An Open Letter to my Fellow Democrats

[Bfgrn]

EXCEPT, naturally, your quotation of that position expressed by Agre assumes that it is correct. It isn't. Conservatism is absolutely NOT the domination of society by any aristocracy. That claim is merely a lie.

And the contention that conservatism is "incompatible" with democracy is also untrue. Neither is it incompatible with prosperity. Indeed, the precise opposite is true. It is by virtue of conservative principles that societies flourish. It is premised ON equality, not inequality. That is another absolute lie.

All of the negatives Agre and you falsely associate with conservatism are actually instead true of the modern American "liberal" political philosophy.

Hayek's contentions about the meaning of conservatism are also false for similar reasons.

One has to be a virtual imbecile to accept the false premises you cherish, Bfgrn. But then, you ARE Bfgrn.

Liability...F.A. Hayek is DUD...e's ultimate hero... what DUD...e claims to be a big 'heap of steaming, self-serving and self-congratulatory manure' is EXACTLY what DUD...e's ultimate hero says

Yes I AM Bfgrn, and I'm fully aware of who I am, what I believe and WHY I believe it. My question to you Liability...are YOU DUD...e?

Holy shit, was THAT a massively stupid reply! Bravo. If you were intent on hitting the bulls eye of stupidity, you can save the rest of the arrows in your quiver!

Hayek has a great economic mind. If Dude respects that, that's fine by me.

But to the extent that Hayek defines "conservatism" in the irrational and baseless way you quoted him as defining it, then I don't care how great an economic genius Hayek may be. His contentions about the meaning of conservatism are wrong all the same.

Dude and I have shared use of a brain (together with Frank). When Dude and I disagree (it is rare, but it happens) it is pretty much cognitive dissonance time. But the thing is -- and you and your ilk will never fathom this -- it is possible to disagree and yet do so in a respectful fashion. His disagreements with some of my expressed positions have caused me to confront alternative views. Not such a horrible thing.

Why don't you ASK Dude if he accepts every single pronouncement uttered from the mouth (or type-writer) of Mr. Hayek?

When YOU quote somebody you cherish, like say Mao, does that mean that YOU accept every single thing that individual has ever had to say on any topic?

I DID...are YOU DUD...e???

 

[Liability]

Liability...F.A. Hayek is DUD...e's ultimate hero... what DUD...e claims to be a big 'heap of steaming, self-serving and self-congratulatory manure' is EXACTLY what DUD...e's ultimate hero says

Yes I AM Bfgrn, and I'm fully aware of who I am, what I believe and WHY I believe it. My question to you Liability...are YOU DUD...e?

Holy shit, was THAT a massively stupid reply! Bravo. If you were intent on hitting the bulls eye of stupidity, you can save the rest of the arrows in your quiver!

Hayek has a great economic mind. If Dude respects that, that's fine by me.

But to the extent that Hayek defines "conservatism" in the irrational and baseless way you quoted him as defining it, then I don't care how great an economic genius Hayek may be. His contentions about the meaning of conservatism are wrong all the same.

Dude and I have shared use of a brain (together with Frank). When Dude and I disagree (it is rare, but it happens) it is pretty much cognitive dissonance time. But the thing is -- and you and your ilk will never fathom this -- it is possible to disagree and yet do so in a respectful fashion. His disagreements with some of my expressed positions have caused me to confront alternative views. Not such a horrible thing.

Why don't you ASK Dude if he accepts every single pronouncement uttered from the mouth (or type-writer) of Mr. Hayek?

When YOU quote somebody you cherish, like say Mao, does that mean that YOU accept every single thing that individual has ever had to say on any topic?

I DID...are YOU DUD...e???

Asking me if I'm Dude is just you being an asshole. But I repeat myself.

It is not, however, asking Dude if he accepts every single thing ever said by Hayek.

And -- not surprisingly -- you ducked my question. Are you the kind of idiot that accepts EVERY single thing said by a person whom you admire or respect?

 

[Bfgrn]

Holy shit, was THAT a massively stupid reply! Bravo. If you were intent on hitting the bulls eye of stupidity, you can save the rest of the arrows in your quiver!

Hayek has a great economic mind. If Dude respects that, that's fine by me.

