Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 31

Thread: how "liberal" are those Democrats when it comes to clubs ...

  1. #1
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default how "liberal" are those Democrats when it comes to clubs ...

    ... when it comes down to being able to ruin the political chances of a republican candidate in a heavily democratic state - the answer is "not very".

    Before reading the news story, let me remind you that these two people were legally married at the time of the "incident", that the activities in question took place in a European club where everything was 100% legal, and that neither of these two people wanted this private information released as they felt it was not in the best interest of their 9 year old child.

  2. #2
    God/dess montythegeek's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2003
    Posts
    2,103
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 9 Times in 5 Posts

    Default Re:how "liberal" are those Democrats when it comes to clubs ...

    The single most offensive aspect of this whole affair is that court documents sealed by mutual consent of both parties were unsealed simply because a newspaper wanted to look at them.

  3. #3
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re:how "liberal" are those Democrats when it comes to clubs ...

    Quote Originally Posted by montythegeek link=board=1;threadid=10476;start=msg128528#msg128 528 date=1088254172
    The single most offensive aspect of this whole affair is that court documents sealed by mutual consent of both parties were unsealed simply because a newspaper wanted to look at them.
    More than that, the newspaper and TV station requested access to these sealed family court documents not for general investigative purposes but with the specific intent to dig up potential dirt on a Republican candidate during a hotly contested election campaign. This is of course the very same newspaper and TV station that buried news stories of votes being cast by deceased public employees in the city of Chicago.

    But my real point was that Democratic institutions are just as able to disseminate anti-club propaganda. In this case, they have successfully put across the idea that a man taking his (legal) wife to a (legal) club and suggesting that she take part in the (legal) activities normally going on in that club is morally reprehensible


  4. #4
    Featured Member sander8son's Avatar
    Joined
    May 2003
    Location
    Under Bridge 227 on I-95, Massachusetts
    Posts
    1,621
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 5 Times in 5 Posts

    Default Re:how "liberal" are those Democrats when it comes to clubs ...

    melonie, yes, they'll use any means nescesarry to gain power. however, nowhere did this prove that the Dems were actively attempting to, or had in the past pushed for legislation that would negatively impact clubs. i think this an effort on your part to slightly mislead the readers. call it dastardly campaign practices if you want, but it has nothing to do with sex regulation. and infact, it was the newspaper and tv station that pushed for the unsealing of documents and then reported their findings. wasn't released by the democratic party or the dem candidate he(ryan) was opposing.

  5. #5
    Featured Member sander8son's Avatar
    Joined
    May 2003
    Location
    Under Bridge 227 on I-95, Massachusetts
    Posts
    1,621
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 5 Times in 5 Posts

    Default Re:how "liberal" are those Democrats when it comes to clubs ...

    Quote Originally Posted by Melonie link=board=1;threadid=10476;start=msg128530#msg128 530 date=1088255725

    But my real point was that Democratic institutions are just as able to disseminate anti-club propaganda. In this case, they have successfully put across the idea that a man taking his (legal) wife to a (legal) club and suggesting that she take part in the (legal) activities normally going on in that club is morally reprehensible.
    no, doesn't seem like they've passed judgement. all they've done is report the facts with full knowledge that the republican party and its supporters would feel as youve described. that doesn't mean that the newspaper/dems feel that way.

  6. #6
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re:how "liberal" are those Democrats when it comes to clubs ...

    that doesn't mean that the newspaper/dems feel that way.
    Well, this gets to the heart of the matter. Republican or Democrat, the opinions about strip clubs "off the record" are usually very different than opinions about strip clubs "on the record". I'll concede that the Republicans take the hypocracy award (anybody who has ever been to a strip club in Texas will attest to that fact), but Democrats are capable of playing exactly the same game when it suits their purposes (ask any dancer from Detroit !).

    Bottom line is that when it comes to "on the record" opinions about strip clubs, neither party is officially supportive and both parties are capable of jumping on the anti-dance club crusade bandwagon when it suits their political purposes. However, I'll grant you that Democrats in general are more likely to ignore the issue, while Republicans in general are more likely to instigate to appeal to their bible thumping fringe.

    Back to the Chicago Tribune issue, how can you read that story and NOT get the message that patronizing strip clubs is morally reprehensible ?

