Pity for the Impotent Dick

[Downthestretch55]

First to Pillow Putz,
No Dick in my mouth.

Next to Genuine Risk,
BINGO!
You might find this to be of interest. The calls for impeachment will increase, and if you read this, you might be amazed to see which ones are going to toss Dick like a urine stained jock strap.
http://newsforreal.com/

I've always loved pressure on Dick.
Prediction: Serious "health issue" within two months.
Dick will not rise again.

Originally Posted by Downthestretch55

First to Pillow Putz,
No Dick in my mouth.

Next to Genuine Risk,
BINGO!
You might find this to be of interest. The calls for impeachment will increase, and if you read this, you might be amazed to see which ones are going to toss Dick like a urine stained jock strap.
http://newsforreal.com/

I've always loved pressure on Dick.
Prediction: Serious "health issue" within two months.
Dick will not rise again.

The democrats are stupid enough to try and impeach him. Right around election time, too. Might as well give the white house to the elephants for another 4 years so you can cut and paste links from your half-a-fag bookmarked sites.

Ben Affleck is about the most rational out of the bunch. He said dems are afraid to be called pussies. And he's right. They were elected to congress to change things. Here we are 6 months later and they haven't done jack sh.it. It's too late to start the impeachment process now.

[Downthestretch55]

Originally Posted by Pillow Pants

The democrats are stupid enough to try and impeach him. Right around election time, too. Might as well give the white house to the elephants for another 4 years so you can cut and paste links from your half-a-fag bookmarked sites.

Ben Affleck is about the most rational out of the bunch. He said dems are afraid to be called pussies. And he's right. They were elected to congress to change things. Here we are 6 months later and they haven't done jack sh.it. It's too late to start the impeachment process now.

Pillow,
If you read the last link I put up, you might be surprised.
It won't be the Dems (just my prediction).
As it states in that link, if it seems likely that the Dems will win the 2008 elections, take a guess at the party that won't want a VP to have the same powers as Cheney has established.
Lots more rats are going to be jumping off this sinking ship.
Watch them swim away.

Originally Posted by Downthestretch55

Pillow,
If you read the last link I put up, you might be surprised.
It won't be the Dems (just my prediction).
As it states in that link, if it seems likely that the Dems will win the 2008 elections, take a guess at the party that won't want a VP to have the same powers as Cheney has established.
Lots more rats are going to be jumping off this sinking ship.
Watch them swim away.

How will the dems have any shot with the top 3 they currently have? Do you honestly think that someone as polarizing as Hillary has a shot? Obama? Sadly the south isn't ready for that, and the muslim deal will get beat into the ground. Edwards? Maybe, but Hillary and Obama aren't helping his chances of getting the nomination.

Watch and see what happens. We'll have another actor turned politician in the White House.

You might have faith in our fellow americans, I don't.

[Downthestretch55]

Originally Posted by Pillow Pants

How will the dems have any shot with the top 3 they currently have? Do you honestly think that someone as polarizing as Hillary has a shot? Obama? Sadly the south isn't ready for that, and the muslim deal will get beat into the ground. Edwards? Maybe, but Hillary and Obama aren't helping his chances of getting the nomination.

Watch and see what happens. We'll have another actor turned politician in the White House.

You might have faith in our fellow americans, I don't.

I'll watch and see what happens.
I don't like Hillary.
Edwards? Maybe.
This might be one to watch for, and it wouldn't surprise me in the least...
Gore/Obama.
Stay tuned.
The Repubs are going to do some fancy dancing. Guilliani? Losing support.
9/11 facts are coming out.
Romney? Mormon Church deferment requests. McCain? Lots o luck. Running on "surge"?
The actor? That's their best hope? Where is going to announce? At the Creation Museum? Will his platform include vetoes of stem cell research? Is he going to run against "illigal immigrants"? His best line so far has been an attack on Michael Moore. Oh! That's vision!
As you said, "I'll watch". And I won't be surprised when a late development happens with the Dems. It also wouldn't be a surprise to see a 3rd party candidate come along (Bloomberg/Hagel).
Should be interesting.

[kenny p]

Originally Posted by Pillow Pants

How will the dems have any shot with the top 3 they currently have? Do you honestly think that someone as polarizing as Hillary has a shot? Obama? Sadly the south isn't ready for that, and the muslim deal will get beat into the ground. Edwards? Maybe, but Hillary and Obama aren't helping his chances of getting the nomination.

Watch and see what happens. We'll have another actor turned politician in the White House.

You might have faith in our fellow americans, I don't.

