Welcome to thebackpacker.com
create account login
Typical Democrat hypocricy
Viewing posts 51 to 100 of 439 messages posted.
Jump to Page << prev   | 1   |  2 | 3   | 4   | 5   | 6   | 7   | 8   | 9   |  next >>
To add this thread as a favorites, you need to first login.
“Strat - it's amazing how you get through life with one eye. How did GW win the last election? Was it by campaigning on a strong right wing agenda or was it "compassionate conservatism". Then what has happened since he was elected.
On another issue, I think the Democrats in Texas deserve some credit for stopping the anti-democratic anti-American actions of the Republicans there.”
“yamani, the dems in texas are chicken to vote on an issue....just like the dems in congress won't hole an up or down vote for the judges. that ANTI democratic and it will backfire on them bigtime......keep up the good work.....
BTW, many conservatives rip bush for being too liberal....”
“So what would you call redistricting to give your party a permanent advantage in the legislature? Is that not Anti-American? - I tell you what lets avoid the issue altogether and dress people in chicken suits and make a pack of card with their faces on it.”
“uh.... I'm not trying to support the republicans in Texas, but doesn't redistricting happen in every state whenever a new party takes over the legislature and/or the governorship? Happened here in Maryland too, and the repubs didn't move to Virginia. Maybe I missed some detail, but what's the big deal? This gerrymandering has gone on for a long time.”
“Actually no, JO. It generally happens after each census. Often the courts get involved and impose redistricting. It is highly unusual to have another redistricting right after the court imposed plan has gone into effect as is the case in Texas and Colorado.”
“"President Bush was
flying supersonic jet fighters with the Texas Air National Guard."
You forgot to add, "while doing large lines of blow."”
“Hey I like the Card idea! I don't think the could have kept the plane steady to do a line!”
“"So what would you call redistricting to give your party a permanent advantage in the legislature? Is that not Anti-American? - I tell you what lets avoid the issue altogether and dress people in chicken suits and make a pack of card with their faces on it."
1]there hasn't been a redistricting since the last census in texas.
2]the legislature there meets only once every 2 years.
3] the dems held the texas legislature for some 150 years and always mead the districts and the repubs never left town once.
4] '04's gonna be a slaughter”
“Hypocrisy, the word is hypocrisy!”
“It's already a slaughter.
Check the Nasdaq.
(and run that stuff through a spellcheck for god's sake)”
“that's all you got? geesh....
limp noodle arguments to match your spines....”
“Ignorance doesn’t give you permission to spread lies strat. The current district lines in Texas were established only a year ago, by a nonpartisan panel of federal judges, based on the 2000 census figures. Check into it and post your retraction below.”
“violin, the texas constitution says that the legislature is supposed to do it. federal judges have no business doing their jobs. i know ya'll would like for liberals judges to legislate all of your agendas but it's gonna come home to roost this time....”
“Ahh, the stratdewd argument style:
intermittent distortions with a heaping helping of derision and regurgitated Rush-speak.”
“a swing and a miss.....
"Yeah, I mistyped implement, therefore I am wrong about everything.
Please excuse my utter ignorance, and bask in the light of the elightened UpUrs."
“Strat ya got off topic a bit there...
whats all this talk about leprosy anyway?”
“Did you hear they ahd to call off the leaper football game?
Yeah, they had a hand off in the backfield.”
strat my boy -
“My understanding is that it is quite common for the state legislature to be unable to agree on a redistricting plan and the issue is decided in federal courts. Do you have a link to that part of the Texas State Constitution that would disallow this?
How do you feel about using the resources of Homeland Security for political reasons?”
“I was pretty amazed to read that part...”
“A Gestapo for the 21st century.”
“chiken in the breadpan pickin out dough.....
once again, the republicans NEVER left town to avoid a vote on this issue. the voters of texas picked representatives to make these decisions for them. the dems are directly nullifying the will of the voters.
weak man, weak....ask uncle albert
"Weakness of attitude becomes weakness of
character." --Albert Einstein”
“"The American Left is the only
intellectual force in Western history to gain moral superiority
by being wrong. In world history, I can think of only one other
movement that has gained moral and intellectual superiority in
this way, the mullahs of Islamic fundamentalism." --R. Emmett
“"Why of course the people don't want war ... But after all it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship ...Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger."
