View Full Version : YES! The voters HAVE spoken. (ding dong, the witch is dead)
DECATUR, Ga. Aug 9, 2006 (AP)— Rep. Cynthia McKinney, known for her conspiracy theories about the Sept. 11 attacks and a scuffle with a U.S. Capitol police officer, conceded the Democratic primary runoff early Wednesday in a speech that blamed the media for her loss and included a song criticizing President Bush.
McKinney, the state's first black congresswoman, said electronic voting machines are "a threat to our democracy" and lashed out a journalists, accusing them of injuring her mother and failing to "tell the whole story."
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=2291646
__________________________________________________ _____________
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaaaaaaaaassshhhhplt.
First Libermann, now McKinney
If the Democrats keep this up I just might start to like them again... (nooo, not really).
LMingrone
08-12-2006, 06:39 PM
Liberman has a very good shot at winning still. Word is he's going independent. I'm really sick of his bullshit.
Ilvane
08-12-2006, 06:53 PM
That's an example of a politician who is out for himself and not for the people he was elected to serve. Since he decided to run as an independant, I have lost complete respect for him. He could have dropped out..he did lose even with a larger than normal turnout..and the democrats that voted chose Lamont. That should be it, but obviously he doesn't see it that way.
As far as McKinney goes, good riddance, I would say.
Angela
Parkbandit
08-12-2006, 09:08 PM
That's an example of a politician who is out for himself and not for the people he was elected to serve. Since he decided to run as an independant, I have lost complete respect for him. He could have dropped out..he did lose even with a larger than normal turnout..and the democrats that voted chose Lamont. That should be it, but obviously he doesn't see it that way.
As far as McKinney goes, good riddance, I would say.
Angela
The problem is.. the Democratic Party has been taken over by the Hollywood left. They have allowed them to be their major voice since Clinton courted them and in the eyes of most of the American public, they have the perception of being weak on defense. I can't imagine anyone considering Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt or John F Kennedy weak on defense.
Lieberman feels that the Democratic party has basically abandoned him.. so why would he give a rats ass what anyone from that side thinks?
Man, do you copy and paste straight from O’Reily?
In the eyes of the majority of Americans, Bush has screwed up just about every subject you can poll on.
You do raise a great point though. Historically, dems have not been weak.
RichardCranium
08-12-2006, 10:05 PM
...In the eyes of the majority of Americans, Bush has screwed up just about every subject you can poll on...
Proof plz.
Latrinsorm
08-12-2006, 10:54 PM
That should be it, but obviously he doesn't see it that way.Lieberman still has a ton of supporters and he lost by a pretty narrow margin (10,000 votes in a 280,000 vote turnout). I'd say it'd be irreponsible for him to not run.
Parkbandit
08-12-2006, 10:56 PM
Man, do you copy and paste straight from O’Reily?
In the eyes of the majority of Americans, Bush has screwed up just about every subject you can poll on.
You do raise a great point though. Historically, dems have not been weak.
It's probably not something that O'Reily would ever say actually... not sure how I could copy/paste it.
And historically, dems have been very tough.. but that ended with the abortion called the Carter Administration and has flourished ever since.
Proof plz.
Source (http://edition.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/08/04/bush.poll/)
Yes, we all know how valuable polls were for the Democrats in the last presidental election too.
:whistle:
Hulkein
08-13-2006, 09:23 AM
The polls just split between Dems and Reps anyway. When you look at them in-depth is shows like like 90% of Republicans support what he's doing and 90% of Democrats don't.
He's a decisive guy in decisive times, not surprising and doesn't really prove anything. When it came down to choosing, the American public took Bush over Kerry.
Ilvane
08-13-2006, 09:24 AM
It's not as if Clinton was exactly a wimp PB. What I think right now is that we need a completely different party. Both of the parties pretty much suck now.
Angela
Sean of the Thread
08-13-2006, 09:28 AM
Source (http://edition.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/08/04/bush.poll/)
Poll: Public split
Parkbandit
08-13-2006, 10:22 AM
It's not as if Clinton was exactly a wimp PB. What I think right now is that we need a completely different party. Both of the parties pretty much suck now.
