The Convention

[Guest thebigjig]

I got you guys this beautiful cutlery set as a wedding gift :

 

 

Just don't use it to kill each other...

Why... are those knife handles mahogany?!

[Guest GreatOne]

I think clueless fucktard is his way of 'talking dirty'

[CheesalaIsGood 0]

Ok, here goes THIS:

 

---------------------------------------------

 

 

 

Shut up you whinny liberals

"I'm Juxtaposing" by Eightheadz, creator of 8BM.com

 

The headline on the front page of the Ann Arbor News yesterday read “Democrats pledge to stay positive” referring to the message they want to send out at the Democratic National convention that started yesterday.

I swear if you hate the Democratic party I can’t say I blame you.

Especially if your reasoning is based on the fact that too many in the democratic leadership are just wanna-be Republicans.

Bill Clinton was not a republican, yet for whatever reason, the democratic leadership feels like they need to be a republican to beat a republican.

Don’t get it twisted John Kerry is a republican. When republicans go off on Kerry they look like idiots. He is one of you. He married a republican and even wanted to nominate a republican to be his running mate in 2004.

I don’t think Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter or John F. Kennedy even contemplated for a nano-second to putting a republican on the ticket.

Now that I think about it, I am sure Ronald Reagan or Richard Nixon didn’t have members of the republican think tank trying to talk them out of nominating a democrat to be their running mate either.

Like I said don’t get it twisted. John Kerry is not a democrat.

But that is another article altogether.

This one is about you whinny liberals trying your best to be republicans.

One thing I have noticed about conservatives is at the top of their list on why they hate liberals so much is because we “complain” too much.

Hence this proclamation that the democratic convention is going to “stay positive”. But see therein lies the problem.

In their eyes, liberals are always bitching and complaining about everything like America does nothing right.

They hate that.

They absolutely hate that.

But you have to understand what they consider complaining.

Complaining to them is talking about problems.

It’s acknowledging that things aren’t perfect. That America isn’t flawless. Sometimes we are guilty. America doesn’t always wear the white hat and do things for the right reasons.

To the liberal this isn’t complaining. That is what progressives do. We address problems. At the core of a progressive’s belief system is that through critiquing, things can be tweaked and then improved.

We don’t hate America, if we didn’t love our country we wouldn’t bother. We would just sit there and let the conservatives run the country into the ground.

Conservatives would much rather have liberals adopt their attitude towards problem resolution, which is, when left alone things usually work themselves out.

And before you start, this isn’t about semantics either. I can hear you thinking.

Complaining to a conservative is the same thing “complaining” is to everyone else. It’s the act of expressing feelings of pain, dissatisfaction, or resentment.

My point is that conservatives hate even knowing that people are in pain, dissatisfied or resentful.

When Bill Clinton setup townhouse meetings to listen to the people “complain” Bush Sr. didn’t follow suit.

Why?

Something like holding a town meeting to talk to the people about what concerns them didn’t even occur to him.

Why would he want to talk to the people?

They might complain.

Talk about problems this country might be having? Are you serious? What problems? There should be nothing wrong with America that a feel good speech with an American flag backdrop on an aircraft carrier can’t fix.

This desire to just ignore problems is one of the reasons they have such a poor relationship with minority groups.

Minority groups complain.

They complained about things like Jim Crow. They tell you about how you have fucked them and how shit still isn’t right.

Conservatives do not want to hear that shit. And as a result,40% of all of the delegates to the Democratic National convention are minorities.

Conservatives in the south during the 1950s used to complain that “northern agitators would come down south an rile up all the good Negroes that were happy, content, and living just fine before they came down and filled their heads with all of that voter registration talk.”

Blacks weren’t happy and content. And trust me, conservatives did not fall into that opinion because they had personally gone down and asked blacks if they liked how they were being treated, if they had any issues with not being allowed to vote, school segregation or taxation without representation and got a resounding “yes, we like how things are!”.

They came to that conclusion because they didn’t hear any “complaining” coming from the black community because they made damn sure there weren’t any avenues open to complain.

From where they stood all of this ”complaining” didn’t seem to come around until those liberals came down from the north and filled their simple little heads with all of that equal rights nonsense.