-- Hermann Goering (Nazi Minister of Propoganda), at the Nuremberg Trials after World War II”
And, of course we WERE in danger
“"We have satellite photos that indicate that banned materials have recently been moved from a number of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction facilities. There can be no doubt that Saddam Hussein has biological weapons and the capability to rapidly produce more, many more."
Colin Powell on February 6, speaking to the UN Security Council, demanding their support for the invasion of Iraq”
“do you think hans blix should have been given more time?
tilt, glad to see i'm winning you over.....
"Someone quoted in the New York Times recently referred to the Bush
tax cut as one in which 'most of the benefits would be showered
on the richest taxpayers.' Keeping money that you yourself earned
is called having benefits 'showered' on you. ... Big spenders and
big taxers never want to face the fact that wealth is not created
by government, but by the people the government taxes." --Thomas
“Hmm... Blix seems to have found as much or more than Dubya to this point.”
“so you do think blix should have had more time phaeddy?
yes or no”
The inspections were obviously a way to keep Iraq from threatening its neighbors.”
“ok...so then...why would that keep iraq from threatening anyone? what would iraq threaten them with?
if blix should have been given more time, then so should bush.
the security counsel voted 15-0 that iraq was out of time. they all believed he had WMD's and so did blix. he even found several violations.
logic defies the left....”
“Okay, then strat, where are the WMD that we "knew" were there?
I've made my points on this issue well enough in the past, and your post above in just a rehash of old discussions.”
“"Okay, then strat, where are the WMD that we "knew" were there
rehash of your old argument. bad form jack...
you give me california and a suitcase of anthrax....i'll give you 200,000 men.....
i bet i could easily hide it well enough to make it very difficult for you to find....”
“If you believe that a suitcase of anthrax is what we're looking for, you're supremely simple-minded.
You should know better, and so I think you're just trying to bait me without reason or fact.”
“i'm baiting you with logic.....
you're jukes do not fool this simple mind.
once again, you can not engage in a rational discussion and so i bid you a fond farewell. i'm going to go out into the world and enjoy our freedom. have fun making crap up about bush.......”
“Just for the record...
'Democrat' is a noun. The adjective is 'Democratic'.
I've noticed over the past few years that the word 'democratic' seems to stick in the craw of the right wing. They can't call the Democratic Party by its name. How petty.
(but I guess you'll say that I'm making it up, LOL)”
“God, this is pathetic.
Strat, I've tried debating with you. I asked you what your opinion on delivery systems for WMD from Iraq would have been, and you gave me "SCUDs". When I pointed out they hadn't found any, you replied that:
they shot scuds at quwait...hellllloooOoOOoo?
I showed you how that story was retracted in all the press, and that the pentagon was quoted saying there were no scuds fired or found. Remember?
That whole thing ended with a lot of factual debate going on between a number of people. You bowed out by not responding to this:
We were told by the UN when the inspectors pulled out in '98 that Iraq was no longer a threat to its neighbors. Yes there was a concern about what was happening while inspectors weren't in the country over the last few years, but with US inteligence turned up a few notches, we were still making the occasional airstrike on what we believed were realistic threats.
Combine that with a much stricter regimen of inspections (which I gave credit to the Bush administration for pushing), and I believe Iraq was no threat. The "supplying terrorist" argument was a beautiful work of fiction, so far as the evidence has shown.
If you would like to go forward from THIS point, great, but I'm no going to go back and retrace every conversation we have, just so you can remember or own up to it.
“I think it must be true what they say about there being little difference between democrats and republicans. The two threads look exactly the same.”
“phaed, so there were no scuds. good for you. this thread is not about WMD's. there have been threads about that only....you brought it up. nice diversionary tactict, i'll grant you.
now if you would care to comment on some of the things i posted on this thread then we can talk about that.”
“Your right nigal, there is no real differance because in the end we are discussing politics run by men whos purpose is to remain in power. Five minutes after the election is finished the party they claim is irrelevant. Clintons indescretion had nothing to do with his party affiliation any more then Bush's war-mongering...”