Next president= Hillary

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Pillow Pants

The democrats are stupid enough to try and impeach him. Right around election time, too. Might as well give the white house to the elephants for another 4 years so you can cut and paste links from your half-a-fag bookmarked sites.

Ben Affleck is about the most rational out of the bunch. He said dems are afraid to be called pussies. And he's right. They were elected to congress to change things. Here we are 6 months later and they haven't done jack sh.it. It's too late to start the impeachment process now.

Yeah! How dare the Dems not fix six years' worth of Bush's incompetence and Cheney's tyranny in six months! How dare they! Why, they should be able to push anything they want through with their what, one vote majority (and it's Lieberman. Give me a break)?

There's plenty to be mad at the Dems for not accomplishing, but getting angry because they don't have a 60-vote majority and thus can't get anything past Bush's buddies in Congress is a little ridiculous, don't you think?

Six years of gutting worker safety, environmental regulations, selling public lands off to private corporations and endorsing torture, illegal detentions, the suspension of habeus corpus, Katrina, attorney firings etc- all under a Republican Congress- apparently you were fine with that. But the fact that the Dems haven't fixed all that in six months, and you're accusing them of not having done anything? What? Especially seeing as how they are barely the majority.

Though I suppose it means you're holding Dems to a higher ethical standard than you do Repubs. We're flattered.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

Six years of gutting worker safety, environmental regulations, selling public lands off to private corporations and endorsing torture, illegal detentions, the suspension of habeus corpus, Katrina, attorney firings etc- all under a Republican Congress- apparently you were fine with that. But the fact that the Dems haven't fixed all that in six months, and you're accusing them of not having done anything? What? Especially seeing as how they are barely the majority.

Though I suppose it means you're holding Dems to a higher ethical standard than you do Repubs. We're flattered.

Did they vote on this or did Dick Cheney illegally order it?

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Did they vote on this or did Dick Cheney illegally order it?

How long since Katrina? And how does New Orleans look these days? And we're supposed to be the richest and most powerful nation in the world and we can't rebuild one darn city?

This administration has proved beyond a doubt that when you put people who have open contempt for government in charge, they will do a crummy job running it.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

How long since Katrina? And how does New Orleans look these days? And we're supposed to be the richest and most powerful nation in the world and we can't rebuild one darn city?

You are kidding right? You cant be serious?

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

How long since Katrina? And how does New Orleans look these days? And we're supposed to be the richest and most powerful nation in the world and we can't rebuild one darn city?

This administration has proved beyond a doubt that when you put people who have open contempt for government in charge, they will do a crummy job running it.

GR with all due respect New Orleans needs to be rebuilt in a place other than a river delta. Building a city next to an ocean that is 15 ft below sea level is just plain stupid. The Corps of Engineers knows this. You can levy, and canal all you want, and it will not help the situation when the right storm strikes again, which will most certainly happen.

Off topic. Sorry. Back to Cheney. And that rounds it off to 2,540 posts. Laters.

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Bababooyee

The people are in charge hardly have open contempt for government. They see government (ie "legal" force) as a tool for furthering their agenda...hell, the Bush administration has expanded the size of the federal government at a rate that compares only to FDR (and he may have even surpassed FDR at this point). The only difference is that liberals don't agree with the current admins agenda, but they certainly have no problem using government (ie "legal" force) to further their own agenda(s). That is why I don't get the term "neo-con", as conservatives generally stand against big government, etc. "Neo-liberal" makes much more sense to me.

Either way, this is something I don't understand about many liberals. We can bring up crummy administrations throughout our history - other presidents besides Bush have trampled the Constitution, infringed on our rights, etc. (some of them Democrats even <gasp> ). However, Bush has or should have highlighted for you how government has and will continue to be abused. Historically, the temptation and abuse of government power attracts more as$holes than not. Also, as Bush should also now highlight, advocating central power in government for things you want is tantamount to advocating that same amount of power in the hands of your enemy. Proof is in the pudding, as they say. We can simply say, "Well, I just don't like the way the 'neo-cons' are using the power; power in and of itself is not a bad thing so long as it is applied correctly." Fine, but, as I said, history shows that government power attracts more as$holes than not, so if the government should have this power, at the very, very best, from time to time it will get in the hands of as$holes (some may say it is with as$holes most of the time), and it will be abused - and Bush is hardly an illustration of the worst possible case. So, why or why do liberals still think that government is the solution to many of our problems?