  7. #7
    Senior Member ace_barker's Avatar
    Joined
    May 2003
    Location
    Village of Churches
    Posts
    99
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re:how "liberal" are those Democrats when it comes to clubs ...

    The Tribune is an extremely left newspaper now and isn't it interesting how they need to know what the divorce papers had on Ryan but they don't seem to be the least bit interested in getting John Kerrys sealed divorce papers made public. Hmmmmmmmm.
    Why doesn't the trib do an article about Barak Obama the dem for the senate seat who has admitted to smoking crack in the past. In Illinois crack is illegal, nothing Ryan did was. I heard Obama on WLS radio and he said that if elected he would vote no for any judicial nominee that George Bush would nominate. Nice to see a man with an open mind.

  8. #8
    Featured Member sander8son's Avatar
    Joined
    May 2003
    Location
    Under Bridge 227 on I-95, Massachusetts
    Posts
    1,621
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 5 Times in 5 Posts

    Default Re:how "liberal" are those Democrats when it comes to clubs ...

    right, which is why EVERYONE who votes(and those americans 18+ should), shouldn't vote for republicans or democrats. the way i see it, there are two other major parties that should get the same, if not more votes than the two power parties. the greens and the libertarians.

    we'll make it a popularity contest: if you like ryan, vote green. if you like me, vote libertarian.

    seriously, my beliefs aren't exactly libertarian(dont want to scare anyone off from that party, much rather that than rep or dem), im MUCH MUCH MUCH more extreme than the libertarian party. but if you're affilliated with this industry in anyway, be it dancer, customer, dj, owner, bouncer, ad agency for clubs, et cetera, its in your best interest to vote either green or libertarian. a vote for bush or kerry is a wasted vote, you'll have done nothing to help this coutnry. yes, one of them will win, but your vote means nothing. yes, even in close elections your vote means nothing if you waste it voting for the one you "hate the least". cast a meaningful vote for someone whom you are proud to support because they actually stand for your personal liberty.

  9. #9
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re:how "liberal" are those Democrats when it comes to clubs ...

    Here's a question for y'all. Historically speaking, which political party has actually been the "best" for strip clubs ? Think about it !








    my answer - the Fascists !

  10. #10
    God/dess montythegeek's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2003
    Posts
    2,103
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 9 Times in 5 Posts

    Default Re:how "liberal" are those Democrats when it comes to clubs ...

    Quote Originally Posted by Melonie link=board=1;threadid=10476;start=msg128547#msg128 547 date=1088257760
    Here's a question for y'all. Historically speaking, which political party has actually been the "best" for strip clubs ? Think about it !
    snip
    my answer - the Fascists !
    My answer The Bull Moose Party. Teddy R. knew how to party!
    Either that or the Knownothings. Since neither ever had any power neither one did anything bad.

  11. #11
    Senior Member ace_barker's Avatar
    Joined
    May 2003
    Location
    Village of Churches
    Posts
    99
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re:how "liberal" are those Democrats when it comes to clubs ...

    I've been voting republican since Jesse Jackson was named favorite son by the Illinois dems. I am pulling away from the Illinois rep. because they are such idiots. George Ryan (previous crook governor)and now the treatment of Jack Ryan. They deserted him like rats in a sinking ship.
    When Newt was there he preached smaller government and lower taxes. That is what I want. I can understand the expenses Bush has for homeland security because after 9/11 we should spend tons of money to defend/prevent against terrorists. But get rid of pork in government and welfare. Corporate welfare completely and make individuals do some type of work to collect their welfare payments.
    I am for the republicans until they control both Houses and the White House. Then do what you said. If they don't I'll never vote republican again and I'll be voting 3rd party or writng in a candidate. I know the rep have both houses now but it's only by 1 in the senate so they are on borrowed time in my view.
    I also want the federal government out of the education debate. They only provide 8% of the money anyway, let the states handle all education issues and finances.

  12. #12
    God/dess
    Joined
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    2,993
    Thanks
    39
    Thanked 12 Times in 11 Posts

    Default Re:how "liberal" are those Democrats when it comes to clubs ...

    Okay, we're straying off topic here but WTF.