But to the extent that Hayek defines "conservatism" in the irrational and baseless way you quoted him as defining it, then I don't care how great an economic genius Hayek may be. His contentions about the meaning of conservatism are wrong all the same.

Dude and I have shared use of a brain (together with Frank). When Dude and I disagree (it is rare, but it happens) it is pretty much cognitive dissonance time. But the thing is -- and you and your ilk will never fathom this -- it is possible to disagree and yet do so in a respectful fashion. His disagreements with some of my expressed positions have caused me to confront alternative views. Not such a horrible thing.

Why don't you ASK Dude if he accepts every single pronouncement uttered from the mouth (or type-writer) of Mr. Hayek?

When YOU quote somebody you cherish, like say Mao, does that mean that YOU accept every single thing that individual has ever had to say on any topic?

I DID...are YOU DUD...e???

Asking me if I'm Dude is just you being an asshole. But I repeat myself.

It is not, however, asking Dude if he accepts every single thing ever said by Hayek.

And -- not surprisingly -- you ducked my question. Are you the kind of idiot that accepts EVERY single thing said by a person whom you admire or respect?

I asked you if you are DUD...e for a reason that is obvious to everyone, yet remains oblivious to you. I ASKED DUD...e, but instead of DUD...e answering, YOU are answering FOR DUD...e...

DUD...e has every right to say that Hayek is the author of the biggest heap of steaming, self-serving and self-congratulatory manure, he's ever seen.

BUT, then DUD...e can not accuse me of 'cherry picking' when HE cherry picks.

 

[Liability]

I DID...are YOU DUD...e???

Asking me if I'm Dude is just you being an asshole. But I repeat myself.

It is not, however, asking Dude if he accepts every single thing ever said by Hayek.

And -- not surprisingly -- you ducked my question. Are you the kind of idiot that accepts EVERY single thing said by a person whom you admire or respect?

I asked you if you are DUD...e for a reason that is obvious to everyone, yet remains oblivious to you. I ASKED DUD...e, but instead of DUD...e answering, YOU are answering FOR DUD...e...

DUD...e has every right to say that Hayek is the author of the biggest heap of steaming, self-serving and self-congratulatory manure, he's ever seen.

BUT, then DUD...e can not accuse me of 'cherry picking' when HE cherry picks.

Your argument (for lack of a better term) is absurd.

Dude is the one you should be asking, you nitwit.

And if Dude deems addressing your imbecile questions a worthwhile expenditure of his time, he might even deign to give you an answer.

In the interim, common sense (which you lack) is sufficient.

If Dude likes Hayek in one field (say, for example, oh, I don't know, maybe 'economics'?) that does NOT mean that he as to accept every fucking thing that Hayek has to say on all topics.

I mean, you are an incredible imbecile, yet I doubt that even one as stupid as YOU would argue that you are obliged to accept EVERYTHING that a person says just because you happen to like, admire, respect or agree with that person on some issues.

And you also misue the term "cherry picking" for similar reasons.

 

[Bfgrn]

Asking me if I'm Dude is just you being an asshole. But I repeat myself.

It is not, however, asking Dude if he accepts every single thing ever said by Hayek.

And -- not surprisingly -- you ducked my question. Are you the kind of idiot that accepts EVERY single thing said by a person whom you admire or respect?

I asked you if you are DUD...e for a reason that is obvious to everyone, yet remains oblivious to you. I ASKED DUD...e, but instead of DUD...e answering, YOU are answering FOR DUD...e...

DUD...e has every right to say that Hayek is the author of the biggest heap of steaming, self-serving and self-congratulatory manure, he's ever seen.

BUT, then DUD...e can not accuse me of 'cherry picking' when HE cherry picks.

Your argument (for lack of a better term) is absurd.

Dude is the one you should be asking, you nitwit.

And if Dude deems addressing your imbecile questions a worthwhile expenditure of his time, he might even deign to give you an answer.

In the interim, common sense (which you lack) is sufficient.

If Dude likes Hayek in one field (say, for example, oh, I don't know, maybe 'economics'?) that does NOT mean that he as to accept every fucking thing that Hayek has to say on all topics.

