Like Tree0Likes

OT: 20 steps to becoming a good Democrat !!

Reply
Old 09-05-2002, 12:49 PM
  #31
Registered
 
dockrocker's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Deeee-troit!
Posts: 3,356
Default

One of my personal favorites - smart kid!
Attached Thumbnails
OT: 20 steps to becoming a good Democrat !!-fist.jpg  
dockrocker is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 09-05-2002, 12:52 PM
  #32
Registered
Thread Starter
 
Risk Taker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: New Hampshuu !!
Posts: 2,808
Default

LMFAO !! . That is priceless DR.
Risk Taker is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 09-05-2002, 10:45 PM
  #33
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
 
mcollinstn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: tn
My Boats: 1991 F311SR1
Posts: 5,491
Default

272,

If you have grown up down the street from the Bush boys, I'll listen to your opinions. Meanwhile, I'll keep trying to do my part to keep "Gore in 04" from happening. I've long since given up on trying to discuss the subject with the illiterate Teamsters and UAW members who populate my area. I also know better than to try to have a rational discussion regarding politics with anybody who has no teeth.

I do, however, spend a good amount of time listening to any Democrat who can form a complete sentence. I do tend to get mildly frustrated, though, when the conversation inevitably deteriorates to the place where discussion begins to involve raping the pockets of businesses and the wealthy to support the selfish and nonproductive element of society.

Unfortunately, the selfish and nonproductive element of society comprises a substantially larger pool of votes than those who vote for the long-term benefit of their country.

I could go on and on.

'rocker - by the way, who is that hot chick with the kid in front of the granite blowjob monument? I bet she's gettin turned on...

M
mcollinstn is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 09-05-2002, 11:11 PM
  #34
Sunsation 32
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

What was it they said in Blazing Saddles? Urumph Urumph!
I loved that movie.
 
Reply With Quote
Old 09-05-2002, 11:31 PM
  #35
blackhawk
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by gmhdfan


Ask a democrat why they are one, and you get that deer in the headlight look.
Deer in headlights? You mean like this:
Attached Images
 
 
Reply With Quote
Old 09-05-2002, 11:38 PM
  #36
Registered
 
Bill272's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Lake St. Clair
My Boats: 95 Formula 336, HP500's
Posts: 935
Default

mcollinstn,
I used your quote to illustrate how just one of the extremist views of what I see as today's republicans can be turned around. The comments following it weren't aimed directly at you, but to everyone who can force themselves to believe the entire party line is the only way. I just have a problem with the Limbaugh-ization of the country. Democrats are idiots and republicans are above question, especially the president. You illustrate that quite well by saying that you would only believe that he was brought up to be politician if I lived down the street from him. Did you and Al grow up in the same Washington hotel? If not, your opinions on how he was raised are baseless, according to you. I'm sure by even bringing this up, I must be "a West Palm Beach Democrap"

I'm not trying to defend Gore, I couldn't really care less about him. I think people should work for a living and not live off the state. I believe in capitalism, but I'll be god-damned before I come out and say I'm a dyed in the wool republican. Are the selfish and non- productive element of our society raping the pockets of business and the wealthy? Or are the selfish and non-productive element of our society raping the pockets of us working stiffs? Take a poll of Enron, Arthur Anderson, Worldcom, Kmart, or any corporate execs out there cooking the books and find out how many are democrats. Then decide who is selfish and non-productive and who is raping who. It's a two way street, traffic goes both ways, both are right and wrong.

I'm sure you have as much a chance to change the political thought s of UAW and teamster propaganda-fed, toothless, "working americans" (there's a replublican catch phrase for you) as they have to convert you to their side. But you don't have to think that anyone who might question the republican "straight ticket" party line believes we should live in a communist welfare state.