    Quote Originally Posted by sander8son link=board=1;threadid=10476;start=msg128543#msg128 543 date=1088257158
    a vote for bush or kerry is a wasted vote, you'll have done nothing to help this coutnry. yes, one of them will win, but your vote means nothing. yes, even in close elections your vote means nothing if you waste it voting for the one you "hate the least". cast a meaningful vote for someone whom you are proud to support because they actually stand for your personal liberty.
    I understand your point and in an ideal world you are absolutely correct, but let's also be realistic here, you know right now only two candidates have any sort of realistic chance in hell at winning, how is it wasting your vote to vote for the one you "hate the least", you are still doing your part to keep out the one you then must "hate the most" aren't you?

    Quote Originally Posted by ace_barker link=board=1;threadid=10476;start=msg128549#msg128 549 date=1088258514
    I also want the federal government out of the education debate. They only provide 8% of the money anyway, let the states handle all education issues and finances.
    You realize this is just a shell game don't you? Lets push everything back to the states, take credit for lowering taxes and making government smaller on the federal level, then be oblivious to the consequences. Do you think this really lowers your taxes? Do you really think this makes government smaller? The answer is no to both, it just shift them from the federal level to the state level.


  13. #13
    Featured Member sander8son's Avatar
    Joined
    May 2003
    Location
    Under Bridge 227 on I-95, Massachusetts
    Posts
    1,621
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 5 Times in 5 Posts

    Default Re:how "liberal" are those Democrats when it comes to clubs ...

    because RH, theres more at-stake than just who is going to be president for the next four years. if nobody ever votes for who they want, the true candidates of the people will NEVER have a chance. yes, the greens and libertarians dont have a chance in hell of winning this presidential ellection this year. but if enough people vote their heart, it could lead to federal funding which currently only goes to the two major parties. this would help to level the field AND with the increase of support it would show that in the future it would be possible to ellect an alternate party president thus gaining more support until it finally happens.

    yes its a waste to vote for someone you hate less than someone else because you STILL HATE THEM. its not at all who you want, but you'd rather them then the other. this wont help you in the future. you're talking about going along and sacraficing your future for the sake of the pressent. not bright. as long as people continue to vote for republicans and democrats(two shades of the same party) nothing will ever change for the better in this coutnry. im talking about taking a long term view. besides, with so many people voting for both major parties, contrary to what they tell you, your one vote is meaningless. So vote for someone who needs and deserves support. IT COULD VERY WELL HELP OUT THE FUTURE OF THIS COUNTRY.

  14. #14
    Featured Member Lilith's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,309
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 14 Times in 11 Posts

    Default Re:how "liberal" are those Democrats when it comes to clubs ...

    I am in full agreement with Sandy. The entire point of our political process is not to hop around saying "My guy won and youuuuuuurs didn't!" Our representative politics was a hard-won system; battles were not fought so we could turn it into the equivelant of the SuperBowl every four years.

    The point of all this politican wackiness is to elect a system representative of the will of the people. That is not done by casting a vote for whomever you think will win, or who you hate the least AND think is likely to win. Your vote is wasted, pure and simple, unless you make an educated decision and then select the candidate most representative of your beliefs.

    Winning is nice, but being recognized by a powerful majority is a victory in itself.
    He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you. ~ Friedrich Nietzsche

  15. #15
    God/dess
    Joined
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    2,993
    Thanks
    39
    Thanked 12 Times in 11 Posts

    Default Re:how "liberal" are those Democrats when it comes to clubs ...

    Quote Originally Posted by sander8son link=board=1;threadid=10476;start=msg128603#msg128 603 date=1088270940
    besides, with so many people voting for both major parties, contrary to what they tell you, your one vote is meaningless. So vote for someone who needs and deserves support. IT COULD VERY WELL HELP OUT THE FUTURE OF THIS COUNTRY.
    I agree with you to an extent, like I said in a perfect world you are correct, but we are hardly in a perfect world are we?

    I do disagree with the thought that one's vote is meaningless, if Nader hadn't gotten as many votes as he did in 2000 Gore would be president right now (making the assumption that those who voted for Nader would have voted for Gore over Bush), and IMO that means we wouldn't be in the middle of this Iraqi mess.




  16. #16
    Senior Member ace_barker's Avatar
    Joined
    May 2003
    Location
    Village of Churches
    Posts
    99
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re:how "liberal" are those Democrats when it comes to clubs ...

