Democrats need to grow some balls
 

Most Democrats are wusses, pure and simple. Particularily the ones that get the spotlight like Kerry, Daschle, etc. The language is vague and concillatory, filled with modifiers like "perhaps" and "maybe" and "possibly." God forbid that a Dem would actually attack Bush like a junkyard dog. And God forbid that they defend themselves. Kerry is the worst when it comes to this. He reminds of a little kid who won't stand up to the playground bully, who just grins and bears the wedgies, purple nurples, and kicks to the junk that the junior high tyrant dishes out. Kerry just sucks up one more attack ad, one more smear about his military record, and doesn't say a peep. I would definately vote for Kerry if he would have eloquently listed how he would be different from Bush on key issues and then torn Bush a new one on Bush's military record. I think it was a squandered opportunity. Can you imagine Kerry snapping and saying something like"Bush, you deserting little cock! When you were getting loaded and wrangling your way into the national guard I was commanding a swift boat. I am a decorated veteran and you are nothing but a booze-sodden Daddy's Boy. Stop going after me or I'll go medieval on YOU!"

'"Bush, you deserting little cock! When you were getting loaded and wrangling your way into the national guard I was commanding a swift boat. I am a decorated veteran and you are nothing but a booze-sodden Daddy's Boy. Stop going after me or I'll go medieval on YOU!"'

Yes, but maybe Kerry is actually doing the whole "I won't retaliate thing and show i am bigger than the Bush administration". I don't believe we, in the UK, have Governments trying to smear each others reputations with idle gossip. If a Government has done something wrong, the opposing one will bring it up...constantly, as the case with the Iraqi conflict is.

But yeh, i agree. I think Kerry should just mock Bush and his lack of army experience thing.

They all have downsides, I don't care about the democratic decisions anymore. Honestly, I don't care about anything. Democrats have balls, they have to have balls to go up and do what they do. It's the voters who are the ones that come in and smash their balls with a ballpeane hammer. (*giggles* BALLpeane hammer. I'm funny)

I agree with you. However, that would probably blow his biggest consituents away from him. Can you guess? That's right. The democrats. I'd tell people to vote for Nader if I thought he even had a smidgen of a chance of winning. If he were running with a party he could get the 5% of the vote and receive campaign funding for next time, but seeing as how he's independent, I don't think that'll happen.

If Nader had won in 2000 we could've had a green in office. Can you imagine how much power the green party would gain if one of their members became President?

Just proves one thing the left, libral, demacratic party are pretty much morons.

Hey thay support Kerry now they don't support Kerry hehe oh my this is indeed a sight to see. Face it Bush is going to win because you libral Democrats are crumbleing from within and your going to cry!

The Democrats are through! You said it yourself finally I am not the one who did a thread like this!

If it was up to me I would abolish all political parties and only have one because the Democrats are failing and its just pointless.

Paramiteabe... :fuzblink:

I support Kerry not because he's a fabulous politician but because I think Bush is a dickhead. Kerry is a little rough around the edges and could stand to take a more gutsy and clear stance on several issues but anything is better than Bush. Hell, if Kucinich got the nomination I'd vote for him, tinfoil hat and all.

Yeah and pay more taxes too!:lol:

Ok lets see here who is running for Pres of the United States.

We got John Kerry the moron!
Howard Dean with his idiotic scream
Dennis Krisinch the ass who screwed up my home town with raising taxes.


I have a question why do Democrats yell a lot?:lol:

Wow, you seem to know a whole lot about politics.

I get it from the radio. But ya know sometimes I feel more republican these days than democrat because I sense no rationality with them but I really don't care about that I just want a Pres who won't raise taxes and is a real leader in a time of war. Thats what I want and I don't see that in any party.

To be honest, i think the world needs Politicians who aren't moronic enough to mix Politics with Religion. That's my main gripe with Bush, here's one of those wanking "born again Christians" and he seems to believe that this gives him a God given right to be a c*nt. It doesn't.

To be honest i hope middle America gets wiped out sometime in the near future. They all seem to live in their own little bubble world were if people don't do what they think they should do, they're classed as "evil" ['Black Sabbath' being one example].