But see, here is where I think 30 years' of propaganda in the wake of Watergate has radically affected the average American's view of what government can and can't do, and the fact that we can't seem to remember beyond ten minutes ago doesn't help. FDR was far from perfect (attempting to stuff the Supreme Court with 15 justices comes to mind), but look what government stepped in to do during the Great Depression- instituted Social Security, which, for all the current dour predictions, is one of the single most successful social programs ever created (and a model of efficiency). The WPA, which put thousands and thousands of people back to work in jobs created by the government, building roads, digging ditches, creating dams. We scream now about the evils of socialism, but in the 1930's, especially with 25 percent of America out of work and bread lines around the block, socialism was seen by many as the solution. FDR's government programs saved capitalism in the US. JFK's administration set us towards the moon. Nixon's brought about Title IX, and for all the screaming from the right about it, it's been a very, very valuable program for thousands of girls all over the country- girls who play sports are less likely to wind up in abusive relationships or get pregnant as teenagers. These are extraordinary things government accomplishes.

Goood government is a great thing. Bad government isn't. And yes, lots and lots of bad people go into government. And they become bosom buddies with people in big business and soon we're awash in crony capitalism. But to shrug and say, well, power corrupts, therefore government is for bunk is, I think, indicative of another American trait, which is that we hate complexity and we want results right away. Something goes wrong and we want to throw it out, rather than repair it. But we've been blessed with years and years of prosperity, thanks to the wise government of past administration (and, unfortunately, to cheap oil, thanks to the unwise government of those same administrations, which has created a whole wealth of new problems), and I think we get complacent and forget how long it can take to make things better, because we haven't really had anything all that wrong for so long. And so we blame government for all our problems, and think we'd be better off without it. And the media continues to villanize everything government does and we all stop thinking of government as a tool of the people and think of it as the enemy.

And maybe so many crooks and liars wouldn't get voted in if more than half of the population would bother to turn out to vote. Or read up on the issues. Or vote based on more than, "I just don't like him/her. I can't explain it." Or if more than a thousandth of them would bother to write their Congressman once in a while. Did any of the DTers who posted about their political leanings- specifically, that they don't care if gays get married, ever think to write their Congressman to that effect? Again, complacent.

Anyway, my eight dollars of opinion. Good government, good. Bad government, bad. Up to us to decide which is which.

[timmgirvan]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

But see, here is where I think 30 years' of propaganda in the wake of Watergate has radically affected the average American's view of what government can and can't do, and the fact that we can't seem to remember beyond ten minutes ago doesn't help. FDR was far from perfect (attempting to stuff the Supreme Court with 15 justices comes to mind), but look what government stepped in to do during the Great Depression- instituted Social Security, which, for all the current dour predictions, is one of the single most successful social programs ever created (and a model of efficiency). The WPA, which put thousands and thousands of people back to work in jobs created by the government, building roads, digging ditches, creating dams. We scream now about the evils of socialism, but in the 1930's, especially with 25 percent of America out of work and bread lines around the block, socialism was seen by many as the solution. FDR's government programs saved capitalism in the US. JFK's administration set us towards the moon. Nixon's brought about Title IX, and for all the screaming from the right about it, it's been a very, very valuable program for thousands of girls all over the country- girls who play sports are less likely to wind up in abusive relationships or get pregnant as teenagers. These are extraordinary things government accomplishes.

Goood government is a great thing. Bad government isn't. And yes, lots and lots of bad people go into government. And they become bosom buddies with people in big business and soon we're awash in crony capitalism. But to shrug and say, well, power corrupts, therefore government is for bunk is, I think, indicative of another American trait, which is that we hate complexity and we want results right away. Something goes wrong and we want to throw it out, rather than repair it. But we've been blessed with years and years of prosperity, thanks to the wise government of past administration (and, unfortunately, to cheap oil, thanks to the unwise government of those same administrations, which has created a whole wealth of new problems), and I think we get complacent and forget how long it can take to make things better, because we haven't really had anything all that wrong for so long. And so we blame government for all our problems, and think we'd be better off without it. And the media continues to villanize everything government does and we all stop thinking of government as a tool of the people and think of it as the enemy.

And maybe so many crooks and liars wouldn't get voted in if more than half of the population would bother to turn out to vote. Or read up on the issues. Or vote based on more than, "I just don't like him/her. I can't explain it." Or if more than a thousandth of them would bother to write their Congressman once in a while. Did any of the DTers who posted about their political leanings- specifically, that they don't care if gays get married, ever think to write their Congressman to that effect? Again, complacent.

Anyway, my eight dollars of opinion. Good government, good. Bad government, bad. Up to us to decide which is which.