The April 12 th 2004 issue of Tim e Magazine asked William F. Buckley, "Over the past half century, you have engaged in virtually all the great debates in American politics and culture. Have you taken any positions you now regret?" Buckley: "Yes, I once believed we could evolve our way up from Jim Crow. I was wrong: federal intervention was necessary."

Only a conservative would take the stance that things will eventually just work themselves out.

And this man is the most respected and supposedly articulate American conservative they can find.

”...evolve our way up from Jim Crow.” Any man that can say that is not looking at his watch while he is waiting for social change to arrive.

Evolution doesn’t take someone to be an active participant in order to happen. That is why creationists hate the concept. It doesn’t even take God.

It is a natural progression that is believed to happen whether you stick your hand in to stir up the pot or not. That is how they would like problems to solve themselves. If government would just stay out of it things will fix themselves.

When you think about it, complaining is also central to why there aren’t many poor people in the Republican Party.

That’s because poor people tend to complain too.

I wonder why that is?

So all that leaves the Republican Party are those least likely to complain, the racial majority and the haves and have even more.

That is why they liked Ronald Reagan so much.

What do they say about him? What do they say was what endured Reagan to them, “he made us feel good about being American again!”

As a liberal I’ve never felt bad about being an American. Then again, that might explain why I don’t have to watch “Patton” or a John Wayne marathon every so often to recharge my patriot batteries.

Even when conservatives run for office, they don’t talk about problems they talk about feeling good again.

If Dubya will say this once he will say this 1000 times before his campaign is over, “All my opponent wants to talk about is what is wrong about America . Well I would like to talk about what is right about America !”

That line only resonates with one type of person.

So once again, even the way Liberals and Conservatives campaign is so fundamentally different from one another.

At least they are supposed to. That is when democrats don’t become obsessed with trying to be Republicans.

The liberal thinks you have just wasted his time if he listens to a 40 min speech any all you talk about is “bringing dignity and honor back to the white house”.

He is waiting on you to bring a plan as to how you are going to fix social security or how you are going to help create jobs for those who can’t find work.

But see, likewise the conservative that sits there and listens to a 40 minute speech from a liberal about fixing social security and creating jobs so people can get back to work sounds like a bitch fest to him.

The messages don’t cross over.

That is when the conservative comes back at you with some “pull yourself up by your boot straps” or “I did everything by myself no one gave me anything” clichés.

Liberals don’t think that problems just solve themselves.

Liberals didn’t think that America would just evolve from Jim Crow.

That is why conservatives label liberals “bleeding hearts” because they feel we buy into sob stories for problems that they never heard of because no one on their side of the aisle ever talks about them.

If you want to win over conservatives talk about how great America is, how there aren’t any problems that an inspirational speech about God and the flag can’t fix.

If Democrats want to stop taking our votes for granted and actually speak to their base then they need to understand that only an idiot thinks that the world is perfect.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Source: Ann Arbor News, Time Magazine

-----------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

 

 

 

Finally somebody who realizes no matter what happens in this election the losing side is not going to go away. Talk maybe cheap, but only if nobody is listening. Which is too bad cuz the dems didn't really give me much hope for the issues that matter most to me during the whole DNC. If you are a left winger, doesn't it really kinda suck that Kerrys main platform is NOT being GWB?

[Guest thebigjig]

I didnt read all of that because I'm not really interested in reading the opinion of a someone going by the name of "Eightheadz"

 

Finally somebody who realizes no matter what happens in this election the losing side is not going to go away.

 

Sorry... but allow me to just say, "duh"

 

 

If you are a left winger, doesn't it really kinda suck that Kerrys main platform is NOT being GWB?

 

Isn't that kind of the point? Or do I live in a time where guys running against each other are supposed to agree on everything...?

[Dr. Tom 0]

If you are a left winger, doesn't it really kinda suck that Kerrys main platform is NOT being GWB?

 

Isn't that kind of the point? Or do I live in a time where guys running against each other are supposed to agree on everything...?