I'm glad to see that England has moved on from such diabolicle states. Once we had Priests and members of Clergy hanging around outside cinema's, blessing people who had seen 'Exorcist' because they believed it caused possession and the film was in league with the Devil. Thankfully society on a whole has evolved.

Ack, like that one mop priest who's trying to abolish The Living Dead Dolls. I hope they come alive and gnaw at his "holy" ankles. Fucking dullard!

For those concerned, Nader is running on a conservative platform this go round. He is no longer a green party member. It seems that his current goal is simply to get Bush out of the White House, which, admittedly, is an admirable goal.

As far as raising taxes goes, I don't think I'm all that opposed to it. If I could also declare which gov-funded programs it could go to I would probably support it, though assuredly, this would end all social programs the government does end up supporting. Why does it matter if you pay a little more money to a government if the government actually helps you? Think about it. The main gripe people have with taxes is that they never see any good come of it, all the money ever can be seen doing is going into our pathetic standing army. (I say pathetic not because they are incapable--though they have yet to prove themselves in recent years--but because a standing army is an economical and ethical nightmare. It is symptomatic of our pathetic fear-ridden existence that we keep it around.)

My position on the faults of our government are so fundamentally rooted in the worldview we have that no simple presidential change could substantially affect anything. Statikk, your position I agree with, but my trouble comes with the fact that Kerry and Bush are running on practically identical platforms. There are minor changes, but the things I dislike most about Bush--warmongering nationalism--appear in Kerry as well. Sure, Kerry isn't a moron, but what does it say when your political options are "Vote for this guy! He's NOT dumb as a rock!" Democrats are the lesser evil. They have always been the lesser evil. But is it enough?

PA complains that the democrats are falling apart, and thus the liberal view has been demolished. Let me propose something. The Democrats aren't liberal. Perhaps in the past their views have been seen as liberal in comparison to the uber-conservative Republicans. But in recent years there has been such a degradation of both parties that we're basically left with the Christian Right-wingers and The Secular Right-wingers. The truly liberal left has only come close to being adequately represented by the Green Party, who have now lost their candidate.

We ask why the democrats don't have balls? Truly at this point what can they say? They're not wusses per se, they simply don't have any valid points to argue because they AGREE with the REPUBLICANS. Our culture of fear is so set on protecting oneself at all costs that anyone with any hope of attaining political office must offer no change, lest something happen which people aren't familiar with. Right now the republicans are the ones scaring the people, and if a democrat even hints that perhaps freaking out isn't the best option, he (or she) is branded as unpatriotic. The two-party system is at a dead-end, and I would suggest it's time to rip it a new one.

I'm also not a communist or socialist.

Paramiteabe, its obvious you get your "info" from radio. Radio is dominated by Republicans, in fact, over 95% of the political broadcasting done on radio is conservative. Some of these guys are somewhat tolerable and make a good point once in a while. Most of them are raving lunatics like Hannity and Limbaugh.
Volsung, I agree with you that Kerry is not all that different from Bush, but I disagree with you that it would damage Kerry to be different. This is in fact one of the biggest knocks that I have against Kerry. He is complacent and votes for Republican bills but then bitches when the bills prove to be the disasters that every dissenter said they would be. The War in Iraq, No Child Left Behind, the Medicare bill, the Patriot Act. He supports what Bush does in the beginning but then he realizes what a mistake hes made and protests them. This hurts him more than any other because dedicated Democrats see him as an opportunist and someone who is less than sincere and dedicated. On the other hand, Republicans can raise the very valid point that Kerry seems to want the cake and eat it too, that he votes for bills and then opposes them at politically opportune times. He also backs down, like saying that his charges that officers and soldiers commited war crimes during Vietnam. There is nothing to back down from here, it is obvious that detestable things DID occur during Vietnam. Yet he pussies out as usual. He also doesn't attack Bush on his weaknesses as strongly as he should. Bush repeatedly ****s up so supremely yet Kerry doesn't give Bush the savage tongue-lashing that he so rightfully deserves.

I think it's funny PA took me seriously w/ my above post...