Angela
Actually, Clinton was exactly a wimp Ilvane... maybe not on the level of Carter, but he was clearly a diplomat.
But I couldn't agree more.. I've been asking for a real, viable third party in this country for years. Look at me for instance:
I am not a Republican because:
-I am not religious
-I believe in a woman's choice
-I really couldn't give a crap about gay marriage
-I think we need immigrant reform that is actual reform
I AM not a Democrat because:
-I believe in a strong defense
-I believe in small government
-I don't think I should have to work 6 months out of the year just to pay for the government
-I don't believe we should have to pay for everyone looking for a handout
I just feel that there is a better choice available to us.
Stretch
08-13-2006, 10:24 AM
At least the race card is no longer a trump card.
Actually, Clinton was exactly a wimp Ilvane... maybe not on the level of Carter, but he was clearly a diplomat.
But I couldn't agree more.. I've been asking for a real, viable third party in this country for years. Look at me for instance:
I am not a Republican because:
-I am not religious
-I believe in a woman's choice
-I really couldn't give a crap about gay marriage
-I think we need immigrant reform that is actual reform
I AM not a Democrat because:
-I believe in a strong defense
-I believe in small government
-I don't think I should have to work 6 months out of the year just to pay for the government
-I don't believe we should have to pay for everyone looking for a handout
I just feel that there is a better choice available to us.
The only thing I would add to PB's list, with regards to my political views, is: (otherwise everything he's stated resembles where I stand)
Republican:
-I believe in strong monetary policy for economic management.
Democrat:
-I do not believe in fiscal policy or taxation as a form of economic management.
Ignot
08-13-2006, 11:09 AM
Actually, Clinton was exactly a wimp Ilvane... maybe not on the level of Carter, but he was clearly a diplomat.
So Clinton is a wimp because he was a diplomat and didnt jump into war? I just want to make sure I understand what your trying to say.
Apathy
08-13-2006, 12:16 PM
Actually, Clinton was exactly a wimp Ilvane... maybe not on the level of Carter, but he was clearly a diplomat.
But I couldn't agree more.. I've been asking for a real, viable third party in this country for years. Look at me for instance:
I am not a Republican because:
-I am not religious
-I believe in a woman's choice
-I really couldn't give a crap about gay marriage
-I think we need immigrant reform that is actual reform
I AM not a Democrat because:
-I believe in a strong defense
-I believe in small government
-I don't think I should have to work 6 months out of the year just to pay for the government
-I don't believe we should have to pay for everyone looking for a handout
I just feel that there is a better choice available to us.
I think it's interesting that all 4 of the points you brought up about Dem's were a national issue, while only 1 of the Rep's points (immigration) was national.
Do you think that's because you disagree with more of the Democrats stances, or is it a sign of change in what the Republican party is?
Gay marriage and abortion arent arent a national issue???
Parkbandit
08-13-2006, 03:52 PM
So Clinton is a wimp because he was a diplomat and didnt jump into war? I just want to make sure I understand what your trying to say.
I stared at your question for about 5 minutes and couldn't think of a single comeback. At first I thought "HOLY SHIT! MAYBE HE'S RIGHT!" but then I realized I was being distracted by your boob popping avatar. Best avatar ever imo.
Sean of the Thread
08-13-2006, 04:01 PM
It's not bad at all.. who is that in the avatar anyways?
Apathy
08-13-2006, 06:24 PM
Gay marriage and abortion arent arent a national issue???
Freedom of religion also means freedom from religion. If this were a theocracy I would be wrong.
Hulkein
08-13-2006, 06:52 PM
Many people who are not religious are against abortion.
Hell, same with the gay marriage, a lot of people just plain don't like gays.
Ilvane
08-13-2006, 07:24 PM
I don't think there is anything wimpy about diplomacy. I do think that the Republicans haven't shown much financial restraint in the time they have been in office. In fact, Clinton was doing much better with the Republicans in congress, and a Democrat in the white house.