That's not the point. Voters should be voting FOR something and someone, not against something or someone. A lot of things happened in 1992, but I think Bill Clinton tapped into a lot of people who simply didn't want to vote for George Bush. Thus, many votes for Clinton were not really votes for Clinton, but a vote for anyone but Bush. Kerry might run into the same thing, though unlike Clinton, he lacks the charisma to really magnetize people.

[Guest thebigjig]

If you are a left winger, doesn't it really kinda suck that Kerrys main platform is NOT being GWB?

 

Isn't that kind of the point? Or do I live in a time where guys running against each other are supposed to agree on everything...?

That's not the point. Voters should be voting FOR something and someone, not against something or someone. A lot of things happened in 1992, but I think Bill Clinton tapped into a lot of people who simply didn't want to vote for George Bush. Thus, many votes for Clinton were not really votes for Clinton, but a vote for anyone but Bush. Kerry might run into the same thing, though unlike Clinton, he lacks the charisma to really magnetize people.

Or it could've been that thing with the economy... because unless you're revising History, George Bush 1 wasn't a "hated" president, unlike his son. Infact, while his approval rating sucked, he was still widely respected. The majority of the people voted for Clinton because Clinton had the better message and ran on a stagnant economy and promises of healthcare reform... were you even alive in 1992?

 

But the point is... when you think a president has done a horrible job, you typically don't vote for him. If the opposition is more appealing to you, even if you have certain problems with the candidate, you vote for him... or you vote for a third party, or you just don't vote at all.

 

This is SUCH a simple topic, and it baffles me that some have trouble understanding it.

 

"You're voting for him because he ain't George W. Bush!! Thats the reason you're voting for him! You just dont like Bush!"

 

"Ummmm... duh?"

[Guest BDC]

Jig, the point Tom is making is that blindly voting AGAINST someone just because of who he/she is qualifies as dangerously blind. The "Anyone But Bush" campaign could put almost literally anyone there and still draw a bloc of voters. Does that NOT bother you?

[snuffbox 0]

But Kerry is at least a more qualified Commander-In-Chief...

 

Moreso than the 'anybody but Bush', the gulf between the military experience of the two is vast and inarguable.

 

In a time of war I dont like the idea of a president whos only military background is a rather sketchy, mysterious stint in the National Guard(sorry republikids, I have nothing against against the Guard, just leaders with an odd past therein) and dressing like GI Joe and saying 'bring em on' from a aircraft carrier.

[tommytomlin 0]

The "anybody but Clinton" bloc would have drawn just as many voters. You think people actually wanted President DOLE?

[Justice 0]

But Kerry is at least a more qualified Commander-In-Chief...

 

Moreso than the 'anybody but Bush', the gulf between the military experience of the two is vast and inarguable.

 

In a time of war I dont like the idea of a president whos only military background is a rather sketchy, mysterious stint in the National Guard(sorry republikids, I have nothing against against the Guard, just leaders with an odd past therein) and dressing like GI Joe and saying 'bring em on' from a aircraft carrier.

Uh, technically no, considering Bush has spent 4 years in the office already, experience is pretty much on his side more than anything. At any rate, being Governor of a state is much better experience for a President to have than Kerry's Senate career.

 

And on Kerry having more military qualifications: The only person in the elections, including the primaries, who could possibly have any USEFUL or MEANINGFUL military experience is Wesley Clark. I don't care if you were a lieutenant in a war, that's not high up enough to be considered anything that could be useful in being commander-in-chief because at that level it's only tactical decisions, not strategic. And as Welsey Clark (And, looking to the past, Grant) show us, military generals aren't necessarily great candidates for higher office (Did Clark even know what half the issues were?).

[Guest GreatOne]

military generals aren't necessarily great candidates for higher office

 

Can I get a show of hands who remembers the goodness that was the honorable Adm. James Stockdale, Perot's veep candidate?

 

Great stuff.

[Guest Agent of Oblivion]

GRIDLOCK!

[Guest thebigjig]

military generals aren't necessarily great candidates for higher office

 

Can I get a show of hands who remembers the goodness that was the honorable Adm. James Stockdale, Perot's veep candidate?

 

Great stuff.

