Political Slogan for whoever runs against Bush

Discussion in 'Politics' started by LoneVoice, Feb 21, 2004.

  1. LoneVoice
    Online

    LoneVoice Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    Like Father Like Son: It's the Economy Stupid!

    Then just sit back and watch the Republican blame game....
    Funny thing is, they got nobody to blame....
    Republican Senate, House, and President....
    Finally, there's nobody to blame....


    Trickle down doesn't trickle....

    Bush I in office - major recession/loss of jobs
    Bush II in office - major recession/loss of jobs again
    Hmmm..... What a coincidence!
     
  2. AtlantaWalter
    Offline

    AtlantaWalter Member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2003
    Messages:
    479
    Thanks Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    small cave outside Atlanta
    Ratings:
    +3
    at least now I understand your nick !!!!!
     
  3. rtwngAvngr
    Offline

    rtwngAvngr Guest

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2004
    Messages:
    15,755
    Thanks Received:
    511
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +511
    There's a reason your voice is lone. You say ignorant and simplistic partisan talking points.
     
  4. LoneVoice
    Online

    LoneVoice Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    You have no clue. So here's something to think about....

    One of the biggest problems with the U.S. political system is the vicious divide between the two parties. Democrats blaming Republicans and defending Democrats (i.e. Carville). Republicans blaming Democrats and defending Republicans (i.e. Rush). No matter the "issue".

    The problem is that when people just blindly follow the party line, then it just serves to polarize the country. The net effect is that the real issues for discussion in America become lost in the mix. The Republicans will take one side, the Democrats the other, then there will be a polarized screaming match between them. Neither side even attempts to understand what the other is saying.

    This blatant divide allows for all sorts of corrupt activities to take place, because even if the opposition points it out, they've been screaming so much over the petty issues that when something big happens, it just sounds like the same screaming.

    There's a small value to the two extremes, but just not as the dominate forces in politics. What's needed is to strengthen the moderates in the middle who are able to actually consider both sides of the issues and to find potential solutions.

    We often don't even vote our concious. If some third party comes up whose ideals strongly match our own, we Americans often won't even vote for them. Instead we'll say, well this party doesn't stand a chance to win, so therefore we don't want to waste our vote on them. The net effect is that even if those third parties ideas are good and strong enough for victory, they'll never win because people will be too afraid to vote for them. Sometimes even when those parties lose, it still sends a message about the change in political thought in America. It causes the two extreme parties to take notice and amend their ways to try to appeal to that constituency, or else further risk the growth and development of that new party competitor. How much impact would that have on the political landscape, if just once a new party should win (maybe it's an already existing new party, or maybe it's a totally new party that we haven't even seen yet)?


    How long have we've been hashing and re-hashing the exact same issues with no real compromise or progress (i.e. abortion, race relations, the effects of religion in politics, gun control, gay rights, defense spending, health care, social security. drug policy)?

    Come on! Some of these issues really aren't that complicated.

    Look we all have our moral beliefs that guide us in how we want to conduct our lives. No matter what your beliefs, no matter where you picked them up from (religion, streets, life experiences, books, other sources...), they are your beliefs and you don't want anyone infringing their beliefs on yours. For example, if you have Christian beliefs, you wouldn't want Jewish, or Budhist or Muslim beliefs imposed upon you. So, likewise be cautious not to impose your beliefs on someone else. Now, awareness is one thing - here's info on this set of philosophies and beliefs, you may partake if you choose to do so. But, imposing your religious philosphies and beliefs on another person... that's quite different. So, allow people the freedom to practice their philosphies, even if they are different that yours.


    Here's another political tactic that aids in polarizing people. Person X expresses a position about some issue they believe. Person Y takes that position and then extremifies it. Then proceeds to argue against the extreme position. Well, the original person X didn't make that extreme position. Thus person Y is essentially just arguing with themself. That's a pretty weird thing to do, if you really think about it.



    So, let's all stop spewing the party lines, and get back to thinking for ourselves, and allow others to practice their own beliefs. Only then will we truly be able to affect positive change and stop rehashing the same old issues.
     
  5. jimnyc
    Offline

    jimnyc ...

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2003
    Messages:
    10,113
    Thanks Received:
    244
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    New York
    Ratings:
    +246
    I refer you back to your original post, clueless! :rolleyes:
     
  6. rtwngAvngr
    Offline

    rtwngAvngr Guest

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2004
    Messages:
    15,755
    Thanks Received:
    511
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +511
    lonevoice. Your many premises are wrong. Rush is critical of Bush on many of his domestic policies. But, of course, since you trust the mainstream media for your concept of who Rush is and what he says, you wouldn't know this. Come back when you know what you're talking about.
     
