Originally posted by Quark_666I don't know how the party was started, sounds pretty historical to me.
You don't have to specialize in American politics to know the basic differences between American parties. And it might be wise for you to know the difference between American parties before you can act like you know as much as an american political scientist (I'm referring to your "knowledge" about Hillary and Obama)Who mentioned that?
Originally posted by UshgarakSorry, I didn't know the Democrats were a socilaist party. Everyone calls them liberals.
That's a poor response considering you were using the American definition.
Originally posted by lord xyzI think the problem some people (I) have with you is that you talk a lot out of your ass and try to come off as educated or even an authority on a subject, but when you look at it it is usually misinformed crap.
I don't know how the party was started, sounds pretty historical to me.Sorry, I didn't know the Democrats were a socilaist party. Everyone calls them liberals.
Originally posted by BigRed
That hasn't stopped Bush since Democrats took over Congress in 2006 from still doing whatever he wants.
I like this use of the idea that they "took over". When the democrats won the last election, they "won it" by a pretty slim margin. Every democrat on this board was saying it was a roundhouse kick to the face of every republican. But, I recall saying that it was no real time to celebrate; that the gains were significant but had not resulted in a significant majority. 51/49, or whatever the number is, is not an agenda majority; especially if it requires a 2/3 majority to override the president.
Originally posted by Devil King
I like this use of the idea that they "took over". When the democrats won the last election, they "won it" by a pretty slim margin. Every democrat on this board was saying it was a roundhouse kick to the face of every republican. But, I recall saying that it was no real time to celebrate; that the gains were significant but had not resulted in a significant majority. 51/49, or whatever the number is, is not an agenda majority; especially if it requires a 2/3 majority to override the president.
They instead pussied out on the War and that pisses me off and instead are doing nasty tactics that the Republicans did.
The Republicans benefited by prostituting the tragic events of 9/11 for their own political gain.
The Democrats have attatched "anti-war" to their name and are using a tragic war for their own political gain.
It's sickening.
Originally posted by BigRed
True, but I still think they had some edge to get things accomplished.They instead pussied out on the War and that pisses me off and instead are doing nasty tactics that the Republicans did.
The Republicans benefited by prostituting the tragic events of 9/11 for their own political gain.
The Democrats have attatched "anti-war" to their name and are using a tragic war for their own political gain.
It's sickening.
I'm not trying to make excuses for their lack of action. In fact, if they had really been willing to do as they said, they would have been sending bills to the president on a daily basis and his constant vetoes would have proven to the American people that Bush and the republicans are the big business, war mongers they've been making them out to be. But I think it's a bit hasty to claim they're prolonging the war for political gain. They were poised to gain from teh last 7 years, not matter what they did.
Originally posted by Devil King
I'm not trying to make excuses for their lack of action. In fact, if they had really been willing to do as they said, they would have been sending bills to the president on a daily basis and his constant vetoes would have proven to the American people that Bush and the republicans are the big business, war mongers they've been making them out to be. But I think it's a bit hasty to claim they're prolonging the war for political gain. They were poised to gain from teh last 7 years, not matter what they did.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/18349197/the_chicken_doves
Originally posted by Devil King
You should be tuning in to Bill Maher every friday night. Mr. Taibbi is a frequent guest on the show.
I like Maher a lot. He said Ron Paul was his hero and spoke the truth, but now he seems to have bowed down Obama. 😠
Originally posted by BigRed
I watch it on Youtube (I don't have HBO) a couple days later usually.I like Maher a lot. He said Ron Paul was his hero and spoke the truth, but now he seems to have bowed down Obama. 😠
I've never heard him say Ron Paul was his hero, but if he were, I still think he's realistic and wouldn't publically support him. And he hasn't bowed down to Obama in any way. His candidate was John Edwards. Both he and Matt Taibbi are publically supporting Obama.
Originally posted by Devil KingI've watched like two or three of his shows since he proclaimed his love for Obama and he hasn't made a single joke about him and defends him non-stop like he doesn't do any wrong.
I've never heard him say Ron Paul was his hero, but if he were, I still think he's realistic and wouldn't publically support him. And he hasn't bowed down to Obama in any way. His candidate was John Edwards. Both he and Matt Taibbi are publically supporting Obama.
To go from thinking Ron Paul is your hero (he said this on his show once) and tells the truth to a 180 with Obama is odd.