I know for a fact that all politicians are corrupt, which is why I'm independent. I hate to see people who are democrat or republican be blind to the truth when it comes to their party. For example: John Kerry was speaking at some kind of Car Show and was bragging about how many SUV's he owned. Yet, when he was talking to a morning show on Earth Day and they asked him about the SUV's, he said, "I meant that my relatives own a lot of SUV's." That is annoying. Kerry is just trying to impress everybody. Even worse is that democrats are giving Kerry a pass and acting like it's no big deal to be a chamaeleon. Gah!

-oddguy

I am one for capitalism because I don't like the Government controling me and takeing my money and I am damm glad to be an American and not part of some communist socialist country. I want to be successful and Capitalism is the only way. You Communist are just jealous because we actually have brains and we don't let our Government control our individual success.

Did you know we are taxed at a 70% rate in this country? ****ing gas is like $2.00 in my state. Ever since Bush took office my tax returns have been increasingly higher and I love it. For me to go back to higher taxes is obsurd and I don't care what good the intent of it may be because I know that tax money aint going to the economical things you mentioned. Its going to the government and I think its about time the politicians gives back our money.

Does anyone know what political parties are good for? Were they created for a purpose?

So far as my limited knowledge allows me to understand, I think it would be beneficial to everyone if there were no political parties whatsoever. Most people feel the social pressure to either identify themselves as Republican or Democrat. When you say you're a Democrat, you're expected to have the same opinion that other Democrats do. That doesn't really leave much wiggle room. Take Lieberman for example. Lieberman was bashed by Democrats for "not being Democratic enough." Now what the **** is that? I really respect Lieberman's decision to stand by his stance on the war. The same goes for McCain and the Republicans. The point is, if you label yourself a member of either society, you lose some freedom. When this happens, new ideas can't come through. The political pool stagnates.

In short, be independent. They throw better parties (pun? I think not).

Not all, sir. Not all. Sadly, with the current establishment of social ideals and even a very good voting system, money truly will take a man to the top. there's plenty of good politicians out there, actually making good choices and doing a good job. There's been plenty of superb presidents throughout the years. The current presidential race, however, just leaves a bit to be desired.

...
 

Attack Bush? Let me ask you this, would you make yourself look any better by attacking the dumbest kid in the schoolyard? Besides, like Maddox says, Bush satirizes himself. I have just about zero interest in politics, and even I think he shouldn't be president anymore. I'm sick of his gung-ho "war on terrorism" rhetoric. Not to mention the way he waves his religious faith around, so that when some little thing like Janet Jackson's nipple pops out, the country engages in a massive hissy-fit.

Well, to be honest, the Janet Jackson nipple fiasco was somewhat of a no-no. I mean, families were watching the superbowl together. Many, many children were watching, and that's just something an 8 year old does not need to see for a while.

...
 

Why? Are breasts evil? Are they part of the reproductive system? They are symbolic of the bond between mother and child, and of the beauty of women. Society turned it into a "no-no."

It's a hypocrasy. It wouldn't have mattered if society didn't make such a big deal about such things, and it really only because of our prominantly Christian begginings. Why do kids want to swear? Because we tell them they can't. Why do kids think breasts are dirty? Because we make them into forbidden things. Censorship creates it's own necessity, it's what turns people into perverts. Hell, the biggest irony is that we could probably get rid of swear words, by completly accepting them as normal words.

Nobody's family was torn apart by Janet's boob. If they were, they've got problems.

You know, Shell Man, maybe...just maybe, every parent in America does not share the same opinion as you, and they might want to raise their kid a certain way. Just because you think it does not make it correct.

Here's my stance on censorship.

Howard Stern didn't need to be fired because, well...he's a shock-jock. You know what to expect out of him. If you don't like what he says, then you need not turn to the station. However, the Superbowl is watched by nearly every American and their families. Nobody was expecting Janet's stunt and if they knew that is was going to happen, I know for a fact that families would not have watched the half-time show.