I mean, you are an incredible imbecile, yet I doubt that even one as stupid as YOU would argue that you are obliged to accept EVERYTHING that a person says just because you happen to like, admire, respect or agree with that person on some issues.

And you also misue the term "cherry picking" for similar reasons.

Are you really THAT dense Liability? DUD...e CAN'T claim one author's words are the biggest heaps of steaming, self-serving and self-congratulatory manure, he's ever seen and have Hayek say the SAME thing, and NOT say the SAME thing about Hayek's words.

This can be easily cleared up...the ball's in DUD...e's court. All DUD...e has to do is say that F.A. Hayek is not a worthy, intelligent or even a credible source of political philosophy. That Hayek is strictly a source of economic philosophy. But when it comes to political philosophy Hayek spews the biggest heaps of steaming, self-serving and self-congratulatory manure, he's ever seen...

Hayek has a great economic mind. If Dude respects that, that's fine by me.

The conservative feels safe and content only if he is assured that some higher wisdom watches and supervises change, only if he knows that some authority is charged with keeping the change "orderly."

This fear of trusting uncontrolled social forces is closely related to two other characteristics of conservatism: its fondness for authority and its lack of understanding of economic forces. Since it distrusts both abstract theories and general principles,[6] it neither understands those spontaneous forces on which a policy of freedom relies nor possesses a basis for formulating principles of policy. Order appears to the conservative as the result of the continuous attention of authority, which, for this purpose, must be allowed to do what is required by the particular circumstances and not be tied to rigid rule. A commitment to principles presupposes an understanding of the general forces by which the efforts of society are co-ordinated, but it is such a theory of society and especially of the economic mechanism that conservatism conspicuously lacks. So unproductive has conservatism been in producing a general conception of how a social order is maintained that its modern votaries, in trying to construct a theoretical foundation, invariably find themselves appealing almost exclusively to authors who regarded themselves as liberal.

F.A. Hayek...'a great economic mind.'

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Great News, Comrades!! Obama's 5 year Plan has cause unemployment to plummet, crashing below the 10% level!

Rejoice, Comrades!!

 

[Liability]

I asked you if you are DUD...e for a reason that is obvious to everyone, yet remains oblivious to you. I ASKED DUD...e, but instead of DUD...e answering, YOU are answering FOR DUD...e...

DUD...e has every right to say that Hayek is the author of the biggest heap of steaming, self-serving and self-congratulatory manure, he's ever seen.

BUT, then DUD...e can not accuse me of 'cherry picking' when HE cherry picks.

Your argument (for lack of a better term) is absurd.

Dude is the one you should be asking, you nitwit.

And if Dude deems addressing your imbecile questions a worthwhile expenditure of his time, he might even deign to give you an answer.

In the interim, common sense (which you lack) is sufficient.

If Dude likes Hayek in one field (say, for example, oh, I don't know, maybe 'economics'?) that does NOT mean that he as to accept every fucking thing that Hayek has to say on all topics.

I mean, you are an incredible imbecile, yet I doubt that even one as stupid as YOU would argue that you are obliged to accept EVERYTHING that a person says just because you happen to like, admire, respect or agree with that person on some issues.

And you also misue the term "cherry picking" for similar reasons.

Are you really THAT dense Liability? DUD...e CAN'T claim one author's words are the biggest heaps of steaming, self-serving and self-congratulatory manure, he's ever seen and have Hayek say the SAME thing, and NOT say the SAME thing about Hayek's words.

This can be easily cleared up...the ball's in DUD...e's court. All DUD...e has to do is say that F.A. Hayek is not a worthy, intelligent or even a credible source of political philosophy. That Hayek is strictly a source of economic philosophy. But when it comes to political philosophy Hayek spews the biggest heaps of steaming, self-serving and self-congratulatory manure, he's ever seen...

Hayek has a great economic mind. If Dude respects that, that's fine by me.

The conservative feels safe and content only if he is assured that some higher wisdom watches and supervises change, only if he knows that some authority is charged with keeping the change "orderly."