    Yes it is pushing it to the state level. but I believe the federal gov't is there for national defense first and foremost. And what happens now? The governors and state representatives all blame the president (not just this one but whoever is in office) for the education woes when its more realistic to blame those state officials.
    These state officials are the ones who most likely either appointed or helped elect the school boards that don't educate the children. (we spend an average of $8,000/ student in the US) .These state officials that suck, I as a voter have a better chance of getting them voted out than i do a president. Make the mayors, town council members, state reps and governors make the decisions for the states. They should be more in touch than a nationally elected official. If the average voter was better informed then people would know to not listen to the BS that comes out of their state capitols. So lower my federal taxes and if the Governor wants to raise my state taxes he can, or he can cut the fat out of the state budget and get rid of the corruption. (yes I know there is federal corruption as well)
    Want my changes to the federal govt next????

  17. #17
    Featured Member Lilith's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,309
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 14 Times in 11 Posts

    Default Re:how "liberal" are those Democrats when it comes to clubs ...

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard_Head link=board=1;threadid=10476;start=msg128611#msg128 611 date=1088272694
    I do disagree with the thought that one's vote is meaningless, if Nader hadn't gotten as many votes as he did in 2000 Gore would be president right now (making the assumption that those who voted for Nader would have voted for Gore over Bush), and IMO that means we wouldn't be in the middle of this Iraqi mess.

    I see no logic in the oft-bandied hypothesis that people who vote for Nader would also vote for Gore. They aren't all that politically similar. It would actually be a little more sensical to say that if Nader weren't around, those people would have voted for Tipper. The option that makes the most sense is that those who voted for Nader would not have voted at all if they had not been given the opportunity to cast a true representative vote. Which brings me to my next point...

    I dislike the implied assumption that limiting the candidates to force people to vote a different party than that with which they are affiliated (or to force them to vote for a candidate with which they do not agree) is a good thing. Sure, go ahead and tell people they don't have any other option. Just do not delude one's self into thinking this is correctly applying our political system. I'm sure any Democrat would be incensed at the statement that if Gore weren't a candidate, all those people would have voted for Bush (or vice versa).

    We have no idea what Gore would have done when the UN voted Iraq to be a security problem, because he did not win the presidency. Speculation is just that: speculation. I'm sure he's a lovely man, but he is neither omniscent nor perfect.
    He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you. ~ Friedrich Nietzsche

  18. #18
    Featured Member sander8son's Avatar
    Joined
    May 2003
    Location
    Under Bridge 227 on I-95, Massachusetts
    Posts
    1,621
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 5 Times in 5 Posts

    Default Re:how "liberal" are those Democrats when it comes to clubs ...

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard_Head link=board=1;threadid=10476;start=msg128611#msg128 611 date=1088272694


    I agree with you to an extent, like I said in a perfect world you are correct, but we are hardly in a perfect world are we?

    I do disagree with the thought that one's vote is meaningless, if Nader hadn't gotten as many votes as he did in 2000 Gore would be president right now (making the assumption that those who voted for Nader would have voted for Gore over Bush), and IMO that means we wouldn't be in the middle of this Iraqi mess.
    no, not even close to perfect, which is why im advocating bucking the trend.

    OH, in a tight election(very rare for presidential by state, yes it did happen in florida) your vote may decide an election. but the candidate selected wont mean jack if its a rep or dem. thats the point. would we be in iraq right now if gore was president? no way to know for sure. if you wish to speculate not, i could certainly see that. I DO believe that 9-11 would still have happened with gore in office and action would have been demanded by the populace against bin laden and his goonsquad. would that have extended to iraq? who knows?

    is your life MUCH different now than it was 5 years ago due to the war in iraq? unless youve got family there(or deceased due to it) i tend to doubt it. both of the major super parties are bad for the people. my point is, it doesn't matter which one has power. that is why your vote doesn't matter if you vote for either of them, you're just fueling the system of your own oppression.

    *added* i'd like to add, RH, thanks for keeping it civil. its been an enjoyable discussion. i realize its hard to keep it civil with me since i commonly use terms like, "retard, asshole, shithaed, and worthless scum." so i do applaud you there.

  19. #19
    God/dess
    Joined
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    2,993
    Thanks
    39
    Thanked 12 Times in 11 Posts

    Default Re:how "liberal" are those Democrats when it comes to clubs ...