Worth it alone just for the great Phil hartman/Dana Carvey sketches on Saturday Night Live

 

"Who am I, why are we here?!"

[snuffbox 0]

But Kerry is at least a more qualified Commander-In-Chief...

 

Moreso than the 'anybody but Bush', the gulf between the military experience of the two is vast and inarguable.

 

In a time of war I dont like the idea of a president whos only military background is a rather sketchy, mysterious stint in the National Guard(sorry republikids, I have nothing against against the Guard, just leaders with an odd past therein) and dressing like GI Joe and saying 'bring em on' from a aircraft carrier.

Uh, technically no, considering Bush has spent 4 years in the office already, experience is pretty much on his side more than anything. At any rate, being Governor of a state is much better experience for a President to have than Kerry's Senate career.

 

And on Kerry having more military qualifications: The only person in the elections, including the primaries, who could possibly have any USEFUL or MEANINGFUL military experience is Wesley Clark. I don't care if you were a lieutenant in a war, that's not high up enough to be considered anything that could be useful in being commander-in-chief because at that level it's only tactical decisions, not strategic. And as Welsey Clark (And, looking to the past, Grant) show us, military generals aren't necessarily great candidates for higher office (Did Clark even know what half the issues were?).

Bush's experience has been pretty terrible as president...so thats moot. And he was certainly not considered a great governor. Or a great businessman. And going into 2000 he had far less qualifications than Kerry does now....why wasnt it a problem then?

 

And saying military leaders dont make good presidents is retarded. Are you unfamiliar with nearly every president of the first half of our nations existence? Ike Eiesenhower? Seriously...

[Guest thebigjig]

Using the "experience" factor with Bush is ridiculous. Bush became gov of Texas by his name and his name ONLY. Until that, what did he do? Oh wait, he was a failed businessman until his 40's when he secured a sweet heart deal to buy a hefty portion of the Texas Rangers.

 

I guess that automatically gives you enough experience become the governor of one of the largest states in the union!

 

And to top that off, he was mediocre at best as Governor which is why he didn't use his record very much when he ran in 2000. He practically bankrupted the state, though to be fair, he did have a good working relationship with the Democrats... probably because Texas yellow dog Democrats are practically Republicans anyway, or were at THAT particular time.

 

If Dubyah wasn't a member of the BUSH family, he wouldn't be president. You can call that liberal propoganda if you want, but whatever

 

Kerry's 20 years experience as a Senator > or = to Bush's 6 years as governor, and I only use equal to because of the mediocrity level

[Dr. Tom 0]

The "anybody but Clinton" bloc would have drawn just as many voters.

Huh? Clinton was very popular, and I have no doubt he would have won a third term in 2000 if he were able to run for one.

[Vyce 0]

An amazing amount of spin, to coin an O'Reilly term, coming from our last two liberal posts here.

[Guest MikeSC]

Using the "experience" factor with Bush is ridiculous. Bush became gov of Texas by his name and his name ONLY. Until that, what did he do? Oh wait, he was a failed businessman until his 40's when he secured a sweet heart deal to buy a hefty portion of the Texas Rangers.

Yup. He also had that whole "Skull and Crossbones" thing that, allegedly, runs the country. But, THAT gets ignored because it might have aided somebody else...

I guess that automatically gives you enough experience become the governor of one of the largest states in the union!

Actually, it does.

And to top that off, he was mediocre at best as Governor which is why he didn't use his record very much when he ran in 2000. He practically bankrupted the state, though to be fair, he did have a good working relationship with the Democrats... probably because Texas yellow dog Democrats are practically Republicans anyway, or were at THAT particular time.

He unseated Ann Richards, which NOBODY thought could be done. He was a siolid governor who did a lot of good for the state of TX.

If Dubyah wasn't a member of the BUSH family, he wouldn't be president. You can call that liberal propoganda if you want, but whatever

 

Kerry's 20 years experience as a Senator > or = to Bush's 6 years as governor, and I only use equal to because of the mediocrity level

But Kerry won't even DISCUSS his 20 years in the Senate. Obviously, he doesn't feel it's a strength of his.

-=Mike