You May be Gored - again

QUINNSCOMMENTARY · Post by **QUINNSCOMMENTARY** » Tue Jul 01, 2008 4:30 am

The word is out, now Al Gore is being mentioned as a possible running mate for Obama. There goes the electric bill in the White House and I can just picture those giant wind turbines lining the Mall in Washington.

Post by **spot** » Tue Jul 01, 2008 12:25 pm

Would it were so.

I still demand that McCain be elected though.

Post by **spot** » Tue Jul 01, 2008 12:32 pm

Jester;904806 wrote: ahahaha you know you can put yer demands in one hand and crap in the other and see which one gets you anywhere...

The idea that these Republicans should have an easy out from the problems they've caused lacks all sense. They have to be forced to win until what they've done is over.

QUINNSCOMMENTARY · Post by **QUINNSCOMMENTARY** » Tue Jul 01, 2008 12:39 pm

spot;904810 wrote: The idea that these Republicans should have an easy out from the problems they've caused lacks all sense. They have to be forced to win until what they've done is over.

I am not especially a fan of Bush and the gang even thouhg I voted for him (twice) kind of the lesser of two evils perpsective, but are you implying that all of the economic mess is the Administrations fault?

Post by **spot** » Tue Jul 01, 2008 1:09 pm

QUINNSCOMMENTARY;904816 wrote: I am not especially a fan of Bush and the gang even thouhg I voted for him (twice) kind of the lesser of two evils perpsective, but are you implying that all of the economic mess is the Administrations fault?

All? You want me to play alternate universes? I don't do that.

The swampful of leeches who arrived with this White House Administration have all the moral authority of Dante's perjurers in the Divine Comedy. Captains of industry to a man, stripping the poor to join the ranks of the mega-rich. Is that a way to run an economy? On the back of - what shall we guess? 110 million Americans? - who lie awake at night wondering whether they'll reach retirement without going bankrupt. The only way out for them is to refuse to play the game, stop earning and join a commune, it's a shame so few of them realize it.

My nearest approach to your alternate universes is to note that oil was under US$20 a barrel before those crooks invaded Iraq. The very worst OPEC could achieve in the 70s was to quadruple the price. The White House administration's done that twice over, solely in order to dance to Israel's bidding. Who are the idiots? Practically the entire electorate of the country, that's who. Anyone who had a vote and failed to cast it in favour of a candidate who was neither Republican nor Democrat, in any election at State or Federal level this century, is guilty.

Post by **spot** » Tue Jul 01, 2008 9:27 pm

Jester;904974 wrote: Easy way out? Where are they going? Last I heard none of them are fleeign the country.

The easy way out for the Republican Party is to lose this election in November and then be able to say "the Democrats have thrown away all the advantages we'd accrued, it's their fault the Iraqis detest us now". And a few other like sentences regarding poverty and crime in the USA itself.

sunny104 · Post by **sunny104** » Wed Jul 02, 2008 6:24 am

spot;904810 wrote: The idea that these Republicans should have an easy out from the problems they've caused lacks all sense. They have to be forced to win until what they've done is over.

what about all the democrats in positions of power that run concurrent with a republican president. You don't hold them responsible for anything? For example, Hilary herself voted for the war.

Post by **spot** » Wed Jul 02, 2008 7:40 am

sunny104;905261 wrote: what about all the democrats in positions of power that run concurrent with a republican president. You don't hold them responsible for anything? For example, Hilary herself voted for the war.

The people I hold responsible are the Democrats and Republicans. The bit about not letting the Republicans lose as they'd love to - so they can say "those Dems gave away all we'd fought for" - has nothing to do with which of them does what, it's all to do with what excuses the American public will buy into. There's no excuses if the Republicans are forced to stay in office permanently, that way they have to eventually admit that they ballsed up totally from start to finish.

In the early years when Rome was expanding into neighbouring territory it was governed by kings. Rome alternated between war and peace under each ruler, so that phases of expansion and consolidation should be achieved. Of Numa it was said the greatest of all his works was the maintenance of peace during the whole period of his reign, no less than of his royal power. Thus two kings in succession, by different methods, the one by war, the other by peace, aggrandized the state. Romulus reigned thirty-seven years, Numa forty-three: the state was both strong and attempered by the arts both of war and peace.and thus was the Empire forged. The sole change today is the alternation of two parties instead of monarchs. The agreement is implicit that the end is expansion, empire and a wholesale looting of the globe. Thank goodness the actual people concerned are so venial they can't do their jobs competently.

sunny104 · Post by **sunny104** » Wed Jul 02, 2008 7:50 am

spot;905312 wrote: The people I hold responsible are the Democrats and Republicans. The bit about not letting the Republicans lose as they'd love to - so they can say "those Dems gave away all we'd fought for" - has nothing to do with which of them does what, it's all to do with what excuses the American public will buy into. There's no excuses if the Republicans are forced to stay in office permanently, that way they have to eventually admit that they ballsed up totally from start to finish.

