Politics
- Started
- Last post
- 33,755 Responses
- zaq0
- Is that a Democrat during the last eight years or are you trying to make a joke?********
- Is that a Democrat during the last eight years or are you trying to make a joke?
- DrBombay0
Gay marriage is a slippery slope, if you give it to them pretty soon guys will be wanting to marry polish jpg's and shit, it will be anarchy.
- hahatank02
- Well that makes sense as to why you probably don't have a GF. Feel free to use my GF's to jerk off to though.********
- your fictional girlfriend from iStockphoto? Sweet, thanks!DrBombay
- Nah, that was long ago, but, I'd never post a picture of a real gal, you'd probably stalk her.********
- You will never live that down you fucking loser.DrBombay
- like your african wife, was it?DrBombay
- BTW, you forgot about my African wife as well, wanna jerk off to that too!?********
- Ohh no, you remembered that too! Nice... yeah she wasn't bad********
- haha, its like recess al over...tank02
- it kind of is like recess, actually, minus the hair pulling********
- gotta agree yith you on that one ;)tank02
- ********0
S.F. voters surprisingly conservative on issues
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/ar…Leo Lacayo, a third-generation San Franciscan, who lives near Mount Davidson in the southwest portion of the city, said he gets tired of the people who come to the city in their 20s voting ideologically. This time, he thinks, voters were more cautious because of the economy.
------------
You could say that about the past national election, Leo.
- sublocked0
So, who is the liberal media going to bash now that Bush is gone?
- Jazxkillthefish
- not far from the truth, but I think you meant the liberals at QBN********
- bush got a free pass for like 6 years.DrBombay
- http://www.americant…********
- oh you mean the huge right wing corporate conglomerates that control all the media venues?threadpost
- ********0
sublocked
So, who is the liberal media going to bash now that Bush is gone?Good question, let's wait and see. Attack journalism seems like it started with Clinton-Lewinksy and has steadily progressed into what you see today. Or should I said, what you DIDN'T see recently.
- TheBlueOne0
Wednesday was the only the fourth time that the NY Times used 96 pt. type for the headline on the front page of the paper. In chronological order:
MEN WALK ON MOON
NIXON RESIGNS
U.S. ATTACKED
OBAMA
- ********0
If McCain would of won it would have been either Comic Sans or Hobo at 11pt.
- hallelujah0
"People are not afraid of Socialism, it is an acceptable political outcome.
Well, be honest. The voters have long supported socialism. This country was dominated for 50 years by the New Deal coalition, remember? The Reagan and Gingrich revolutions were never against the New Deal. They were against the Great Society. Thus, people have never opposed socialism for themselves. People have for decades wanted free public schools, grants to go to college, retirements, medical care, money to keep their businesses and farms afloat, etc. So in other words, Americans supported the socialism that benefitted them and people like them. They just opposed it for the other guy. The Great Society was easy pickings, because it went to a small segment of society that, let's face it, most people didn't like anyway.In other words, when most of Europe went hard right in the wake of global depression, America went socialist with FDR and the New Deal--and loved it. But when that New Deal got extended to minorities and the desperately poor, many people freaked out. The Old Dixiecratic South switched to the GOP, and the rest is history.
But the GOP never even seriously tried to cut off the spigot of the huge amounts of money going to "real Americans." By contrast, the GOP actually gave away more money to their constituents than the Democrats ever dreamed of giving to their inner city base. Remember when Democrats were pointing out that "red state America" was a net economic drain while "blue state America" paid more taxes than they spent? It was 100% true, yet the next GOPer who stood up before his "real American" constituents of suburbanites and middle Americans and told them that they needed to get off welfare and stand on their own two feet would be the first. No, that was a message for the folks in Barack Obama's inner city, not the Iowans whose economic boom the past few years has been totally due to the government funded ethanol industry.
In other words, the Republican Party isn't about "small government": it's about socialism for corporations and rich white people.
The GOP needs to come up with a "no socialism for anybody" message instead of the "no socialism for the people who we don't like and don't vote for us but plenty of socialism for 'our types of people the real Americans'" message and actions that have dominated the GOP since 1980.
By the way: small government Sarah Palin actually increased spending in her state. So why did we presume that she supported small government and less spending? Simple: because she is a Republican from a state that doesn't have a Chicago, Detroit or Harlem in it. That is precisely the problem that I am speaking of.
ouch. In other words, the Republican Party is, above all, a party of lying racist thugs who steal money from the electorate, and have gotten away with it because they refuse to spend it on black people. That's really all she wrote.
And the worst news for the GOP? The country just elected an African-American. As I said many moons ago, Obama's election means the GOP is screwed, because every day an African-American family lives in the White House, is another day the Southern Strategy dies, and people get used to the idea of African-Americans being not "other", but American just like them.
