Thread: So...who here is STILL proud to be a Democrat?

Originally Posted by Steezy

It's not like anyone could be proud to be a Republican after 8 years of what Bush did.

VERY PROUD to be a Republican. As a bolshie-soshie-pinkie-Euro-squish, you won't understand that, but I'm really kind of proud that you find me incomprehensible. Lets me know I'm thinking correctly about things.

I think the US needs to break out of its two party sytem.

It has served us VERY well, thank you, for the guidance. We'll tune in when your system takes you to hyper-power status.

One thing that always makes me chuckle is how US Conservatives constantly hate the government imposing itself on their lives but on the other hand desperatly want that same government and its military to impose itself on the lives of others outside the borders.

HERE's a little news-flash, Chuckles: we're NOT the party that wishes for such things. What WE are all about is National Defense. I believe you'll find that the usage our political opponents find for the armed forces tends to have eff-all to do with actually defending the country (which they usually can't be bothered to stir themselves to care about). No, for THEM, the military is a social laboratory, or a way to spread enlightenment to the swarthy types that need their paternalistic insight and expertise.

You're confused.

Again.

It's sad that there are people like that in the world. Truly cold blooded evildoers like that are a blot on mankind.

Well, you're right, but you've mis-identified the perps.

Can you really back that claim up?

Yes, I can. Absolutely. Any casual reading of history will back me up. You don't seem to be too up on that subject if you refuse to acknowledge that as a fact.

Firstly throughout history there has been far more religious people than anti-religious people anyway.

True. And even given the bestial nature of religious conflict, it is the ANTI-religious that have managed to deliver in one century more human blood than in all previous centuries COMBINED. And that's why I said what I did, and can prove the case: it is the ANTI-relgious zealots that have taken killing to an acme that religion never managed to approach.

LOOK. IT. UP.

Infact the anti-religious movement is mainly a 20th/21st century phenomenon.

Yes, and isn't it AMAZING that in that one century, a noxious mix of evil philosophies and technology combined to take the human heart to a place so evil that in a hundred-year span, humankind went right to the edge of the pit of eternal destruction, something it had never had the inclination nor means to do before, even driven by religious fervor.

Not to mention the fact that you have to look at it as to whether this were done on a basis of religion/anti-religion or just done by people with religious/anti-religious views but the actions themselves have no bearing on their religious slant.

If that's your way of climbing down from your absurd claim, please be more explicit. It sounds a lot like you're still trying to make that ridiculous 'point' of yours, and not conceding that I'm correct.

E.g: Stalin, alot of people use Stalin as an example of how evil Atheists can be, but it's not like any of his actions were done on the basis of hating religion. Far from it. You'd have to be pretty silly to think someone like Stalin caused such mass murder on the basis that he hates religion.

Well, he DID hate religion, and he was very clear about that. It drove him in some big or small way, but that's not the point. He wasn't driven by hatred of religion, but his philosophy was definitely anti-religious, and that philosophy IS what drove him, and he and Mao and Hitler and Pol Pot and all the other bloody tyrants combined to make religious zealots back through human history look like benevolent bumblers next to the savagery of the anti-religious zealots.

Bluesman, you strike to me as someone with an extremist slant.

I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!
-Barry Goldwater

You wouldn't know extremism if it were shouting Allahu Akbar into your face, you weenie. You're not to be counted on when your country needs you to defend it. On the other hand, mine can count on ME.

There's no denying it.

CERTAINLY there IS denying it. I'm no extremist.

You have an extremist right wing agenda and talk like the guy who'd do anything to get what he wants.

Again, you use words that you but dimly understand. I'm not right-wing, I'm a conservative. This probably perplexes you, as you have no dam' idea that they're not the same thing.

And I wouldn't do ANYthing to get what I want; I work hard and play by the rules to do so. Which is why I'm so disgusted by liberals: they won't do either.

And also on a personal note you seem quite imbalanced.

What; you think the rest of that was NOT personal? It was, but I don't hold that against you; I tend to personalize a lot of the back-'n'-forth on here, too. But I'm responding to this point just to point out that you write like an elementary student.

Originally Posted by Albany Rifles

Steezy

I may rarely agree with Bluesman however, I strongly think you are off the mark on calling him unbalanced.

He has his strong opinions, ones I usually disagree with, and we have gone around a few times about. I think he is wrong on a LOT of things.

However, he comes to those beliefs honestly, not out of some derangement syndrome.

But, he hardly needs my help in defending himself. I am sure he will be along shortly to handle himself just fine.

Mr. Rifles, I respect you for that. It will come as no surprise that I find many of your opinions as incorrect, too. But I bet you're never on my 'Ignore' list. I use that sparingly, and for the ones among us that I seriously have no regard for at all, the very few that I absolutely cannot abide, or to even treat as being alive in my world any longer. (I wish I had the ability to blot out another poster's quote of their posts, then I could REALLY treat them as dead, which is how I prefer to think of them, once they've made the 'Ignore' list.)

I'm not deranged, but I will cop to this: I'm angry almost to the point of violence about some of the things that I've seen over the past eight years. I'm talking about outrageous words AND deeds that have real and devastating consequences on actual human beings, usually Americans, and it seems that where there should be outrage for the outrageousness, there is instead acceptance, sometimes even approval.

It makes me so damned angry that sometimes I'm driven WAY past civility or temperence, and I am waiting for others to acknowledge that I'm justified to feel that way. It usually is not forthcoming, and that would be fine, except that instead...the outrages are somehow normalized, and in some maddening instances, actually defended.

So, that's what it's usually all about: I'm wondering why the world has gone upside down, and nobody even seems to give a dam'.

Originally Posted by TopHatter

The one that I especially agree with with the manner in which Democratic members of Congress tried their dead-level best to LOSE the war in Iraq, snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. When he calls them traitors, he's not far off the mark.

That's the biggest of all the Big Thangs that I've been continuously angry about. They should've all been defeated, at the minimum. Hell, we have documented proof of actual treasonous dealing with the enemy when Ted Kennedy tried to help Andropov against the President of the United States...and people STILL won't call him out for the swine that he proved to be.

WHY? WHY is there no outrage? WHY can these despicable


Never mind. It's absolutey useless to do this. The Democrats are what they are, and the people that support 'em are always going to just accept whatever they do, because they're their guys.