I've been wrong before, so who really cares. I also can't help but try to give an opposing view when something like this is so one-sided and full of crap. Ha ha, just kidding. As he said in Blazing Saddles, "Don't know. Mongo only pawn in game of life."
Bill272 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 09-05-2002, 11:50 PM
  #37
Chevy-Harley fan
Charter Member
 
gmhdfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orlando, Fl. USA
Posts: 1,385
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by mcollinstn




Unfortunately, the selfish and nonproductive element of society comprises a substantially larger pool of votes than those who vote for the long-term benefit of their country.


M

Well said!!

Blackhawk, Yep that's the look I was talking about. And after doing some soul searching the smart ones register Republican
__________________
Pete
gmhdfan is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 09-06-2002, 07:27 AM
  #38
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
 
mcollinstn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: tn
My Boats: 1991 F311SR1
Posts: 5,491
Default

272

Amen, brother. Wouldn't it be nice if there REALLY was a "good side". Kind of like Star Wars - where it wasn't difficult to tell the difference (the evil red glow coming out of the emperor's eyes was kind of hard to dismiss).

As far as the Gore camp, I assure you that there are a great many idiotic actions of the whole male side of the family throughout middle tennessee. All of the "do as I say, not as I do" kind of crap. Al's dad was surrounded by corruption. Al seems to actually be a stand-up guy (I hate saying that), but his picture of normality or reality is a nightmare of BigBrother government-driven "we will do it for you"- based socialism.

America's needs in a leader vary from one side to the other. Right now, the last thing America needs is another Clinton (which Gore really isn't, but they do share some similar views on a point or two).

Defending the Bush bunch? I don't know that I have thrown myself in front of a train for em. Sure I voted for W. Sure I did wanted a Republican in office. More from a standpoint of a vote against Gore (who I feel would be a sorry president at the present time) and against Democrats (since it is/was time to get them out for a bit). I would have preferred to have been voting for Fred Thompson or Bob Dole (there was a truly f$#cked up campaign if there ever was one).

By the way, I'm voting for a Democrat for Tennessee's upcoming governor election. Not voting Democrat or Republican, but voting for a particular MAN who happens to be running under the Democratic ticket (which, given the balance in TN is, I believe, to be a smart decision for him).

Let's see, what's my point? Did I have a point?

I don't guess I did...

this is pointless...

M
mcollinstn is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 09-06-2002, 09:49 AM
  #39
Registered
 
dockrocker's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Deeee-troit!
Posts: 3,356
Default

There is sometimes a big difference between a Republican and a conservative. However, there is ALWAYS a big difference between a Democrat and a conservative.

I'm not a member of any political party, but I am a conservative (if you want to get technical, I'm a classic liberal, but the left has perverted the meaning of that word). In fact, the Constitution Party is probably the closest match for my political views.

I'd venture to say the same is true of most members here - conservatives, not necessarily Republicans.

As always, YMMV...
dockrocker is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 09-06-2002, 09:58 AM
  #40
Registered
 
dockrocker's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Deeee-troit!
Posts: 3,356
Default

Thought I'd share this gem of a column by Charles Krauthammer. Mr. Krauthammer writes for the Washington Post Writers Group.

Not sure I agree with everything he says - all liberals are not "nice", some (many) are shameless hucksters and egomaniacs, but this is a good read.

Quote:
Charles Krauthammer

July 26, 2002

Stupid vs. Evil?

WASHINGTON--To understand the workings of American politics, you have to understand this fundamental law: Conservatives think liberals are stupid. Liberals think conservatives are evil.

For the first side of this equation, I need no sources. As a conservative, I can confidently attest that whatever else my colleagues might disagree about--Bosnia, John McCain, precisely how many orphans we're prepared to throw into the snow so the rich can have their tax cuts--we all agree that liberals are stupid.

We mean this, of course, in the nicest way. Liberals tend to be nice, and they believe--here is where they go stupid--that most everybody else is nice too. Deep down, that is. Sure, you've got your multiple felon and your occasional war criminal, but they're undoubtedly depraved 'cause they're deprived. If only we could get social conditions right--eliminate poverty, teach anger management, restore the ozone, arrest John Ashcroft--everyone would be holding hands smiley-faced, rocking back and forth to "We Shall Overcome.''

