1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

This is disheartening:

Discussion in 'Anything goes' started by hockeybeat, Sep 9, 2006.

  1. Chi City 81

    Chi City 81 Guest

    Okay, I'll bite. If you believe in less government -- the staple of any true GOPer (and truer to my own philosophy, actually) -- then how do you reconcile what your party has become: a strict, overbearing parent telling us what we can and cannot do, and basically inviting us to live in fear (as I saw on a Senatorial campaign ad on TV today, an ad of which Barry Goldwater would be proud)?
  2. sportschick

    sportschick Active Member

    Anyone who thinks Murtha is a liberal is a moron. Being against the war does not make one liberal, and Murtha is enough to the right that I wouldn't vote for him.
  3. Tony, I forgot about Richardson. I agree.

    In fact, I can't disagree with much of what you wrote.

    Doc, I think the Hyperbole Fairy paid you a visit during your last post.
  4. Chi City 81

    Chi City 81 Guest

    Ummm, no. The ad I saw on TV today was one of the worst I've ever seen. And what part of my post is hyperbole?

    The GOP doesn't prey upon our fears? Anyone who dissents is painted as a terrorist appeaser by Cheney, Rumsfeld, et al.

    Trying to legislate their morality, e.g. being anti-abortion even in the case of rape and incest, as is now on the books in South Dakota. Those in power in your party hate homosexuals and think they're Hell-bound, and are legislating accordingly.

    So please tell me how my last post was rife with hyperbole.

    EDIT: I've steered clear of political threads for the last two months, and I'm a happier person because of it. But this one seems to be going okay, so who knows?
  5. dog428

    dog428 Active Member

    That statement there trumps many of the idiotic ramblings on the 9-11 conspiracy thread.

    Good God.
  6. Just about all of it is hyperbole, Doc. Or at the very least, reading far too much into a lot of things.

    "Anybody who dissents" is not a terrorist appeaser. But the ridiculous levels of dissent from the Dem leadership deserve to be called out.

    We legislate morality all the time. What is welfare? What are laws against murder? If the voters don't like it, they'll vote those people out of office.

    I've been a Republican all my life, and been around them all my life, and I've never heard any of them say they hate homosexuals and think they're Hell-bound. Where the hell do you get off making such a sweeping generalization? What if I said all Democrats think anybody who isn't a left-winger is a Nazi and deserves to go to the gas chamber?

    Jesus, this thread was going well until your paranoid delusions came out.
  7. Chi City 81

    Chi City 81 Guest

    There you go parsing words, Lyman. I didn't say all Republicans feel that way. I said those in power in the GOP do. Otherwise, why are they putting forth all of the anti-gay legislation since Dubya has been in office?

    And if you've never heard any Republican say that homosexuals are Hell-bound, then you've obviously never been to the south.

    EDIT: Since you've started the personal attacks, you win. I'm not posting on political threads anymore. I won't get drawn into your namecalling bullshit. Have a good night.
  8. old_tony

    old_tony Well-Known Member

    Sorry, Doc, but I see the dems as the party of regulations that strangle hard-working Americans.

    Truthfully, I would feel a lot more in fear concerning our national security if the dems get put in charge. I remember an awful lot of dems admitting back right after 9/11 that they were deep-down glad that Gore didn't win. It's a deep-down, gut thing that you know in your heart. A lot of people get talked into things they know are wrong. People spin and twist words and do all kinds of pretzel logic and suddenly we're at the point where wrong is right and right is wrong. Deviant behavior is suddenly "diversity." Killing an unborn infant for convenience is suddenly "a woman's right to control her body." Well where was that "control" a few months earlier?

    You may call pro lifers people who are "a strict, overbearing parent telling us what we can and cannot do." I call them people who are trying to save the innocent lives of our most defenseless. Sure, it ruins the "sex with no consequences" party, but then calling for people to be responsible for their actions has a way of doing that, doesn't it? I know this isn't a debate about abortion, but it is one of the divides on how we on the right and those on the left see things. My whole argument on abortion is pretty simple, and I won't need to say any more. Simply introduce me to someone who was born but not conceived and I'll concede that life doesn't begin at conception. But until someone introduces me to such a person, I will hold that life does indeed begin at conception and thus the killing of a fetus for the convenience of someone's career or lifestyle is, indeed, the taking of a life.

    To me, abortion isn't even about politics. It's about right and wrong.

    A little bit about me, Doc. I don't have any idea how to explain it other than it's a world view and how one was raised. I was raised with a deep respect for my parents and grandparents and authority in general. That being said, I remember being 8 and believing Nixon to be the best candidate in 1968. I detested McGovern in 72 and thought by far Gerald Ford was a much better man than Carter. It won't shock you that I absolutely looked up to Reagan as a great man. GHWB missed out on a great opportunity when he broke his "no new taxes" pledge. It probably led to his defeat. Dole, though I respect him, was simply fodder for an unwinnable election in 1996 becuase there was no way the national media was going to let Clinton be exposed.

    Anyway, as I said before, i gotta stop this and get some shit written (although my poor self-discipline will still cause me to check back again and again). Nonetheless, it's been a pleasure.
  9. Well, it just happens to be true.

    Bush tried it with Ted Kennedy and Tom Daschle, for certain. He would have been better off banging his head against a wall.

    "Bipartisanship," dog, does not mean the Dems get to run everything as they always have, even when they're not in power.
  10. Talk about parsing words! What namecalling are you talking about?

    Piss off.
  11. old_tony

    old_tony Well-Known Member

    As the thread is titled, now this really is disheartening.

    Should I be stepping in here and saying, 'Take it easy, guys'?
  12. Yeah, it probably wouldn't hurt. But when some people write such ridiculous mischaracterizations, it's a little difficult to control yourself.
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page