““the texas constitution says that the legislature is supposed to do it”
So you have nothing to back up this lie? Are you trying to look foolish?”
“he doesn't have to try Vio ;op - j/k”
“so you do think blix should have had more time phaeddy?
yes or no"
phaed, so there were no scuds. good for you. this thread is not about WMD's. there have been threads about that only....you brought it up. nice diversionary tactict, i'll grant you.
now if you would care to comment on some of the things i posted on this thread then we can talk about that."
“Hey, Strat. Some of your latest posts have been direct quotes from the Rush Limbaugh show.
Hey, Nigal. I liked the comment about how you like to make fun of liberals but don't have time to argue the legitimate points that liberals bring up. How is this helping the national debate?”
“dan, can you proove that? no you can't.
phaed, you brought it up, dork. i simply let you distract me and responded to it.
"The media needs to ask itself some tough questions about its
own rules of engagement abroad, the use of bribe money, and the
ethical and voluntary responsibility of its pundits and writers to
account to their readers, when they have for so long consistently
fed them nonsense and error. Universities, in turn, must ask
themselves fundamental questions about tenure and teaching loads:
Why does tuition consistently rise faster than inflation; why is
free speech so often curbed and regulated; and why did so many
prominent professors, during the past two years, in a time of
war, say so many dreadful things about their own military -- from
general untruths about 'millions' of starving, refugees, and dead
to come, to the occasional provocateur applauding the destruction
of the Pentagon and wishing for more Mogadishus?" --Victor Davis
“Democrat Operative Response Committee (DORK)
NOTE: SECRET DOCUMENT
MEMO RE: We must counter-act Bush manliness image
Dear Fellow Democrat:
Many of our members have had angst about the President’s showy landing on the U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln. Mainstream Americans (such as the Dixie Chicks, Martin Sheen, and Janeane Garofalo) overwhelmingly agree with us that this was wrong, and just totally inappropriate. However, a hundred million Americans for some reason thought this was cool.
Fear not. Your Democratic Operative Response Committee Soldiers (DORKS) have come up with ways to fight fire with fire. It seems our Presidential candidates—all except Carol Mosely Braun—are viewed as effeminate and wimpy. Consultants tell us we need to be a little more manly (yipes, just using the word is challenging!).
DORK suggests doing the following to be seen as more manly:
1) Go to the Rainforest exhibit at the National Zoo. Make manly poses in front of the fauna. Do a press release on how you braved wild animals and unfriendly natives to save the Rainforest. (IMPT NOTE: Banana Republic has some real stylish jungle gear on sale.)
2) As Ms. Pelosi said, “We could have torn down that Saddam Hussein statue much cheaper.” Let’s show them! Make a paper mache` Saddam Hussein statue. Be sure it’s sprayed with metallic paint. Put it in a town square and knock it down with a sledge hammer. People will be amazed, not just with your manly strength, but that they’ve never noticed the statue before. (Reminder: Don’t forget to recycle when you’re finished!)
3) Over the May break, host a Super Bowl Party! (NOTE: None of the DORKS knew exactly what this is, but it seems like Republicans have one at least once a year.) It’s apparently very manly.
4) Go to a construction site, and – well, we’re not sure what people do there, but there are lots of manly men. Use terms like jack hammer, I-beam, rod buster and plumb line, and maybe they’ll let you pose with them wearing a hard hat.
5) If your campaign is really strapped for cash, the DCCC has arranged to have some life-size, cut-out, action photos in our main lobby. You can stand by Cowboy Bob, Oil Rig Ralph, or Firefighter Frank. They look great and truly give you that man among men image.
The DORK members (the DORKS) know all this is radical. So, afterwards, in order to get back in touch with your inner self, we will be hosting a hug-in as an NPR fund raiser. So, put on your favorite white turtle neck, horn-rimmed glasses and earth shoes and come on over! French wine and cheese will be served.”
dispelling the myth
“May 14, 2003, 7:00 a.m.
Modest & Potent
The Bush tax cut is an investment the country can’t afford to miss.
