What's new

Cut and Run Dems

Like the typical holier-than-thou fence-sitter you usually "put out" your theory in the middle of principled debates, as though not settling on your own philosophical principles is the only way to engage your brain. This stance usually just means you stick your finger in the air to determine which way the wind blows in any given context, and you can aloofly stand above the fray and criticize everyone else to your waffling heart's content.

I make it very clear where I stand on issues as they arise. Pick one and we can discuss. Just because I haven't dedicated my entire heart and soul to a "side" in all this and fully adopted their propoganda prima facie, the way you have, doesn't mean I have no stance. I take stances on each issue as it arises, I do not sell out to one complete set of ideologies wholesale. The one area I do consistently criticize is the blanket statement of belief that your side is always right and the other side is always wrong.





Careful your inner Hopper is showing.
 
I agree with that there millsapa! Them there godless demecrats hates religion and are evil and are muslim communistx traying to take over der world!

I done read 5,000 yer leep and it done tell me everyting i need to know!

Now them democrats and that there racist president gonna legalize gay marriage! He hates amerika and wants us to be slaves to comunistx.

https://www.deseretnews.com/article...t-drops-defense-of-anti-gay-marriage-law.html
 
I agree with that there millsapa! Them there godless demecrats hates religion and are evil and are muslim communistx traying to take over der world!

I done read 5,000 yer leep and it done tell me everyting i need to know!

Now them democrats and that there racist president gonna legalize gay marriage! He hates amerika and wants us to be slaves to comunistx.

https://www.deseretnews.com/article...t-drops-defense-of-anti-gay-marriage-law.html

At the risk of getting zinged by all comabatants. . . .

A lot of "conservatives" I know a little about are actually hypocrits, like Newt Gingrich and Sarah Palin. The way I figure it, anyone who will play to the globalist movement, and support governance schemes like all the raft of oncoming/ongoing gradualist movements we could loosely define as part of the "globalist" program to solve the world's problemss, has got to be a hypocrit whether they profess to be Republican or Democrat. The party of Lincoln started out with an objective to end slavery, or so they claimed. But Lincoln got the nod from a clique of New York bankers and they thought they would own him entirely. He proved to be problematical to their program for the nation, as he refused to dodge the Civil War and set the Confederacy free. And he did set the slaves free. But they still cleaned up, collecting vast fortunes in supply the war arsenal of the North, and they got the lush deal of being paid to build their own railroads with vast tracts of land, including valuable coal resources in Utah. Republicans have been cornered by elitists/lobbyists/bankers ever since. IMO definitely not what our Constitution called for.

The Democrats have also been co-opted, and as FDR and Bill Clinton demonstrated, are just a capable of governing this land as tools of the "interests" even while claiming to be for "the little man"...... A real-life display of politics just as set forth in that great American History captured in "Oh Brother, Where Art Thou". Unions today are just another blood-sucking band of leeches draining the little man of every buck they can, while their bosses live like corporate CEOs and have their own lobby machines to care for, and profit from. . . . .

After knowing some communists pretty well, and studying their founding literature, it's pretty evident to me that "Communism" is a grand hoax run by some very clever moneybags folks, who founded it on purpose to deflect the damage the American Revolution threatened to do to the elitists. And to set some potential competitors back a ways from disrupting their trade interests. . . . I rode carpool with a dedicated communist for several years and listened to the tale of how the great dream had been taken over by phony communists who were really "statists", and how those phony crooked communists in China, Cuba, Russia were in bed with the capitalists. I failed to make the point with him that "Of course they are. Those capitalists even paid Karl Marx to write his books. There is no such thing as inexorable principles of economics and socialism, all there is is some adroit puppeteers running little plays out on the world stage to keep the dumb people mesmerized with a false division, and keep them fighting each other instead of doing something about the manipulators.

Globalism/regional governance/"think globally act locally" local governance is in its nature an anti-American revolution consisting of some elitist/intellectualist think tank groupings and a lot a fascist top-down, corporate-friendly takeouts of human rights. Democrats ought to be just as concerned with losing the American Revolution, in fact even more concerned about it, than Republicans. It is anti-thetical to democracy as well as representative republics.