Liberals believe that human nature is fundamentally good. The fact that this is contradicted by, oh, 4,000 years of human history simply tells them how urgent is the need for their next seven-point program for the social reform of everything.

Liberals suffer incurably from naivete, the stupidity of the good heart. Who else but that oracle of American liberalism, The New York Times, could run the puzzled headline: ``Crime Keeps On Falling, but Prisons Keep On Filling.'' But? How about this wild theory: If you lock up the criminals, crime declines.

Accordingly, the conservative attitude toward liberals is one of compassionate condescension. Liberals are not quite as reciprocally charitable. It is natural. They think conservatives are mean. How can conservatives believe in the things they do--self-reliance, self-discipline, competition, military power--without being soulless? How to understand the conservative desire to actually abolish welfare, if it is not to punish the poor? The argument that it would increase self-reliance and thus ultimately reduce poverty is dismissed as meanness rationalized--or as Rep. Major Owens, D-N.Y., put it more colorfully in a recent House debate on welfare reform, ``a cold-blooded grab for another pound of flesh from the demonized welfare mothers.''

Liberals, who have no head (see above), believe that conservatives have no heart. When Republicans unexpectedly took control of the House of Representatives in 1994, conventional wisdom immediately attributed this disturbance in the balance of the cosmos to the vote of the "angry white male'' (an invention unsupported by the three polls that actually asked about anger and found three-quarters of white males not angry.)

The "angry white male'' was thus a legend, but a necessary one. It was unimaginable that conservatives could be given power by any sentiment less base than anger, the selfish fury of the former top dog--the white male--forced to accommodate the aspirations of women, minorities and sundry upstarts.

The legend lives. Years ago it was Newt Gingrich as the Grinch who stole Christmas. Today, New York Times columnist Paul Krugman declares the Bush administration the moral equivalent of Jean-Marie Le Pen, France's far right, xenophobic, anti-Semitic heir to European fascism. Both apparently represent the "angry right.'' But in America, writes Krugman, it is worse: "Here the angry people are already running the country.''

This article of liberal faith--that conservatism is not just wrong but angry, mean and, well, bad--produces one paradox after another. Thus the online magazine Slate devoted an article to attempt to explain the "two faces'' of Paul Gigot, editorial page editor of The Wall Street Journal. The puzzle is how a conservative could have such a "winning cocktail-party personality and talk-show cordiality.'' Gigot, it turns out, is "Janus-faced'': regular guy--"plays basketball with working reporters''--yet conservative! "By day he wrote acid editorials ... by night he polished his civilized banter (on TV).''

A classic of the genre--liberal amazement when it finds conservatism coexisting with human decency in whatever form--is The New York Times news story speaking with unintended candor about bioethicist Leon Kass: "Critics of Dr. Kass' views call him a neoconservative thinker. ... But critics and admirers alike describe him as thoughtful and dignified.''

But? Neoconservative but thoughtful and dignified. A sighting: rare, oxymoronic, newsworthy.

The venerable David Halberstam, writing in praise of the recently departed Ted Williams, offered yet another sighting: "He was politically conservative but in his core the most democratic of men.'' Amazing.

The most troubling paradox of all, of course, is George W. Bush. Compassionate, yet conservative? Reporters were fooled during the campaign. "Because Bush seemed personally pleasant,'' explained Slate, "(they) assumed his politics lay near the political center.''

What else could one assume? Pleasant and conservative? Ah, yes, Grampa told of seeing one such in the Everglades. But that was 1926.

2002 Washington Post Writers Group
This column was published at www.townhall.com - direct link here: http://www.townhall.com/columnists/c...20020726.shtml
dockrocker is offline  
Reply With Quote
Reply

Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
CigDaze
General Boating Discussion
0
11-05-2002 08:58 AM



Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:32 PM.


Copyright 2011 OffShoreOnly. All rights reserved.