I think we need checks and balances, as in a Democrat or Republican in office and opposite party in congress. It makes for great debates, and eventually they have to get something done.
Angela
Parkbandit
08-13-2006, 07:47 PM
I don't think there is anything wimpy about diplomacy. I do think that the Republicans haven't shown much financial restraint in the time they have been in office. In fact, Clinton was doing much better with the Republicans in congress, and a Democrat in the white house.
I think we need checks and balances, as in a Democrat or Republican in office and opposite party in congress. It makes for great debates, and eventually they have to get something done.
Angela
LOL.
I was going to go ahead and do my typical Ilvane is dumb if she is comparing the amount spend by the Clinton administration with the Bush administration.. but then I remembered we've been down this path before and why rehash something that all but the ignorant liberals already know.
So I decided not to.
Parkbandit
08-13-2006, 07:49 PM
Freedom of religion also means freedom from religion. If this were a theocracy I would be wrong.
You are generally wrong.. just as you are now. What the fuck does abortion or gay rights have to do with religion? These issues are not automatically linked just because you believe in some all powerful alien.
TheEschaton
08-13-2006, 07:53 PM
Well, our gov't doesn't discriminate based on sexual orientation....our religion does.
And our gov't decided a woman has the right to choose, and the Church said we don't.
Those are very much religious issues, because the people who are against them are predominantly religious, and they are the ones who instigated it. We call it a "feminist issue" when NOW wants Augusta National to integrate its golf club, even though not everyone who supports the end goal is a feminist, so why don't we call a spade a spade?
Now, this is where you say, "These aren't RELIGIOUS issues, these are just things people KNOW", at which I will call your bullshit.
-TheE-
Hulkein
08-13-2006, 08:12 PM
Fact of the matter is that there are people who are not religious who are both against abortion and (to a lesser extent) against gay marriage.
I don't think abortion is wrong just because the Catholic church says it is.
TheEschaton
08-13-2006, 08:32 PM
Yes, true, but it's made an issue, mainly by religious people preaching hellfire.
Apathy
08-13-2006, 09:40 PM
You are generally wrong.. just as you are now. What the fuck does abortion or gay rights have to do with religion? These issues are not automatically linked just because you believe in some all powerful alien.
I hardly ever do this; but I decided my first reply was just too encouraging for an argument with someone that I actually agreed with.
You never answered my first question either.
Regardless, explain how gay marriage (you said marriage) and abortion are matters of national government. If you want to show off, how about 2 seperate explanations for 2 very different things.
And if you really want to be the apple of my eye, my little buddy, my homie, explain to me how what I said was wrong.
You would be, as the kids say, teh kewl.
Well, our gov't doesn't discriminate based on sexual orientation....our religion does.Our military does, but that doesn't stop gays from joining as I know a few gay men and women currently actively serving.
ElanthianSiren
08-14-2006, 01:32 AM
Did someone just say that the Dems are for big government and Reps for small after some of the Bush admin's programs (while controlling both the house and senate and much of the judicial branch, so they're obviously not trying to appease anyone)? Sorry, if I can't stop laughing. I think we need to cross those two differences off the list.
-M
Did someone just say that the Dems are for big government and Reps for small after some of the Bush admin's programs (while controlling both the house and senate and much of the judicial branch, so they're obviously not trying to appease anyone)? Sorry, if I can't stop laughing. I think we need to cross those two differences off the list.
-M
Yeah, while the gay marriage thing is most likely about religion, its ALL about the government telling people who they can and cannot consider their mates, which to me is big governing(ment).
ElanthianSiren
08-14-2006, 11:22 AM
You don't need to go to gay marriage to see it.
Schiavo. Congress and the executive branch overrode a judge's decision and decided to try to play judge. Let's think about the implications of that for checks and balances in the big picture. Ignore for a moment the life smokescreen that went on around it, which was basically used to try to claim credibility in their interference (failed).
Unprecidented usage of undersigning (McCain's torture ban).
