This is disheartening:

Lord, where to even begin here?

The consequences of Dems being in charge and our national defense: Yeah, that's a concern. Hell, they might attack the wrong country and violate the Constitution a 100 or so times. Oh, wait ...

Show you a person who was born without being conceived: Hey, show me a person who is born without sperm. No more kitten killin', fellas.

And yeah, it was the media's fault Clinton won in 96. Had nothing to do with the state of the country at the time.

 

Doc,

All politicians prey upon fear, or, more to the point, ignorance, because many voters don't pay attention, and strategists on both sides know that whoever can come up with the best talking points, slogans, etc. usually wins.

For instance, the Democrat party is legendary for:

*Class warfare: Republicans love the rich and hate the poor.
*Pitting races against each other: Republicans don't care about minorities; they're all rich white males.

People believe those broad generalizations because they're ignorant (and by ignorant, I do not mean stupid; I mean making one-sided judgments and clinging to them for dear life without looking at the other, or sometimes either, side. Just making judgments based on what sounds good or what sounds right or what they've heard many times before, regardless of facts or critical thought on a given subject.

That kind of ignorant rhetoric is found, on varying levels in almost every campaign run by a Democrat.

And the far left does its share of trying to legislate morality. On the issue of homosexuals, for example, the left has tried to institute "gay-friendly" curriculum in second-grade textbooks. Regardless of your feelings on homosexuality, I'm pretty sure right-thinking beings wouldn't want 8-year-olds taught about sex and sexual lifestyles, gay or straight. The only reason anyone would want such a thing is to further a larger agenda; i.e., push their morality onto others.

Basically, and I seem to keep coming back to this on most threads, it works both ways. Republicans aren't perfect; neither are Democrats. And the political discourse in Washington has become so vitriolic and mean-spirited (on both sides), that it trickles down to places like this, where most political threads devolve into "I'm right and you're an idiot" fests.

Like the political system today, that's counterproductive and, to come full circle on this thread, disheartening.

 

I'm thinking we've got different definitions of "trying."

To me, acting like you're participating in some grand bi-partisan outreach by informing the other side that you're going to do what you want to and really don't give a shit about their input isn't really "trying."

But it's as close as the Shrub has come, so I understand your inclination to give it to him.

 

old tony --
Kennedy signed on to the No Child Left Behind Act. Even went to the signing ceremony.
Daschle's caucus rolled over enough to get the tax-cuts passed.
Both of these things happened before 9/11, when the D's completely turtled on the Patriot Act, Afghanistan (which they were right to support), and Iraq, as Boom so regularly points out.
Do you even read?
And pallister, using the phrase "Democrat party" is a giveaway. Just sayin'.

 

Jesus, the vitriolic rhetoric and pointless bickering from both sides has dragged this thread even deeper into the mud. Good job everyone. Now we're debating Kennedy and class warfare.

 

You're funny, pallister. Nice reversal on the definition of legislating morality.

Can you think of anything the righties might have done in recent years regarding homosexuals regaring pushing their view of morality onto others?

 

What does this mean?
Somebody asserts that Bush's agenda was hopelessly bogged down by recalcitrant Democratic politicians. I present some actual counter-examples. By what standard is that "mud."?
The oh-politics-is-so-tiresome fainting-couch trope is really getting old.

 

This was supposed to be about OBL, and now we've morphed into class warfare. And you fail to see how this is mudslinging? Maybe the oh-politics-is-so-tiresome act is getting really old to you, but the constant finger-pointing and name-calling and comparison of source (my source of information is more reputable than yours) is even older. Jesus you and others spend half your time talking about the validity of your source and instead of watching the fucking road, you're off driving through the woods, slamming into trees.

Forest for the trees, people.

 

Threads change. They morph. I thought this was supposed to be one of the glories of the Internets. Again, Kennedy came in when someone made a quite polite, if unquestionably ahistorical, argument about the nature of political cooperation since 2000. (Apropos of the original topic, I also poiinted out in rebuttal that the Democratic party gave Bush pretty mich everything he wanted in Afghanistan and Iraq, too.) This isn't mud. This is discussion. Nobody's even called anyone an asshat yet.
And OBL thread became a discussion of general politics. Occasionally, a thread about relief pitchers turns into one about bunnies with pancakes on their heads. Color me surprised.

 

Wow, I missed a lot in the last page or so.

 

I'm beginning to think Moddy and Webby should have changed the threads to "Sports and News" and "Bush-bashing" and we would have all been happy for it.

 

Fenian, you're talking like I'm some newbie to the board. I know threads change, but that's because we start bringing up pointless crap that has nothing to do with the initial topic. Instead, we start talking about class warfare and who has the better source of information. Do you even remember what this thread was originally about?