This fear of trusting uncontrolled social forces is closely related to two other characteristics of conservatism: its fondness for authority and its lack of understanding of economic forces. Since it distrusts both abstract theories and general principles,[6] it neither understands those spontaneous forces on which a policy of freedom relies nor possesses a basis for formulating principles of policy. Order appears to the conservative as the result of the continuous attention of authority, which, for this purpose, must be allowed to do what is required by the particular circumstances and not be tied to rigid rule. A commitment to principles presupposes an understanding of the general forces by which the efforts of society are co-ordinated, but it is such a theory of society and especially of the economic mechanism that conservatism conspicuously lacks. So unproductive has conservatism been in producing a general conception of how a social order is maintained that its modern votaries, in trying to construct a theoretical foundation, invariably find themselves appealing almost exclusively to authors who regarded themselves as liberal.

F.A. Hayek...'a great economic mind.'

As much as I admire your ability to randomly quote excerpts of the works of others without adding anything of your own to make clear what your point might be, I have to admit, your style does cause more confusion than elucidation.

Hayek may very well be a great economic mind. That does not mean that he is correct in his philosophical analysis of conservatism vs. "liberalsim."

Furthermore, you sluggish dolt, What Dude RESPONDED to with his "steaming pile of manure" comment was THIS post: http://www.usmessageboard.com/writing/104093-an-open-letter-to-my-fellow-democrats.html#post1975324

In that post, the words of an ancient Asian philosopher, Lao-Tzu (which are rather random and meaningless -- at least when quoted so completely out of context) were "quoted." Then, in your usual unclear style, you offered a link to Agre's work.

Maybe YOU assume that Dude was criticizing the words of Agre. But it looked to me like he was instead criticizing the words of the Asian philosopher, Lao-Tzu.

Why not ask Dude?

 

[Bfgrn]

Your argument (for lack of a better term) is absurd.

Dude is the one you should be asking, you nitwit.

And if Dude deems addressing your imbecile questions a worthwhile expenditure of his time, he might even deign to give you an answer.

In the interim, common sense (which you lack) is sufficient.

If Dude likes Hayek in one field (say, for example, oh, I don't know, maybe 'economics'?) that does NOT mean that he as to accept every fucking thing that Hayek has to say on all topics.

I mean, you are an incredible imbecile, yet I doubt that even one as stupid as YOU would argue that you are obliged to accept EVERYTHING that a person says just because you happen to like, admire, respect or agree with that person on some issues.

And you also misue the term "cherry picking" for similar reasons.

Are you really THAT dense Liability? DUD...e CAN'T claim one author's words are the biggest heaps of steaming, self-serving and self-congratulatory manure, he's ever seen and have Hayek say the SAME thing, and NOT say the SAME thing about Hayek's words.

This can be easily cleared up...the ball's in DUD...e's court. All DUD...e has to do is say that F.A. Hayek is not a worthy, intelligent or even a credible source of political philosophy. That Hayek is strictly a source of economic philosophy. But when it comes to political philosophy Hayek spews the biggest heaps of steaming, self-serving and self-congratulatory manure, he's ever seen...

Hayek has a great economic mind. If Dude respects that, that's fine by me.

The conservative feels safe and content only if he is assured that some higher wisdom watches and supervises change, only if he knows that some authority is charged with keeping the change "orderly."

This fear of trusting uncontrolled social forces is closely related to two other characteristics of conservatism: its fondness for authority and its lack of understanding of economic forces. Since it distrusts both abstract theories and general principles,[6] it neither understands those spontaneous forces on which a policy of freedom relies nor possesses a basis for formulating principles of policy. Order appears to the conservative as the result of the continuous attention of authority, which, for this purpose, must be allowed to do what is required by the particular circumstances and not be tied to rigid rule. A commitment to principles presupposes an understanding of the general forces by which the efforts of society are co-ordinated, but it is such a theory of society and especially of the economic mechanism that conservatism conspicuously lacks. So unproductive has conservatism been in producing a general conception of how a social order is maintained that its modern votaries, in trying to construct a theoretical foundation, invariably find themselves appealing almost exclusively to authors who regarded themselves as liberal.

F.A. Hayek...'a great economic mind.'

As much as I admire your ability to randomly quote excerpts of the works of others without adding anything of your own to make clear what your point might be, I have to admit, your style does cause more confusion than elucidation.