But of course the general population is too stupid to think, and they don't have all the facts.....So just let the Dems think for you and everything will be fine Don't forget posts 35-36!

[skippy3481]

DTS,
I didn't post for a reason. I don't really have enough information to accurately state how i feel about cheney. Do i like him as a person... NO? Do I like him as a vice president... I don't know. But instead of writing a paragraph about something I don't have a firm opinion on, I simply passed. Posting articles without comment is absolutely a waste a time, bu its fine I'll just put you on ignore and forget about it.

GR,
I agree that people posting articles is a good thing;however my premise still stands, I dont want just articles, i want the posters comment on the article. When you post articles you at least put your on idea's at the bottom. DTS has some valid points, but the problem is wading through postings of just articles to get to something interesting. But thats just me, and bababooyee, that was exactly what i meant.

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Bababooyee

Well, I'd argue the exact opposite. That we are woefully uneducated. When we're taught by the government, why should we not expect our history to be whitewashed and ignored? Why shouldn't it be expected that we are taught everything has been mostly great and be lucky, if at best, many transgressions are given a footnote, and often outirght lied to? You think this perspective starts with Watergate? C'mon now...that's just silly - how much of the writings and debates from the Founders have you read? That's the whole point of the Constitution - limit government because of distrust of government. I mean, that isn't the best place to start, we could start with many things much earlier (because the Founders did not just pull the Constitution out of their asses - it was a result of a lot of education, research and debate). But Watergate?? C'mon now.

To put trust in government, to the extreme extent liberals do, is, in part, to outright ignore history (talk about a short attention span!) and/or be woefully uneducated. I mean, it is a blue print outlined by Plato a long time ago...people are to be but a cog in the machine, so you have to have the machine teach them - the machine is good, making the machine bigger is will make it all better.



Not to mention collecting a racial minority into concentration camps, and all that...(the same thing socialists were doing across the pond, btw).



Like take measures which prolonged the Depression?



SS is an example of a governmental success???? Really!??!?! You mean the pool money the government couldn't keep their hands off, said pool now being full of IOUs?? Eek.

Hell, one of the few things that government does OK is deliver the mail; however, that has a lot to do with the government being kind enough to let us have competition in that arena, so the USPS is forced to be efficient, etc. otherwise we'll take our business to UPS, FedEx, etc.



And socialism/collectivism was seen by many as the solution in Nazi Germany, USSR, China, Cambodia, etc. Internment camps, concentration camps, gulags, etc. Socialism has a great track record...and body count to boot.

I know what you're thinking at this point, but continue to the next part where I further explain...



Hardly. Let's say there is no government at all...what would type of economy would we have? Free market capitalism! People trading goods and services in return for goods and services. So, how can you say that he, by government, saved what would exist without government in the first place!?!? He didn't. His programs WERE socialist.




Wanting results right away is the path of liberals, and hating complexity is ignoring history, simple economics, and human nature. Wanting government to do so much is hardly complex - it is the simplest thing to suggest - pass the buck, let them handle it. Other solutions will take too long, so let's have the government do it!

"But government can handle it if goverment is set up complex enough (enough central planners, putting enough brain power into it)"...yeah, well that's what they thought in the USSR, too. Worked out wonderfully - about the only thing they did efficiently was trample on basic human rights (freedom of speech, religion) and murder.

Also, distrusting goverment is very healthy and is rooted in our history and tradition. It comes from a proper historical perspective whereby we understand and appreciate what happens to the individual as goverment grows - our Founders knew it way back when and tried to limit what the government could do and their concerns/distrust/fears have been proven warranted around the world over and over again: the individual becomes the servant to the government instead of the opposite (which was the whole point of America in the first place - which is another reason I questioned your take on the Founders).

B, here is where I think you misunderstand liberals- most liberals aren't advocating more government- they're advocating BETTER government. I see no reason why subsidies to the oil and coal industries should continue, for example. End 'em. And gas will cost close to $13 a gallon, but that's true free market- if the gas companies really had to pay what it cost to produce their product (including cleaning up the environmental damage from creating it, which your and my tax dollars pay for), I'd be cool with it. Think that's likely to happen? People will scream bloody murder if they had to pay the actual cost of things like gas and oil. Though honestly, I'd be willing to do so if it meant an end to the energy subsidies.

Government size has been swelling, no question (and more under Republicans lately than under Democrats). But not swelling in any way to address the rising inequality in the US- it's rising as government gets even deeper in bed with Big Business. And it doesn't make economic sense. For all that the media has us running scared from the idea of national health care, for example, we still pay more per person than any other industrialized nation and we have higher infant mortality and lower life span than any other industrialized nation. France is rated #1 in health care; we're #37. AND IT COSTS OUR NATION MORE. Whaaaaa?