In the early years when Rome was expanding into neighbouring territory it was governed by kings. Rome alternated between war and peace under each ruler, so that phases of expansion and consolidation should be achieved. Of Numa it was said the greatest of all his works was the maintenance of peace during the whole period of his reign, no less than of his royal power. Thus two kings in succession, by different methods, the one by war, the other by peace, aggrandized the state. Romulus reigned thirty-seven years, Numa forty-three: the state was both strong and attempered by the arts both of war and peace.and thus was the Empire forged. The sole change today is the alternation of two parties instead of monarchs. The agreement is implicit that the end is expansion, empire and a wholesale looting of the globe. Thank goodness the actual people concerned are so venial they can't do their jobs competently.

but that's still blaming the republicans and/or Bush for everything and that's not how it works. We currently have democratic-led senate.

sunny104 · Post by **sunny104** » Wed Jul 02, 2008 8:04 am

rjwould;905317 wrote: I wonder what you used as an excuse between 2000 and 2006, Sunny?

I'm not making excuses for anyone, everyone believes what they want.

Post by **spot** » Wed Jul 02, 2008 8:10 am

sunny104;905314 wrote: but that's still blaming the republicans and/or Bush for everything and that's not how it works. We currently have democratic-led senate.

It's exactly how it works. Ask around for opinions on who was responsible for losing in Vietnam and why, you'll get an identical response - we weren't allowed to finish the job or we'd have won and anyway we did win sorta, mostly.

sunny104 · Post by **sunny104** » Wed Jul 02, 2008 8:14 am

*sigh*

I wish Kinky was running!

sunny104 · Post by **sunny104** » Wed Jul 02, 2008 8:21 am

rjwould;905331 wrote: Why? I had the impression he was fairly liberal minded.

he's independent minded, like me! :wah:

sunny104 · Post by **sunny104** » Wed Jul 02, 2008 8:29 am

rjwould;905335 wrote: That is a laugh...

what now?? :rolleyes:

sunny104 · Post by **sunny104** » Wed Jul 02, 2008 9:00 am

rjwould;905348 wrote: I just think its so interesting that so many conservatives seem to come to a crossroad where they deny their conservatism and claim to be independent. I have a theory on it.

First let me say that a true politically independent person would have more questions than answers, thats why they are independent. Pseudo independent people like to claim that they are independent because they simply disagree with the status quo, but thats the second dead giveaway of conservatism. Thirdly, if these conservatives who are claiming to be independent would simply listen, or in this case, read their own words, they would plainly see they are in fact conservative and their beliefs give it away as obviously as the sun shines.

So heres my theory

The average conservative is conservative because they don't want to be called liberal, when in fact many of their true political beliefs are so. When they get into any type of debate that they haven't heard their am radio station guru address or can't remember the proper response they say, "well, I'm independent anyway."

Most average conservatives don't listen to fox and am talk radio because they agree with it, they do it so they can find out what to say and learn the proper mantra's when asked about certain issues, thus labels such as "ditto head."

Its not really a unique theory, but I like to claim independence.

very interesting.

but as for me personally, I don't label myself anything politically. I just don't have that much interest in politics.

I meant an independent thinker in general, I don't rely on tv or radio or polls to make my decisions.

Post by **spot** » Wed Jul 02, 2008 11:29 pm

Jester;905875 wrote: Well Spot 'YOU' dont get to hold any american responsible for anything unless they do it in your country under your laws.

Indeed I don't, even though these armed forces and intelligence agencies of yours insist on interfering in so many countries outside their own borders. If the people affected by their presence had a vote I'd not mind so much their rampaging over the planet. That's why I merely demand that McCain be elected rather than getting to vote for the fellow directly. It matters to people other than citizens of the USA, you see. If you all just stayed within your own Homeland and stopped strutting your stuff on everyone else's turf nobody abroad would care at all.

Post by **spot** » Thu Jul 03, 2008 10:42 pm

Jester;906398 wrote: Oh come now, no 'one world government' plea?

It seems to me you all want 'global collaboration' on environmental issues especially the mythful 'man made' effects of global warming, but when some group dosen't cow to your way you want isolationism from them... can you have it both ways? I don't think so.

But Americans refuse to allow one world government, I'm just being cooperative.

I'd love a one world government but I don't insist if others reject the idea. I'd be quite happy to settle for the entire planet being ruled by the US government, that would work for me and it's pretty much what the US government is attempting to impose with the "do things our way or we'll invade you" sort of pressure. The only sound of criticism you hear at the moment from what you call Jihadists is the cry of "no taxation without representation". Theft is taxation and taxation is theft, after all.