Hayek may very well be a great economic mind. That does not mean that he is correct in his philosophical analysis of conservatism vs. "liberalsim."

Furthermore, you sluggish dolt, What Dude RESPONDED to with his "steaming pile of manure" comment was THIS post: http://www.usmessageboard.com/writing/104093-an-open-letter-to-my-fellow-democrats.html#post1975324

In that post, the words of an ancient Asian philosopher, Lao-Tzu (which are rather random and meaningless -- at least when quoted so completely out of context) were "quoted." Then, in your usual unclear style, you offered a link to Agre's work.

Maybe YOU assume that Dude was criticizing the words of Agre. But it looked to me like he was instead criticizing the words of the Asian philosopher, Lao-Tzu.

Why not ask Dude?

Hello? I DID ask DUD...e, but ALL I've heard from is the guy defending his man crush on DUD...e

THAT would be YOU...

DUD...e can take your unsolicited advise and LIE about his reply, But midcan5 was addressing CrusaderFrank with the quote, NOT DUD...e

"He who knows does not speak, he who speaks does not know." Lao-Tzu

CrusaderFrank, see above, fits you perfectly.

What Is Conservatism and What Is Wrong with It?

"A bigger heap of steaming, self-serving and self-congratulatory manure, I've not ever seen."

~The Dude

Then my question: Is DUD...e CrusaderFrank, or is this just a circle jerk triad of sperm swappers?

 

[Liability]

* * * *

Hello? I DID ask DUD...e, but ALL I've heard from is the guy defending his man crush on DUD...e

Hello. No. You didn't ask Dude. You asked me if I was Dude. And now I have pointed out to YOU that you quoted Lao-Tzu then conjoined it with that LINK to Agre's piece. So it remains quite unclear (because of your idiot posting style) WHICH author (Tzu or Agre) Dude was speaking of.

THAT would be YOU * * * *

No. It wouldn't.

Your 3rd grade level humor probably got you no laughs through grade school. It still sucks. You go down on President Obama. I only ask you some questions about your idiot commentary relative to Dude. See the difference? No? Get your eyes out of President Obama's crotch for a minute, then.

DUD...e can take your unsolicited advise and LIE about his reply, But midcan5 was addressing CrusaderFrank with the quote, NOT DUD...e

"He who knows does not speak, he who speaks does not know." Lao-Tzu

CrusaderFrank, see above, fits you perfectly.

What Is Conservatism and What Is Wrong with It?

"A bigger heap of steaming, self-serving and self-congratulatory manure, I've not ever seen."

~The Dude

Then my question: Is DUD...e CrusaderFrank, or is this just a circle jerk triad of sperm swappers?

As noted above, the balance of your imbecile post only proves that you are babbling. There was the quote of Tzu conjoined (for some unclear reason) with the link to Agre's piece. This was followed by Dude's observation. YOU unilaterally then determined that the observation referred to Agre's shit, but that makes no particular sense. It still LOOKS like the comment was about the stupid out-of-context quotation of Lao-Tzu.

Look. Just go back down on the man-child president, finish it off, wipe your chin and then get back to posting lengthy quotes with no intelligible commentary.

Get to it.

 

[Bfgrn]

As noted above, the balance of your imbecile post only proves that you are babbling. There was the quote of Tzu conjoined (for some unclear reason) with the link to Agre's piece. This was followed by Dude's observation. YOU unilaterally then determined that the observation referred to Agre's shit, but that makes no particular sense. It still LOOKS like the comment was about the stupid out-of-context quotation of Lao-Tzu.

Well Liability, I didn't involve YOU in my post TO DUD...e, YOU decided to intrude.

And, YOU unilaterally originally determined that the observation referred to Agre's shit, not as a reply to the quote directed at Crusader Frank...

"A bigger heap of steaming, self-serving and self-congratulatory manure, I've not ever seen."

~The Dude

Really The DUD...e? This is the bigger heap of steaming, self-serving and self-congratulatory manure, you've not ever seen?

What Is Conservatism and What Is Wrong with It?

