posts you've seen him pull that, so i don't buy that you haven't noticed it.

Whatever, man. As you said to me, you see what you want to see/hear what you want to hear.

the corruption thing is a completely different topic, so i'm not sure why you're lumping it in here, but, would you at least acknowledge the fact that the current, ruling republican has had more corruption scandals than the current minority democratic party? i don't see what's wrong with me stating that their party as a whole is more corrupt *currently* than the democratic party, as a whole, currently.

Just as when Clinton was in, it *seemed* that the democrats were more corrupt. Perception is reality.

i'm not looking to fred_fury for justification for my comments, i'm using him and his comments to point out that, though you claim to be a moderate and find fault in both parties, you're quick to jump on anyone who makes negative comments about the republicans, but don't but don't follow through with your claim to moderatism (is that a word?) by jumping on people who post negative and over-generalized comments about the democrates. what's so difficult to understand about that?

There's a difference between saying "the republican party is stupid/morons" and "the democratic party is soft on defense". One is an insult and one is a fairly accurate characterization (and also NOT an insult).

 

[Franklin Richards]

Just like Kerry's remarks. He should have stuck to his guns. Poor people get sent to the frontlines to die. Rich people make money off war. It's pretty simple.

As for democrats being soft on defense... uh hello? FDR? Truman? Kennedy?

WWII? Cuban Missle Crisis?

 

[Darthphere]

I'm with Darthphere. I give this a LAWL!

Its the only acceptable reaction, its that crazy!!11

 

[sinewave]

I did not misinterpret your remarks. You said the "party" is the problem. You are wrong. Some *in* the party, yes, but not the PARTY itself.



Wrong again. There was only one way to interpret Kerry's remarks. He SAID, point blank, if you don't get an education or do well in school, you will wind up in Iraq. Period. There's no other way to interpret that. Did he mean what he said? Obviously not, but he STILL said it.



So do you.



Nope, because I agree with that one statement. On a whole, the "democratic party" is weak on defense. That's one of the trademarks that defines the democratic party just as "big government" defines the republican party. I agree with neither, but can see them none-the-less.



Whatever, man. As you said to me, you see what you want to see/hear what you want to hear.



Just as when Clinton was in, it *seemed* that the democrats were more corrupt. Perception is reality.



There's a difference between saying "the republican party is stupid/morons" and "the democratic party is soft on defense". One is an insult and one is a fairly accurate characterization (and also NOT an insult).

way to be objective, mr. moderate. debating with you is like debating with a bratty little kid.

 

[Darthphere]

This is when party doesnt matter. It doesnt matter who's President and what party the government is, this is unacceptable, thats a fact.

 

[roach]

This is when party doesnt matter. It doesnt matter who's President and what party the government is, this is unacceptable, thats a fact.

unfortunately not too many people see things like this....flip the topic of the War in Iraq...if it was a Democrat President who launched the invasion of Iraq the Republicans would be against it.

 

[souloffire]

Just like Kerry's remarks. He should have stuck to his guns. Poor people get sent to the frontlines to die. Rich people make money off war. It's pretty simple.

As for democrats being soft on defense... uh hello? FDR? Truman? Kennedy?

WWII? Cuban Missle Crisis?

Well unfortunetly FDR, Truman and Kennedy are no longer part of the Democratic party.

That's like someone saying today's NY Yankees are weak on defense and you saying uh hello, Mattingly? Nettels? Guidry?

 

[roach]

Well unfortunetly FDR, Truman and Kennedy are no longer part of the Democratic party.

That's like someone saying today's NY Yankees are weak on defense and you saying uh hello, Mattingly? Nettels? Guidry?

Hello...the 49ers got a good offence...Montana, Rice...

 

[souloffire]

unfortunately not too many people see things like this....flip the topic of the War in Iraq...if it was a Democrat President who launched the invasion of Iraq the Republicans would be against it.

That's true. Too many people treat the party they belong to the same way they treat their favorite team, if I root for one I can't root for the other.

 

[Spider-Bite]

God I hate Bush. What next? Is he accidentally going to invade New York searching for weapons of mass liberalism?