    Quote Originally Posted by ace_barker link=board=1;threadid=10476;start=msg128616#msg128 616 date=1088272905
    Yes it is pushing it to the state level. but I believe the federal gov't is there for national defense first and foremost. And what happens now? The governors and state representatives all blame the president (not just this one but whoever is in office) for the education woes when its more realistic to blame those state officials.
    These state officials are the ones who most likely either appointed or helped elect the school boards that don't educate the children. (we spend an average of $8,000/ student in the US) .These state officials that suck, I as a voter have a better chance of getting them voted out than i do a president. Make the mayors, town council members, state reps and governors make the decisions for the states. They should be more in touch than a nationally elected official. If the average voter was better informed then people would know to not listen to the BS that comes out of their state capitols. So lower my federal taxes and if the Governor wants to raise my state taxes he can, or he can cut the fat out of the state budget and get rid of the corruption. (yes I know there is federal corruption as well)
    Want my changes to the federal govt next????
    I don't disagree that education is better handled at the state level, what I have a problem with is someone preaching that they lowered your taxes and reduced government when in actuality they haven't, they just shifted it around.




  20. #20
    Moderator Djoser's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Key West
    Posts
    16,343
    Thanks
    1,395
    Thanked 5,487 Times in 2,768 Posts

    Default Re:how "liberal" are those Democrats when it comes to clubs ...

    Quote Originally Posted by sander8son link=board=1;threadid=10476;start=msg128603#msg128 603 date=1088270940

    yes its a waste to vote for someone you hate less than someone else because you STILL HATE THEM...this wont help you in the future.
    Hear, hear!

    Thus we are really no better off, at least in terms of electoral process, than those stinking commies, who 'have no choice at all' when it comes time to vote, because they can only vote for the same ass**le.

    Well, here in America we generally get TWO ass**les to choose from.

    But getting back to the specific topic, I read the entire article, Melonie, and with all due respect for your considerable intelligence, I saw no evidence of any organized Democratic attack on the candidate due to his alleged indiscretion. Instead, I saw the following passages indicating his own party, on the basis of unsubstantiated and slanderous allegations of sexual indiscretion (originating, I might add, from his own wife--is she perhaps a democrat?) cast him off like a leprous rat...

    "That figure didn't worry aides as much as results showing that conservatives were abandoning Ryan."

    "Polls have shown Ryan trailing Obama from the start of their race. Even so, several party strategists said they were concerned about the impact on Republicans running for the state legislature and other offices if he stayed on the ballot."

    "...he came under immediate pressure from many GOP officials in his home state to relinquish his nomination."

    "Members of the state's GOP congressional delegation met with House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., on Thursday to discuss the issue, and one official said afterward that the speaker concurred that Ryan needed to step aside."
    You must have chaos within you to give birth to a dancing star.
    Friedrich Nietzsche

    Free your mind, and your ass will follow.
    George Clinton

    ______________________________________

  21. #21
    Featured Member sander8son's Avatar
    Joined
    May 2003
    Location
    Under Bridge 227 on I-95, Massachusetts
    Posts
    1,621
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 5 Times in 5 Posts

    Default Re:how "liberal" are those Democrats when it comes to clubs ...

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard_Head link=board=1;threadid=10476;start=msg128635#msg128 635 date=1088274892
    I don't disagree that education is better handled at the state level, what I have a problem with is someone preaching that they lowered your taxes and reduced government when in actuality they haven't, they just shifted it around.
    kinda like moving your peas all over the plate so theres greater spaces between them, making it appear that there's less, when in fact you haven't eaten any.

    you're right RH, however, relegating it solely to the state would decrease total government expenditure(not enough to be noticed on your taxes though......besides, they'll just vote to spend more one something else anyway). it would create only two education beurocracies(local and state, which already exist) and eliminate the costs associated with federal educational beaurocracy.


    oh and lil, rock on!!!!!

  22. #22
    Featured Member sander8son's Avatar
    Joined
    May 2003
    Location
    Under Bridge 227 on I-95, Massachusetts
    Posts
    1,621
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 5 Times in 5 Posts

    Default Re:how "liberal" are those Democrats when it comes to clubs ...

    exactly what i said djoser with regards to the article.

  23. #23
    God/dess
    Joined
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    2,993
    Thanks
    39
    Thanked 12 Times in 11 Posts

    Default Re:how "liberal" are those Democrats when it comes to clubs ...