Philip E. Agre
August 2004

Liberals in the United States have been losing political debates to conservatives for a quarter century. In order to start winning again, liberals must answer two simple questions: what is conservatism, and what is wrong with it? As it happens, the answers to these questions are also simple:

Q: What is conservatism?
A: Conservatism is the domination of society by an aristocracy.

Q: What is wrong with conservatism?
A: Conservatism is incompatible with democracy, prosperity, and civilization in general. It is a destructive system of inequality and prejudice that is founded on deception and has no place in the modern world.

* * * *

EXCEPT, naturally, your quotation of that position expressed by Agre assumes that it is correct. It isn't. Conservatism is absolutely NOT the domination of society by any aristocracy. That claim is merely a lie.

And the contention that conservatism is "incompatible" with democracy is also untrue. Neither is it incompatible with prosperity. Indeed, the precise opposite is true. It is by virtue of conservative principles that societies flourish. It is premised ON equality, not inequality. That is another absolute lie.

All of the negatives Agre and you falsely associate with conservatism are actually instead true of the modern American "liberal" political philosophy.

Hayek's contentions about the meaning of conservatism are also false for similar reasons.

One has to be a virtual imbecile to accept the false premises you cherish, Bfgrn. But then, you ARE Bfgrn.

So, NOW my question is, are YOU Liability?

 

[Liability]

As noted above, the balance of your imbecile post only proves that you are babbling. There was the quote of Tzu conjoined (for some unclear reason) with the link to Agre's piece. This was followed by Dude's observation. YOU unilaterally then determined that the observation referred to Agre's shit, but that makes no particular sense. It still LOOKS like the comment was about the stupid out-of-context quotation of Lao-Tzu.

Well Liability, I didn't involve YOU in my post TO DUD...e, YOU decided to intrude.

Newsflash just for you, Bfgrn, you retard. It's a message board. People jump into these threads with or without your leave, you schmuck. The question is not whether I was invited into the discussion or not. The question is whether you made a fucking mistake when you ASSumed that the "manure" comment was made with reference to the line by Tzu or the line by Agre.

And, YOU unilaterally originally determined that the observation referred to Agre's shit, not as a reply to the quote directed at Crusader Frank...

Wrong again, moron. I made no such assumption. What I did, unlike you, was to note that it LOOKED like that to me. It is YOUR fault, not mine, you fucking retard, that you compose posts in a blathering unintelligible gibberish form of quasi-English.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

As noted above, the balance of your imbecile post only proves that you are babbling. There was the quote of Tzu conjoined (for some unclear reason) with the link to Agre's piece. This was followed by Dude's observation. YOU unilaterally then determined that the observation referred to Agre's shit, but that makes no particular sense. It still LOOKS like the comment was about the stupid out-of-context quotation of Lao-Tzu.

Well Liability, I didn't involve YOU in my post TO DUD...e, YOU decided to intrude.

Newsflash just for you, Bfgrn, you retard. It's a message board. People jump into these threads with or without your leave, you schmuck. The question is not whether I was invited into the discussion or not. The question is whether you made a fucking mistake when you ASSumed that the "manure" comment was made with reference to the line by Tzu or the line by Agre.

And, YOU unilaterally originally determined that the observation referred to Agre's shit, not as a reply to the quote directed at Crusader Frank...

Wrong again, moron. I made no such assumption. What I did, unlike you, was to note that it LOOKED like that to me. It is YOUR fault, not mine, you fucking retard, that you compose posts in a blathering unintelligible gibberish form of quasi-English.

I see Pos Rep again in your future as soon as I'm able

 

[Sarah G]

My friends, we are at a crossroads. The challenge we face in 2010 are both unprecedented and without precedent.

Repubs have made gains this past year because we lost our way as a Party. I say this as a proud lifelong democratic member of the Democrat Party

We let the nutburger Bluedogs have too much of a say in our party and we paid dearly.

It's time to say Adios to the lunatic Bluedog fringe and stay the course with our leaders: Pelosi, Reid and the man who is still too moderate for my Democrat tastes, Barry Obama

Let's pass universal healthcare, lets pass cap & trade, lets tax the rich, we had a 90% tax rate before maybe its time to go back to what's always worked for us as Democrats

To Jake, Bfgrn and righwinger I say, Bring it!! My Democratic Party is ready to do battle with you teabagging pubs any day of the week!!

Frank...

You are losin it.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

My friends, we are at a crossroads. The challenge we face in 2010 are both unprecedented and without precedent.

Repubs have made gains this past year because we lost our way as a Party. I say this as a proud lifelong democratic member of the Democrat Party

We let the nutburger Bluedogs have too much of a say in our party and we paid dearly.

It's time to say Adios to the lunatic Bluedog fringe and stay the course with our leaders: Pelosi, Reid and the man who is still too moderate for my Democrat tastes, Barry Obama

Let's pass universal healthcare, lets pass cap & trade, lets tax the rich, we had a 90% tax rate before maybe its time to go back to what's always worked for us as Democrats

To Jake, Bfgrn and righwinger I say, Bring it!! My Democratic Party is ready to do battle with you teabagging pubs any day of the week!!

Frank...

You are losin it.

It depends on what you're definition of it is

 

[Sarah G]

My friends, we are at a crossroads. The challenge we face in 2010 are both unprecedented and without precedent.

Repubs have made gains this past year because we lost our way as a Party. I say this as a proud lifelong democratic member of the Democrat Party

We let the nutburger Bluedogs have too much of a say in our party and we paid dearly.

It's time to say Adios to the lunatic Bluedog fringe and stay the course with our leaders: Pelosi, Reid and the man who is still too moderate for my Democrat tastes, Barry Obama

Let's pass universal healthcare, lets pass cap & trade, lets tax the rich, we had a 90% tax rate before maybe its time to go back to what's always worked for us as Democrats

To Jake, Bfgrn and righwinger I say, Bring it!! My Democratic Party is ready to do battle with you teabagging pubs any day of the week!!

Frank...

You are losin it.

It depends on what you're definition of it is

Arrggghh, that old Clinton quote again?

 

[Liability]

Frank...

You are losin it.

It depends on what you're definition of it is

Arrggghh, that old Clinton quote again?

Not exactly, but it WAS awfully damn close!

 

[Harry Dresden]

I DID...are YOU DUD...e???

Asking me if I'm Dude is just you being an asshole. But I repeat myself.

It is not, however, asking Dude if he accepts every single thing ever said by Hayek.

And -- not surprisingly -- you ducked my question. Are you the kind of idiot that accepts EVERY single thing said by a person whom you admire or respect?

I asked you if you are DUD...e for a reason that is obvious to everyone, yet remains oblivious to you. I ASKED DUD...e, but instead of DUD...e answering, YOU are answering FOR DUD...e...

DUD...e has every right to say that Hayek is the author of the biggest heap of steaming, self-serving and self-congratulatory manure, he's ever seen.

BUT, then DUD...e can not accuse me of 'cherry picking' when HE cherry picks.

Dude may have been referring to your "brother of the Turd"....Midcant...he does fit that quote .....

 

[midcan5]

Under the sage leadership of Obama and our Democrat Congress we too now have a 17% unemployment rate, just like Democrat Demigod FDR, praise be his holy name.

As always you need a bit of the real history, but since you are changing to the bright side, here are the facts:

1931
No major legislation is passed addressing the Depression.
The GNP falls another 8.5 percent; unemployment rises to 15.9 percent.

1932
This and the next year are the worst years of the Great Depression. For 1932, GNP falls a record 13.4 percent; unemployment rises to 23.6 percent.

Industrial stocks have lost 80 percent of their value since 1930.

10,000 banks have failed since 1929, or 40 percent of the 1929 total.

GNP has also fallen 31 percent since 1929.

Over 13 million Americans have lost their jobs since 1929.

International trade has fallen by two-thirds since 1929.

Congress passes the Federal Home Loan Bank Act and the Glass-Steagall Act of 1932.

Top tax rate is raised from 25 to 63 percent.

Popular opinion considers Hoover's measures too little too late. Franklin Roosevelt easily
defeats Hoover in the fall election. Democrats win control of Congress.

1933
Roosevelt inaugurated; begins 'First 100 Days'; of intensive legislative activity.

A third banking panic occurs in March. Roosevelt declares a Bank Holiday; closes financial institutions to stop a run on banks.


Timeline of the Great Depression