  7. sitarro
    Offline

    sitarro Gold Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2003
    Messages:
    5,186
    Thanks Received:
    999
    Trophy Points:
    153
    Location:
    USA
    Ratings:
    +1,001
    Lone one,
    You reveal your total lack of knowledge about what you are talking about by comparing a total nut case like Carville with Rush Limbaugh .
    You also insult most on this board by saying that we can't have our own opinion if we listen to talk show hosts. The fact that I have listened to both Carville and Limbaugh only helps me gather more information . I read and listen to various opinions everyday, part of what I believe is because I read the editorials on numerous left leaning sites , Michael Moore's site , etc. . I find that the conservatives are so much less condesending than ass wipes like Michael Moore . I'll take the sarcastic wit of Ann Coulter or Rush Limbaugh any day . Same goes for William F. Buckley .
    Where do you go lone one , where do your views originate ? Do you understand sarcasim or exageration to make a point . Both Coulter and Limbaugh are masters at both . I think that is why they are hated so much by the left . The fact is the left are generally very unhappy , negative , humorless , sad people . Look at Michael Moore , Al Franken , any feminist , Most gay activists , environmental activist , Martin Sheen , Al Gore , Howard Dean , and John Kerry . . . all very angry , negative , humorless and sad people , I feel sorry for them . Rush Limbaugh on the other hand is funny , sarcastic , positive , and having a great time(insert sophmoric drug addiction quip here) .
    I want to be on the side that knows how to enjoy themselves .
    By the way , I am originally from Louisiana and most residents are ashamed that Carville claims Louisiana as his birthplace . His accent is about as fake as Dennis Quaid's in "The Big Easy" .
     
  8. LoneVoice
    Online

    LoneVoice Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    There you go rightwingavenger... making outright assumptions which are wrong.

    I've heard Rush numerous times. He spews far right wing Republican philosophy over 90% of the time. He is a prime example of the polarizing that is going on in the country.

    Al Franken uses many of the same Rush tactics, in support of left wing philosophy to counter far right wing philosophy. He is an example of the opposite extreme of the polarization.

    Rush is very hypocritical... For example, he consistently bashed the ACLU. Then when he got busted for his illegal drugs problem, now he's a great proponent of the ACLU. What's changed? Well the ACLU is out to protect Civil Liberties... that's the same. For Rush, when it was other people's Civil Liberties the ACLU was the pariah. Now that it's his own, now that he's actually walked a mile in those shoes, he nows starts to see the merits.

    Rush gained in his popularity by outright Clinton bashing. I don't think you could find a single Rush show during that period, that didn't engage in some form of Clinton bashing.

    Now Clinton had some flaws, but nothing that amounts to 52 weeks worth of criticism for 8+ years... On the other hand, Clinton's greatest strength was the ability to listen to both sides of an issue, understand it, and in GENERAL, propose or support a moderate position.

    One of Rush's big bashes against Clinton was that he'd take on some Republican issues and support them as his own. Well, in my mind that's a good thing... to actually listen to the opposing side and make some agreements in the middle. That's progress. A number of moderately Republican philosophies got passed during Clinton's term.

    Where Bush does that, I support him as well. For example, in Bush's defense of marriage proposal. The Bush/Republican personal philosophies are to protect marriage and disavow gays in any form. But, in Bush's recent proposal he defends marriage between man and woman, but also compromised and allows room for Civil Unions.

    Ultimately, I think one side wants to protect the word "marriage" as a union between a man and a woman. Ultimately the other side just wants some legitimacy and to be respected as human beings - not pariah. So, allow the Gay constituency to make up a word for their union other than "marriage". For society it will be beneficial to be able to distinguish the two types of unions. But, for all "legal" purposes their union gets all the legal rights of marriage. For example, if their partner is incapacitated on the deathbed, then they'd be allowed to make legal decisions. Compromise, that shouldn't be so complex.


    The main point in the background of everthing. Let's start taking off the labels - Republican, Democrat, Christian, Jewish, Muslim, White, Black, minority, straight, gay... whatever. Then we can all start dealing with people as human beings. Then we can truly talk issues with an understanding of both sides. Until then, all we're doing is spewing hatred from opposite extremes.
     
  9. rtwngAvngr
    Offline

    rtwngAvngr Guest

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2004
    Messages:
    15,755
    Thanks Received:
    511
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +511
    Rush doesn't spew hatred. Franken does. That's a 50%. You fail.
     
  10. acludem
    Offline

    acludem VIP Member

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2003
    Messages:
    1,500
    Thanks Received:
    49
    Trophy Points:
    71
    Location:
    Missouri
    Ratings:
    +69
    Rush is the originator of right-wing talk radio hate mongering. Hannity and the rest followed in his footsteps.

    acludem
     

Share This Page