    Quote Originally Posted by Lilith link=board=1;threadid=10476;start=msg128623#msg128 623 date=1088273833
    I see no logic in the oft-bandied hypothesis that people who vote for Nader would also vote for Gore. They aren't all that politically similar.
    No logic? Are you kidding me? Nader is extremely left, if you decide he is not electable, what's you next best option, Gore who is moderate left, or Bush who is extremely right? Logically, the answer is the moderate left, which in this case was Gore.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lilith link=board=1;threadid=10476;start=msg128623#msg128 623 date=1088273833
    I dislike the implied assumption that limiting the candidates to force people to vote a different party than that with which they are affiliated (or to force them to vote for a candidate with which they do not agree) is a good thing. Sure, go ahead and tell people they don't have any other option. Just do not delude one's self into thinking this is correctly applying our political system. I'm sure any Democrat would be incensed at the statement that if Gore weren't a candidate, all those people would have voted for Bush (or vice versa).
    Who's saying it's a good thing? I'm just saying that IMO a vote for someone who has no chance of winning is a wasted vote, by all means cast that vote though if you feel so strongly.

    Quote Originally Posted by sander8son link=board=1;threadid=10476;start=msg128634#msg128 634 date=1088274832
    is your life MUCH different now than it was 5 years ago due to the war in iraq? unless youve got family there(or deceased due to it) i tend to doubt it. both of the major super parties are bad for the people. my point is, it doesn't matter which one has power. that is why your vote doesn't matter if you vote for either of them, you're just fueling the system of your own oppression.
    Sometimes I think you need to think about more than how you personally are affected. I do know that the lives of 800 or so (I hate to say it but I've lost count) american G.I.'s have been lost, they all had families and friends, not to mention the lost lives of all the Iraqi civilian's, do we just discount this because it didn't personally affect us? I also don't think terrorism has decreased, and I don't think we are any safer now then we were before.

    Quote Originally Posted by sander8son link=board=1;threadid=10476;start=msg128634#msg128 634 date=1088274832
    *added* i'd like to add, RH, thanks for keeping it civil. its been an enjoyable discussion. i realize its hard to keep it civil with me since i commonly use terms like, "retard, asshole, shithaed, and worthless scum." so i do applaud you there.
    Are you calling me a retard, asshole, shithead, and worthless scum??? J/K, I too like a civil discussion.


  24. #24
    Featured Member sander8son's Avatar
    Joined
    May 2003
    Location
    Under Bridge 227 on I-95, Massachusetts
    Posts
    1,621
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 5 Times in 5 Posts

    Default Re:how "liberal" are those Democrats when it comes to clubs ...

    RH, are you suggesting i not be selfish for even a minute? i scoff at that suggestion. in fact I, as in myself, the most imortant person in the world, spit on it! heh.

    yes, however many soldiers died....... how many more or less would've died under gores reign as Comander in Chief? sure, they may not have died in iraq, but some(maybe not as many) would've died elsewhere. or perhaps we'd have more civilian cassualties in the US from terror attacks that may have happened with gore in command. who knows? this is all speculation. point is, the life of the average american is not going to be much different wether bush wins a second term or wether kerry wins this election(there, i'll put it in the near future tense). government will continue to grow. taxes will continue to grow to support growing government, and your rights will continue to be adjusted ever so slightly to keep those in power safe. all these will happen at different rates depending on who wins(bush or kerry), but rest assured they will all happen.

    i refuse to support that. that way, i can call this country a shithole, and point the finger at everyone who continues to vote for the status quo.

  25. #25
    Banned Madcap's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Saint effing Louis
    Posts
    6,804
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re:how "liberal" are those Democrats when it comes to clubs ...

    Considering the fact that republicans don't want it going on at all (Publically at least) I think i'll stick with the left.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. "Hun," "Baby," "Darlin'" and other endearing terms
    By Chicagoeditor in forum Customer Conversation
    Replies: 74
    Last Post: 10-29-2013, 04:02 PM
  2. Replies: 44
    Last Post: 07-15-2008, 09:28 AM
  3. Replies: 19
    Last Post: 08-11-2006, 06:42 PM
  4. "Listen up, fellow Democrats"
    By Jay Zeno in forum Political Poo
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 11-08-2004, 07:26 AM
  5. Replies: 17
    Last Post: 07-28-2004, 10:54 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •