Menu

Home › Forums › Other › OT: Conservatives Revel In America’s Olympic Defeat

Viewing 15 posts - 151 through 165 (of 321 total)
1 2 3 … 10 11 12 … 20 21 22
  • Author
    Posts
  • October 5, 2009 at 9:33 AM #464621
    briansd1
    Guest

    [quote=Allan from Fallbrook] All the empty rhetoric, polemic and vitriol spewing from mental midgets like Rush, and Hannity, and Beck, is exactly the same coming from the fringe element of the Democratic Party you hold so dear, too.[/quote]

    Allan, you have to recognize that the radical right is better at it.

    As you aptly said before, sometimes the best to go beat your opponent is to outgun him, not to appease by turning the other cheek.

    I agree with you that the left is just a fucked-up, but at least they don’t hide it — at least when it comes to sex and morality. It’s just a normal part of life and we should just accept it.

    The righteous, on the other hand claim to be holier-than-thou but they are very wicked behind the scenes.

    Here’s the latest on the Born-Again Christian:
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/04/AR2009100402298.html

    October 5, 2009 at 10:03 AM #463829
    Arraya
    Participant

    delete

    October 5, 2009 at 10:03 AM #464020
    Arraya
    Participant

    delete

    October 5, 2009 at 10:03 AM #464368
    Arraya
    Participant

    delete

    October 5, 2009 at 10:03 AM #464439
    Arraya
    Participant

    delete

    October 5, 2009 at 10:03 AM #464646
    Arraya
    Participant

    delete

    October 5, 2009 at 11:58 AM #463876
    ucodegen
    Participant

    IMHO gerrymandering is a big contributor to the radicalization of US politics. Most electing districts have been designed to ensure that one party is essentially guaranteed to win it.

    I would have to disagree with this. The first and foremost contribution to the radicalization is the media which prefers ‘dramatic heartrending’ stories to the facts. They will dress up anything to an extreme, including political positions. Both sides do it. They would rather concentrate on extreme points of view of the constituents rather than the facts. The media also prefers to address the party not the platform… Bush’s stimulus was bad and Obama’s good… because why? In many cases, politicians then take extreme positions to play to the ends and figure that the middle is not worth going for. The result being that the center, which happens to be the majority, is marginalized.

    Another item that contributes to the radicalization is that you can’t vote for members of political parties outside of your party affiliation during the primary. The political party’s position on this is that people from the opposing political party would vote for someone to sabotage the political parties win. The last part of that sentence is important. The political party is more concerned with their win than what the voters really want. They strive to stay in power, no to represent the people of the country. I am not going to throw away my vote just to give the political party I am affiliated with, a better chance. I would vote as I always do, for the candidate that I feel would be better for the country.

    Allan, you have to recognize that the radical right is better at it.

    Actually, the left is. If you can recognize their drivel as drivel without thinking about it.. then you know they aren’t that good. If you are tempted to accept it as the truth, then you know they are good at dressing up the drivel to make it acceptable. It is the essence of being a good salesmen and to get the mark to not think about their purchase.

    by drivel, I mean empty rhetoric, polemic and vitriol…

    October 5, 2009 at 11:58 AM #464068
    ucodegen
    Participant

    IMHO gerrymandering is a big contributor to the radicalization of US politics. Most electing districts have been designed to ensure that one party is essentially guaranteed to win it.

    I would have to disagree with this. The first and foremost contribution to the radicalization is the media which prefers ‘dramatic heartrending’ stories to the facts. They will dress up anything to an extreme, including political positions. Both sides do it. They would rather concentrate on extreme points of view of the constituents rather than the facts. The media also prefers to address the party not the platform… Bush’s stimulus was bad and Obama’s good… because why? In many cases, politicians then take extreme positions to play to the ends and figure that the middle is not worth going for. The result being that the center, which happens to be the majority, is marginalized.

    Another item that contributes to the radicalization is that you can’t vote for members of political parties outside of your party affiliation during the primary. The political party’s position on this is that people from the opposing political party would vote for someone to sabotage the political parties win. The last part of that sentence is important. The political party is more concerned with their win than what the voters really want. They strive to stay in power, no to represent the people of the country. I am not going to throw away my vote just to give the political party I am affiliated with, a better chance. I would vote as I always do, for the candidate that I feel would be better for the country.

    Allan, you have to recognize that the radical right is better at it.

    Actually, the left is. If you can recognize their drivel as drivel without thinking about it.. then you know they aren’t that good. If you are tempted to accept it as the truth, then you know they are good at dressing up the drivel to make it acceptable. It is the essence of being a good salesmen and to get the mark to not think about their purchase.

    by drivel, I mean empty rhetoric, polemic and vitriol…

    October 5, 2009 at 11:58 AM #464416
    ucodegen
    Participant

    IMHO gerrymandering is a big contributor to the radicalization of US politics. Most electing districts have been designed to ensure that one party is essentially guaranteed to win it.

    I would have to disagree with this. The first and foremost contribution to the radicalization is the media which prefers ‘dramatic heartrending’ stories to the facts. They will dress up anything to an extreme, including political positions. Both sides do it. They would rather concentrate on extreme points of view of the constituents rather than the facts. The media also prefers to address the party not the platform… Bush’s stimulus was bad and Obama’s good… because why? In many cases, politicians then take extreme positions to play to the ends and figure that the middle is not worth going for. The result being that the center, which happens to be the majority, is marginalized.

    Another item that contributes to the radicalization is that you can’t vote for members of political parties outside of your party affiliation during the primary. The political party’s position on this is that people from the opposing political party would vote for someone to sabotage the political parties win. The last part of that sentence is important. The political party is more concerned with their win than what the voters really want. They strive to stay in power, no to represent the people of the country. I am not going to throw away my vote just to give the political party I am affiliated with, a better chance. I would vote as I always do, for the candidate that I feel would be better for the country.

    Allan, you have to recognize that the radical right is better at it.

    Actually, the left is. If you can recognize their drivel as drivel without thinking about it.. then you know they aren’t that good. If you are tempted to accept it as the truth, then you know they are good at dressing up the drivel to make it acceptable. It is the essence of being a good salesmen and to get the mark to not think about their purchase.

    by drivel, I mean empty rhetoric, polemic and vitriol…

    October 5, 2009 at 11:58 AM #464487
    ucodegen
    Participant

    IMHO gerrymandering is a big contributor to the radicalization of US politics. Most electing districts have been designed to ensure that one party is essentially guaranteed to win it.

    I would have to disagree with this. The first and foremost contribution to the radicalization is the media which prefers ‘dramatic heartrending’ stories to the facts. They will dress up anything to an extreme, including political positions. Both sides do it. They would rather concentrate on extreme points of view of the constituents rather than the facts. The media also prefers to address the party not the platform… Bush’s stimulus was bad and Obama’s good… because why? In many cases, politicians then take extreme positions to play to the ends and figure that the middle is not worth going for. The result being that the center, which happens to be the majority, is marginalized.

    Another item that contributes to the radicalization is that you can’t vote for members of political parties outside of your party affiliation during the primary. The political party’s position on this is that people from the opposing political party would vote for someone to sabotage the political parties win. The last part of that sentence is important. The political party is more concerned with their win than what the voters really want. They strive to stay in power, no to represent the people of the country. I am not going to throw away my vote just to give the political party I am affiliated with, a better chance. I would vote as I always do, for the candidate that I feel would be better for the country.

    Allan, you have to recognize that the radical right is better at it.

    Actually, the left is. If you can recognize their drivel as drivel without thinking about it.. then you know they aren’t that good. If you are tempted to accept it as the truth, then you know they are good at dressing up the drivel to make it acceptable. It is the essence of being a good salesmen and to get the mark to not think about their purchase.

    by drivel, I mean empty rhetoric, polemic and vitriol…

    October 5, 2009 at 11:58 AM #464693
    ucodegen
    Participant

    IMHO gerrymandering is a big contributor to the radicalization of US politics. Most electing districts have been designed to ensure that one party is essentially guaranteed to win it.

    I would have to disagree with this. The first and foremost contribution to the radicalization is the media which prefers ‘dramatic heartrending’ stories to the facts. They will dress up anything to an extreme, including political positions. Both sides do it. They would rather concentrate on extreme points of view of the constituents rather than the facts. The media also prefers to address the party not the platform… Bush’s stimulus was bad and Obama’s good… because why? In many cases, politicians then take extreme positions to play to the ends and figure that the middle is not worth going for. The result being that the center, which happens to be the majority, is marginalized.

    Another item that contributes to the radicalization is that you can’t vote for members of political parties outside of your party affiliation during the primary. The political party’s position on this is that people from the opposing political party would vote for someone to sabotage the political parties win. The last part of that sentence is important. The political party is more concerned with their win than what the voters really want. They strive to stay in power, no to represent the people of the country. I am not going to throw away my vote just to give the political party I am affiliated with, a better chance. I would vote as I always do, for the candidate that I feel would be better for the country.

    Allan, you have to recognize that the radical right is better at it.

    Actually, the left is. If you can recognize their drivel as drivel without thinking about it.. then you know they aren’t that good. If you are tempted to accept it as the truth, then you know they are good at dressing up the drivel to make it acceptable. It is the essence of being a good salesmen and to get the mark to not think about their purchase.

    by drivel, I mean empty rhetoric, polemic and vitriol…

    October 5, 2009 at 12:53 PM #463902
    briansd1
    Guest

    [quote=ucodegen]

    Allan, you have to recognize that the radical right is better at it.

    Actually, the left is. If you can recognize their drivel as drivel without thinking about it.. then you know they aren’t that good. If you are tempted to accept it as the truth, then you know they are good at dressing up the drivel to make it acceptable. It is the essence of being a good salesmen and to get the mark to not think about their purchase.

    by drivel, I mean empty rhetoric, polemic and vitriol…[/quote]

    ucodegen, I don’t see an equivalent to Rush on the left — someone who despite his own personal failings still commands a huge fanatical audience.

    Are you saying that Rush listeners easily recognize Rush’s ramblings as drivel? If so, then why does his audience keep on tuning in?

    I believe that there are a few Piggs who are adherents of Rush, Beck and Fox News. And Piggs are generally smart. Or are they idiots who can’t recognize drivel?

    That about the huge Christian base who listens to their preachers and only vote on abortion and creationism?

    October 5, 2009 at 12:53 PM #464093
    briansd1
    Guest

    [quote=ucodegen]

    Allan, you have to recognize that the radical right is better at it.

    Actually, the left is. If you can recognize their drivel as drivel without thinking about it.. then you know they aren’t that good. If you are tempted to accept it as the truth, then you know they are good at dressing up the drivel to make it acceptable. It is the essence of being a good salesmen and to get the mark to not think about their purchase.

    by drivel, I mean empty rhetoric, polemic and vitriol…[/quote]

    ucodegen, I don’t see an equivalent to Rush on the left — someone who despite his own personal failings still commands a huge fanatical audience.

    Are you saying that Rush listeners easily recognize Rush’s ramblings as drivel? If so, then why does his audience keep on tuning in?

    I believe that there are a few Piggs who are adherents of Rush, Beck and Fox News. And Piggs are generally smart. Or are they idiots who can’t recognize drivel?

    That about the huge Christian base who listens to their preachers and only vote on abortion and creationism?

    October 5, 2009 at 12:53 PM #464441
    briansd1
    Guest

    [quote=ucodegen]

    Allan, you have to recognize that the radical right is better at it.

    Actually, the left is. If you can recognize their drivel as drivel without thinking about it.. then you know they aren’t that good. If you are tempted to accept it as the truth, then you know they are good at dressing up the drivel to make it acceptable. It is the essence of being a good salesmen and to get the mark to not think about their purchase.

    by drivel, I mean empty rhetoric, polemic and vitriol…[/quote]

    ucodegen, I don’t see an equivalent to Rush on the left — someone who despite his own personal failings still commands a huge fanatical audience.

    Are you saying that Rush listeners easily recognize Rush’s ramblings as drivel? If so, then why does his audience keep on tuning in?

    I believe that there are a few Piggs who are adherents of Rush, Beck and Fox News. And Piggs are generally smart. Or are they idiots who can’t recognize drivel?

    That about the huge Christian base who listens to their preachers and only vote on abortion and creationism?

    October 5, 2009 at 12:53 PM #464512
    briansd1
    Guest

    [quote=ucodegen]

    Allan, you have to recognize that the radical right is better at it.

    Actually, the left is. If you can recognize their drivel as drivel without thinking about it.. then you know they aren’t that good. If you are tempted to accept it as the truth, then you know they are good at dressing up the drivel to make it acceptable. It is the essence of being a good salesmen and to get the mark to not think about their purchase.

    by drivel, I mean empty rhetoric, polemic and vitriol…[/quote]

    ucodegen, I don’t see an equivalent to Rush on the left — someone who despite his own personal failings still commands a huge fanatical audience.

    Are you saying that Rush listeners easily recognize Rush’s ramblings as drivel? If so, then why does his audience keep on tuning in?

    I believe that there are a few Piggs who are adherents of Rush, Beck and Fox News. And Piggs are generally smart. Or are they idiots who can’t recognize drivel?

    That about the huge Christian base who listens to their preachers and only vote on abortion and creationism?

  • Author
    Posts
Viewing 15 posts - 151 through 165 (of 321 total)
1 2 3 … 10 11 12 … 20 21 22
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.