By Chris Edwards
ome pundits argue that the slimmed-down, $550 billion tax bill that's now in the House is still too large. But various comparisons show that the tax cut is modest and its economic benefits substantial. The following Q&A puts the size of the House tax bill in perspective.
Q: Won't the tax cut blow a $550 billion hole in the federal budget?
A: No, the $550 billion is cumulative over 11 years (2003-2013), averaging just $50 billion a year. It's like Congress labeling your $600 child tax credit a $6,600 tax cut.
Q: But still, won't the tax cut cause problems for the federal budget?
A: The tax cut is just 1.8 percent of $30 trillion in cumulative federal taxes from 2003 to 2013, according to Congressional Budget Office data. Surely, Congress can find budget savings of 1.8 percent. After all, private industry improves productivity by roughly 2 percent every year, on average.
Q: If the tax cut is so small, how will it help the economy?
A: The tax cut is a tiny 0.35 percent of a cumulative U.S. gross domestic product of $155 trillion from 2003 to 2013. The power of the tax plan is not its dollar size, but the pro-growth incentives for workers, businesses, and savers. Rate cuts and investment provisions in the House bill are "power multipliers" for economic growth because they increase incentives to expand production across the entire economy.
Q: Are today's Republicans trying to outdo Ronald Reagan's tax cut?
A: The current House plan is a step forward. But Reagan's tax cut in 1981 was 10 times larger. The 1981 cut saved taxpayers $715 billion over five years, or 3.8 percent of GDP. The House cut would save taxpayers just 0.35 percent of GDP over 11 years (0.8 percent over the first five years). Note that after Reagan's cut, Congress increased taxes in 1982, 1984, 1986, 1990, and 1993. The current tax bill would reduce the top rate to 35 percent, but that's still 7 points higher than the top rate of 28 percent in the late 1980s.
Q: Do we really need more tax cuts after Bush's cut in 2001?
A: Even with Bush's cut in 2001, federal taxes as a share of GDP will rise from 17.6 percent this year to 19.0 percent by 2010, according to CBO's baseline. Unless cut, taxes automatically consume rising shares of income. That occurs because income growth pushes people into higher tax brackets, and because more families are paying the "alternative minimum tax," a punitive add-on tax. Taxpayers need occasional tax cuts just to stay even with the government.
Q: With concern about the deficit, do Bush and Congress plan to cut spending?
A: Just the opposite. Bush proposes to increase total federal spending by $102 billion in 2004, $125 billion in 2005, and similar amounts each year after. Whereas tax cuts are historically rare, large spending increases occur every year. Thus, even modest spending restraint creates large deficit reductions.
Q: Won't dividend and capital-gains tax cuts create rising deficits?
A: The effect of the tax cuts on the deficit is dwarfed by rising spending. Under Bush's budget, total annual spending is expected to be $866 billion greater in 2010 than this year. By contrast, the House dividend and capital-gains tax cuts will reduce revenues by just $31 billion annually by 2010. Thus, spending increases will be 28 times larger by the end of the decade than proposed investor tax cuts.
To sum up, the House tax-cut plan has a small budget effect compared to spending increases. But the plan packs a punch for economic growth by reducing tax rates on workers and entrepreneurs, cutting business financing costs with the capital-gains and dividend provisions, and spurring business investment with larger depreciation deductions. As a bonus, the dividend tax cut will improve corporate management and help quash continuing financial scandals. All that for just 1.8 percent of the government's huge budget is an investment that the country cannot afford to miss.
— Chris Edwards is director of fiscal policy at the Cato Institute.”
“BTW, have you ever seen Emmett Tyrrell, Strat? That guy's a flaming Log Cabin type if there ever was one, LOL
Get outta the closet, Emmett!
You can drink wine from Arkansas if you want, LOLOL. Should I contact the Poison Control Center now? I don't think the world is ready for Hog Cheese.”
Jump to Page << prev   | 1   |  2 | 3   | 4   | 5   | 6   | 7   | 8   | 9   |  next >>
Post a MessageIn order to post a response to this thread you must first be logged in. If you do not already have an account, you must first create a new account.
Ready to Buy Gear?
Great Outdoor Sites