Here's a clue for those of you who aren't just happily mesmerized one way or another. When was the last time you voted for a UN official???

That's right. They don't have to be elected by the people. They get appointed by moneybags scum.
 
Careful babe you are showing signs of independent thought. You will be corn-holed if you don't show that you strictly adhere to a given political dogma regardless of the crap they may spew, and it will be even worse if it isn't the right one. You have to agree with everything they say or nothing, you aren't allowed to reason it out like you actually care about what is going on and maybe even agree with dems some and repubs some and maybe both and neither sometimes. Issues don't matter, only sides. I wish you luck.
 
There is no such thing as inexorable principles of economics and socialism, all there is is some adroit puppeteers running little plays out on the world stage to keep the dumb people mesmerized with a false division, and keep them fighting each other instead of doing something about the manipulators.

Its the pablum of god, guns and gays that keep the populace at odds with each other...while...well...you know the rest.
 
I make it very clear where I stand on issues as they arise. Pick one and we can discuss. Just because I haven't dedicated my entire heart and soul to a "side" in all this and fully adopted their propoganda prima facie, the way you have, doesn't mean I have no stance. I take stances on each issue as it arises, I do not sell out to one complete set of ideologies wholesale. The one area I do consistently criticize is the blanket statement of belief that your side is always right and the other side is always wrong.





Careful your inner Hopper is showing.

That's what I said. You stick your finger in the air and then take a stance. I follow a set of principles and judge a situation based on that.

I hope our disagreement doesn't mean I can't ever get that chowder recipe from you.
 
I make it very clear where I stand on issues as they arise. Pick one and we can discuss. Just because I haven't dedicated my entire heart and soul to a "side" in all this and fully adopted their propoganda prima facie, the way you have, doesn't mean I have no stance. I take stances on each issue as it arises, I do not sell out to one complete set of ideologies wholesale. The one area I do consistently criticize is the blanket statement of belief that your side is always right and the other side is always wrong.





Careful your inner Hopper is showing.

That's what I said. You stick your finger in the air and then take a stance. I follow a set of principles and judge a situation based on that.

I hope our disagreement doesn't mean I can't ever get that chowder recipe from you.

Gotcha, you let Glenn Beck tell you what to believe up front. I think about an issue and make a decision on my own. Glad that is cleared up.



I was wondering who wanted that recipe because a few asked but no one did in PM so I didn't remember who.
 
I wasn't degrading a point of view. I was making fun of Hopper/Millsapa.

While I can't absolutely disprove your thesis here, I am not convinced it's so. I guess if it's just "making fun" we can lower our intellectual effort quite a lot, right?

If I ding you for going low once in a while, I'll also rep you about twice as often when I see the kind of wit I like, regardless of whether I agree with the point.

The mental midget characterization of conservatives is of the same class as the various slurs against "progressives" some think are "making fun". I'm more in line with LG on all this, if we aren't making a lot of progress giving up ground just slinging mud, maybe there is a way to make some real progress as Americans if we will give credit to one another for good intentions and move the discussion to higher ground. If we care more to understand the problem and solve it.

For example, I have a fundamental postive view of unions because I believe unions helped to give our middle class a new lease on life for a season in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, and I think in the long run it's something we need to nurture and protect as the basis for a strong economy and for fundamental human rights. But I see a problem here with most of our private sector unions basically in a sold-out relation to their American workers because leadership is more interested in lush new "markets" in other countries and in the migrant workers/immigrant/illegal worker departments where they can use inside influence with corporate interests to get all these low-paid workers paying their union dues, while in the public sector the worker comp packages are now more than our taxpayers---lots of them long-time Americans who've lost higher-paying jobs to overseas/transborder outsourcing as well as the influx of illegals---just can't afford.

Long term, an extremely lucrative pay/benefit package for government workers is just unsustainable. Not just because there's not a strong economy or sufficient tax base to pay for it, but because it's entirely the wrong idea for public servants to be the fatcat lords of our society.
 
At the risk of getting zinged by all comabatants. . . .

Hey babe,
The jig is up. You can go back to being the funny *** kicking Clutch again. Bumplug Holmes and Chowderhead Watson uncovered our big secret.

Cue up the rolling eyes!
rolling-eyes.jpg


No, not those kind!

roll_eyes.jpg


That's more like it.
 