The racist lie upon which the GOP has predicated itself is exposed. We'are ALL "socialists" under their definition, with the rare exception of a few in the utterly discredited Club for Growth crowd. It's just that some of us with a moral sense want to put that "socialism" to work for all of us, while others are content to advocate only for "socialism" for our rich, white, and corporate citizens."
- BusterBoy0
Just showing a major why Palin was elected in Alaska...their standards obviously aren't particularly high.
A man convicted on seven counts of corruption is leading the race to re-elect him as the Senator from Alaska. That is totally bizarre.
In Australia, someone like that would be tossed out in a heartbeat.
- hallelujah0
"The rider and the horse; or Why Fox is Throwing Palin Under the Bus
The GOP is run by rich folks, and basically looks after their class interests; low taxes, no estate taxes, helping out business. However, there are not enough rich folks to elect a president, even if you count the toadies, the hangers-on, the wanna-bes and the folks who think they're rich but aren't. So the party has to use the religious right as its actual voters, and this group includes a fair number of folks who AREN'T rich.
To gather this group in, the GOP promises, but doesn't deliver, a return to a simpler age where abortion was done in back allies, gays were closeted family men who could be thrown in jail and the black folks and the Jews knew their place. It's been a 30-year exercise in stringing these folks along. The rich people who pay for the party have neither interest in making good nor incentive; once abortion is made nationally illegal a lot of the religious right probably won't bother turning up to vote.
The problem is that the rich folks who run the party - and run Fox News - aren't really sincere about the party's social agenda. It's just red meat for the rightwing workies. The rich - really, the country's owners - want the party to look after their class interests, which are all economic. They don't trust the petit bourgeois footsoldiers any more than you or I do.
The problem is that the crazies are getting restless, and want to run the party themselves, not just provide the voting muscle. This makes the richies nervous: you see this with the complete lack of rich-folks funding for Huckabee (who incidentally wasn't reliable on economic issues as far as the rich were concerned).
Palin also scares them, as she's drawn from the same group, but seems even more ignorant and likely to blow up the world in search of the the end of the world and the second coming. Even short of that, she seems ignorant and incompetent enough to fuck things up even more royally than the most recent occupant of the White House did, given the chance. She'd further tarnish the brand, and probably cause everyone's portfolios to blow up. And the people who run the party aren't fools, just dedicated to their own interests: they realize that she's incredibly ignorant, and probably dangerous beyond a point they're willing to tolerate.
Much safer to destroy her NOW than to let her build herself up and run in 2012, where she MIGHT win the nomination because of her attraction to the smalltown and southern white folks who actually provide the votes. She's attractive and hits all the right-wing sweet spots. She seems one of the people. The rich do NOT want a choice between her and Obama; they want someone sincere on the economic rightwingness but insincere on the rest. Fox, being the instrument of the rich folks who run the party, is the chosen means to have at her when she's vulnerable."
- mmm smells like liberals stoking the fires of Class Warfare (the Official fuel of the D Machine™).tommyo
- lol... Daily Kos eh? You better not ever bitch about Faux News again.tommyo
- this is perfectly sensible.paraselene
- Sorry but it's the easy bs that you're fed. http://www.opensecre…tommyo
- tommyo0
Hey Randford, you feel like posting a link to the original article or name the source or something?
- ukit0
It's Romney gearing up for 2012. You know that Fox supported him in the primaries, they were kind of bummed when McCain won.
- for better or worse, nobody would elect a mormon. it's just too far out for most, even the whacky fucking americans who love to 'git er dun'threadpost
- ach. hate the short messages..
who love to 'git er done'!threadpost
- mikotondria30
http://www.designartculture.com/…
very worth a read, nice guy. Lives unbelievably close to me.
- jevad0
Take a hint JazX
- jevad0
This is on the money:
- locustsloth0
i sure as fuck hope so!! Never liked that guy.
"Lieberman may have day of reckoning with Democrats"
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS…
- ********0
I'm in agreement with you ukit.
Romney, IMHO, is the best bet the Republicans have in 2012, however, if they lose it in 2012, he or someone like him will be sure to win in 2016. Frequency and the change effect dictates.
And, I'll venture to say that a load of current Obama supporters would vote for a Republican eight years from now. It's funny how much more conservative you become in that magical span, from your 20's to your 30's.
I was very idealistic in my early 20's and voted for Clinton over GHB, but would never vote for anything to do with the Democrats now. IMO, it's a natural progression, becoming more conservative as you get older, especially socially. Some people just get it a lot sooner than others. Then again, there's always an exception to the rule. Those rare 70+ year old Democrats.
- ha! keep the hope alive! if you really think a mormon could win, then my friend, you are truly deludedthreadpost