-oddguy

Howard Stern was the victim of a vendetta, I believe, on behalf of uppity "Christian" groups. They pretty much forced the FCC into action on Stern. I mean the things that he was saying on the day in question were not at all different than what he says on a daily basis. I think that it is cowardly of stations to drop Stern. He was a big part of their profits and broadcasts for years and now they cut him off. In the article in the Nation it says that Oprah Winfrey was doing exactly what Stern was doing, which was talking about sexual colloquisms. Well, where is Winfrey's fine? Censorship does not work because it creates unfair standards and other problems that reveal its ridiculousness. Why couldn't Jackson have saved her nipples for a movie or on the 'net?!?!!!!!! :fuzmad:

My good friend Bill O'Reilly discussed the Howard vs. Oprah issue last night on The O'Reilly Factor. Very Interesting.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,119241,00.html

-oddguy

Oh, yes, and America is certainly devoid of parenting problems, right? It's not about what's popular, it's about what makes sense. Besides, there are countries where women spend most of their lives topless, what about them? Are they wrong? I can guarentee one thing, those women probably don't grow up with the insecurities brought on by being subconsciously taught that their bodies are evil. You keep saying it's a problem because millions of families were watching, ok, now tell me something that hasn't been repeated by tv personalities and puritans. Like maybe how if such things were'nt built up to be such taboo subjects, it wouldn't have been such a fiasco. Don't you see? The problem is who makes it a problem, just like there wouldn't be swear words if we didn't forbid them. It's not like somebody was killed on live television, THAT would be a problem. T'was a breast, the thing that nourishes most infants in the early stages of their lives.

I'm sure everybody knows my views on Censorship. The Janet Jackson fiasco was really disgraceful [i'm talking about the way people reacted]. Yeh, it was "shocking" yeh, i'm sure some believe it was "sexual" and shouldn't be shown, but get over it. It was. And what's so bad about it? It's not as if she performed Fellatio on Justin Timberlake on the stage? A lone breast [with the nipple covered] was unveiled and America practically died from it. And why did they practically die from it? Because they secretly liked it. Why didn't they admit their liking? Because they're one of the most repressed countries in the world. The difference between pre-liberated Iraq and America?...America chooses to be repressed.

This is the kind of view that makes me ashamed to be an american. What is it with our facination with war and bullying other countries? A new political attack against Kerry says he voted against a number of weapons of war. Kerry was right to vote against those weapons of destruction, nobody is attacking us, who would dare? Terrorism is such a small problem in our country right now. How many attacks can you count in the last twenty years? So much more could have been done to prevent the attacks of 911. It might not have been preventable, but they could have at least listened to the threats. How can you call Kerry a wuss when he served in Vietnam and earned numerous medals. Bush dodged the draft, which is alright by me, but makes the criticism unacceptable. Bush's tax cuts don't even benefit anyone less then rich. I can understand a rich person voting for Bush, but the middle and lower class would just be throwing their vote away. Conservatives are always trying to get a quick buck at other people's expenses. So many news organizations are sending Bush propaganda. Fox news is the biggest joke in news I have ever seen. They don't even let real democrats on, yet they cancel Nightline because people thought it might have an anti-war theme. The rich station owners don't want Bush to lose, because they will lose money. And if Kerry is a moron, what is Bush? Smart? I don't think the majorty of the population would agree. The Patriot Act, banning of gay marriage, opposition to abortion, This is all targeted at getting rid of our freedoms. Howard Stern is geeting attacked, because that is all the conservatives can do attack others for political gain. Howard Stern is very anti-Bush by the way...

I understand and completely agree with you on that statement, but as insensible and stupid the current state of society may be...that's the way it is. We can't change it. Regardless of whether it is needed or not, it's the way parents want to raise their kids, and everyone must respect that.

...
 

Righto. We can say we can't change the way things are, but for how long? Till it gets out of hand, and we can't say what we want? *Remember's Abe's fourth finger*
Anyway, yeah, I get pissed off everytime I see that commercial about Kerry voting against weapons "against terrorism." Ferchrissakes, why do they just assume everybody's all war-happy like they are? "Don't vote for Kerry, he won't let us have our precious toys for blowing stuff up, weapons that will somehow magically make people stop hating America!" That's right, if we kill just 25,000 more people, terrorists will stop hating and attacking us......