Gotcha, you let Glenn Beck tell you what to believe up front. I think about an issue and make a decision on my own. Glad that is cleared up.



I was wondering who wanted that recipe because a few asked but no one did in PM so I didn't remember who.

Dude, if you insist that someone is doing my thinking for me, you could at least chose someone less spastic than Glenn, like Ann Coulter or Rush Limbaugh. A combination would be even awesomer...Ann Limbaugh or Rush Coulter.

I wouldn't "mind" Frank J doing my thinking for me either. That guy is hilarious.
 
Hey babe,
The jig is up. You can go back to being the funny *** kicking Clutch again. Bumplug Holmes and Chowderhead Watson uncovered our big secret.

Cue up the rolling eyes!
rolling-eyes.jpg


No, not those kind!

roll_eyes.jpg


That's more like it.

maybe I'm just jealous and want to inherit the mantle of Ain't myself. Have you been over to OneBrow's blog to see how much time Ain't is spending there? I guess it's not according to Hoyle for the mods to publish lists of proven banned posters attmpting to re-establish themselves under new handles, and I note there's some skepticism about the reliability of ISPs as a criterion of judgment. However, I believe the Internet Service Providers can share customer identity under terms of use for resolving problems like non-compliant forum users. . . . so I think there's good reason to hope that the mods can limit the abuses.

However, dime-a-dozen accusations in the threads are a form of harassment that I think the mods should take a dim view of too. They are usually off-topic personal attacks. Anyone who has a valid concern should be able to report the problem and that should be sufficient.

who knows, maybe there are two or even three people with views that just don't fit in with crowd.
 
Last edited:
So, folks, shall we get back on topic here?

It seems to me like the issue of cutting taxes/eliminating unsustainable deficits for the foreseeable future by reducing government spending generally, and public employee comp packages specifically, is going to be a major hot topic for the coming election cycle. I think the Dems are going to crash and burn if they don't take the lead on this.
 
Take the lead? They are bought and paid for by the unions.

If the dems returned to their principles of standing up for the common man, they could argue that the taxpayers and their kids shouldn't have the unsustainable debt load on their backs for the next several generations while the people's real living standards are in decline. That's the ground that is open for "leadership" and that's the ground any political party of the future must take.

unions have become another class of elitist parasites sucking the blood of the worker. A lot of union members are seeing that now. Question is, will these rational and sensible workers replace their corrupt leadership.
 
If the dems returned to their principles of standing up for the common man, they could argue that the taxpayers and their kids shouldn't have the unsustainable debt load on their backs for the next several generations while the people's real living standards are in decline. That's the ground that is open for "leadership" and that's the ground any political party of the future must take.

unions have become another class of elitist parasites sucking the blood of the worker. A lot of union members are seeing that now. Question is, will these rational and sensible workers replace their corrupt leadership.

But Republicans have already claimed that ground.
 
But Republicans have already claimed that ground.

IMO, the Republicans have not repented of being fully invested in the progressive agenda, pretending to be the "good cop" of the our political goodcop/badcop phony "choice". Rhetoric does not connect to actions, even now. As I've said elsewhere, no republican can be taken for honest as long as he/she is playing the new governance game. Like George Bush calling the Constitution " that damn piece of paper, again."
 

You might complete a rounded research into the issue by checking out who the Annenburg "Factcheck.org" people are, and ponder their credibility. Whether Dubya actually said that is not worth the debate when he did sign the Patriot Act with its onerous provisions. He might as well have said it, judging from that and many other actions he has supported which essentially ignore if not degrade the significance of the Constitution, including going to war without an actual clearly defined Congressional Declaration of War, which would have at least defined our issues and exposed them to public debate. Nation-building around the world, or playing world cop for an undemocratic and non-representive form of governance like the UN is not in accord with Constitutional provisions limiting the scope of Federal powers.

The problem with top-down governance, however well-intentioned or intelligently-designed, is that it cuts the people out of the action, and degrades their human liberties and natural rights. And, sometimes, the best-laid plans go awry, as I suspect the events in the Arab authoritarian regimes across north Africa and the Middle East may be demonstrating. . . .
 
Back
Top