Huge organization -- DHS, including FEMA -- failure during Katrina.
How can one argue that the current Republican platform is for small government?
-M
Big Government seems to have a broad definition scope, and has somewhat different meanings depending on who you speak with.
Here's a good starting point for the actual concept:
Big government is a pejorative (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pejorative) term generally used by political conservatives (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatism) or laissez-faire (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laissez-faire) advocates to describe a government (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government) which is excessively large or inefficient, or which is inappropriately involved in certain areas of public policy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_policy). In this latter sense the term may also be used by political liberals (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism) in relation to government policies which attempt to regulate matters considered to be private or personal, such as private sexual behavior.
Commentators who use the term are often concerned about government delivery of public goods (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_good), and government involvement in the formulation and implementation of laws and policies concerning civil rights (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_rights), social justice (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_justice) and social welfare (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_welfare). However, such commentators may also be supportive of capital punishment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment), stronger executive (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_%28government%29) powers for government, a larger criminal justice (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_justice) system (particularly in terms of the numbers of police (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police) and prisons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prison)), and a powerful military (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military).
Some populist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Populism) commentators combine criticism of "big government" with criticism of "big business (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Business)," casting them as an alliance against the public (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public). Others include "big labor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_labor)," although this connection would be somewhat contrived in many countries, such as the United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States), where organized labor often has distinctly populist goals.
I tend to use the term with the first definition (but agree with the religious connotations of the second), whereas someone such as Backlash tends to use it primarily for the second definition.
So it seems we need a new term to seperate the meaning, or just simply footnote which type of Big Government you are describing.
HarmNone
08-14-2006, 12:24 PM
I don't think it matters much which type of Big Government you're talking about, Ganalon. Whether useless agencies are proliferating to promote the conservative point of view or the liberal point of view, the bloody things are STILL proliferating!
So it seems we need a new term to seperate the meaning, or just simply footnote which type of Big Government you are describing.
Or we could all agree that all the terms are valid and that right now we have a big government.
Tromp
08-14-2006, 01:13 PM
I have to agree with Backlash and ES. I see big government being more of a Republican stigmatism now.
It use to be that you ping welfare and such to the Democrats well now the Dems are associated with pro abortion, repeal of the Homeland Security Act (or at least decreasing the scope), keeping church out of govt., etc...
The joy of big gov is pretty much being experienced right now. They are watching you, the borders, emails, phones, & financial transactions.
My 2 cents.
Skirmisher
08-14-2006, 03:43 PM
I have to agree with Backlash and ES. I see big government being more of a Republican stigmatism now.
It use to be that you ping welfare and such to the Democrats well now the Dems are associated with pro abortion, repeal of the Homeland Security Act (or at least decreasing the scope), keeping church out of govt., etc...
The joy of big gov is pretty much being experienced right now. They are watching you, the borders, emails, phones, & financial transactions.
My 2 cents.
Please speak into the lamp when you say that.
Tromp
08-14-2006, 04:05 PM
Please speak into the lamp when you say that.
I KNEW IT!!!!! <taps a copy of Catcher on the Rye sitting on desk>
Tsa`ah
08-15-2006, 02:14 AM
How this became a topic of gay marriage, bi-partisan politics, gay marriage, and abortion is beyond me.
McKinny slit her own political throat when she assaulted an officer in the airport and tried to play the race card instead of the "I'm a stupid bitch who abuses my station and can do whatever the fuck I want" card.
Liberman going independent .... what did anyone expect? It's not like he doesn't have a history of it.
In politics, your party will screw you if you're the dissenting voice within the rank and file. Just look at McCain. I don't agree with Bush on anything and I don't agree with Liberman's support of the Administration in that aspect. Looking at the guy he was running against ... I think Liberman winning the seat will be a better alternative to a man who smells of nothing but personal gain and pork swapping.
Let's face the truth of the matter. If it weren't for politics, these people would be the educated unemployed ... none of them are worth the TP anyone here uses to wipe their ass.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.