Social Security is a brilliant program- the government stealing the surplus is wrong. But again, that's where I'd say better government, not less.

I also don't see what the internment camps (which were wrong, duh) have to do with anything currently- I don't think I was nominating FDR for sainthood. To look at the other Roosevelt, there's a man that helped found the National Park system (another example of government doing the right thing- setting aside public lands so we can all have an opportunity to be in the great outdoors), and also was such a racist he said white women had an obligation to bear at least four children. Does the fact that Yellowstone is not owned by some rich corporation; that I can go there, suddenly become a bad thing because of TR's feelings on racial dominance? No, of course not. We're all complex human beings. I can separate the two.

B, the truly free market is a lovely idea if people all behaved honestly. But they don't- they're going to band together and lie and cheat and monopolize (another thing TR took on). It's why I favor regulated capitalism. Don't keep a close watch on something and you get the junk bond scandal of the late '80s-- which a whole lot of our tax dollars went to bail out.

Explain to me how wanting results right away is the path of liberals. If you're going to make a huge generalized statement like that, you need to back it up for me. Women had the first suffrage meeting in 1849. We got the vote in 1920. If that's not patience, what is? And don't try telling me THAT was a conservative movement.

My point on socialism is that it wasn't seen in the 1930's as the great evil it now is, and it took men in gov't not to cave into it. I think maybe you didn't get what I was saying.

And of course, I'm well aware corruption in gov't is as old as gov't itself (like anything else). My point was, Watergate marked a shift in how Americans in the 20th Century viewed gov't- I think that's when the cynicism REALLY set in. I'm well aware the Founders distrusted even their own ability to maintain a fair governing system- it's why the 2nd Amendment's right to bear arms is for the purpose of forming a militia, not just 'cause people want to have a gun, right? So really, David Koresh and co. were being strict Constructionists. Huh. I just thought of that. How far we've come. They were ready for the revolution Jefferson thought would happen every few generations or so (or so I was once told; I'll have to look that up).

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Downthestretch55

First to Pillow Putz,
No Dick in my mouth.

Next to Genuine Risk,
BINGO!
You might find this to be of interest. The calls for impeachment will increase, and if you read this, you might be amazed to see which ones are going to toss Dick like a urine stained jock strap.
http://newsforreal.com/

I've always loved pressure on Dick.
Prediction: Serious "health issue" within two months.
Dick will not rise again.

DTS, they're not going to impeach Cheney. Because America doesn't care. As long as we convince ourselves that it's some terrorist-lovin' towelhead being imprisoned without charges, we don't care. As a poster on another forum so elegantly put it, no one wakes up saying, "You know what thisi country needs? A little more fascism." No, instead we just hit the snooze button over and over until we wake up and go, "What the hell happened?" as we and ours are being taken away without cause.

We'll see what happens in 2008. I can't believe the Bush and Cheney cabal would seize all the power they have only to risk handing it over in another two years. Oh well; time to hit snooze again.

[timmgirvan]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

DTS, they're not going to impeach Cheney. Because America doesn't care. As long as we convince ourselves that it's some terrorist-lovin' towelhead being imprisoned without charges, we don't care. As a poster on another forum so elegantly put it, no one wakes up saying, "You know what thisi country needs? A little more fascism." No, instead we just hit the snooze button over and over until we wake up and go, "What the hell happened?" as we and ours are being taken away without cause.

We'll see what happens in 2008. I can't believe the Bush and Cheney cabal would seize all the power they have only to risk handing it over in another two years. Oh well; time to hit snooze again.

Works for me!

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

DTS, they're not going to impeach Cheney. Because America doesn't care. As long as we convince ourselves that it's some terrorist-lovin' towelhead being imprisoned without charges, we don't care. As a poster on another forum so elegantly put it, no one wakes up saying, "You know what thisi country needs? A little more fascism." No, instead we just hit the snooze button over and over until we wake up and go, "What the hell happened?" as we and ours are being taken away without cause.We'll see what happens in 2008. I can't believe the Bush and Cheney cabal would seize all the power they have only to risk handing it over in another two years. Oh well; time to hit snooze again.

People are being seized out of suburbia on a daily basis!!

[Cannon Shell]

Impeaching is so passe

[timmgirvan]

The Democrats can't get out of the way of themselves,much less do something positive in Congress!