Awesome, only about 5 more years until we see the next major shift on PFF/OT then? ...(I'm kidding people )

[This message has been edited by newf (edited 04-26-2011).]

Perhaps--one never knows in politics.
Just to show (or remind) you how nasty things can get even on the executive level...
Remember when Bill Clinton ran as challenger to incumbent George Bush (sr)? The Dem slogan created by longtime Clinton friend and strategist James Carville--printed on buttons and emblazoned on podiums accross the campaign trail? Guess who they were directing the "stupid" at? Yep--Bush Sr and his supporters.
And it worked.



Will it work this time? The shoe is now on the other foot. The pendulum has swung.

I don't think it matters what "the other side" did at another time, or continues to do. Can't change the past... only the future.

quote Originally posted by theBDub: I don't think it matters what "the other side" did at another time, or continues to do. Can't change the past... only the future.

But without the past, how can one hold a grudge?

That may be the same thing Aaron Burr said before he lost his election and------- his cool. If elections were decided solely on truth, honesty, and issues, 1/2 the people elected would not have been--maybe none. You aren't going to change that. It's not lost, that each newly sworn in official invariably calls for bipartisanship, partnership, and candor, even tho they themselves may have been party to some of the most horrific of violations of good form on record. LBJ did the same (publicly) after actually stealing his way into congress, which paved the way for him to later become the CiC that sent me to Vietnam. It's ok--I still like him.

(if you don't know what this pic represents--google "Ballot Box 13"



If you think we are bad--do some research on Great Britain's politic, especially when the PM has to stand before Parliment and just take whatever verbal abuse they choose to sling at him.

That’s a Texas size hood ornament?

quote Originally posted by maryjane: That may be the same thing Aaron Burr said before he lost his election and------- his cool. If elections were decided solely on truth, honesty, and issues, 1/2 the people elected would not have been--maybe none. You aren't going to change that. It's not lost, that each newly sworn in official invariably calls for bipartisanship, partnership, and candor, even tho they themselves may have been party to some of the most horrific of violations of good form on record. LBJ did the same (publicly) after actually stealing his way into congress, which paved the way for him to later become the CiC that sent me to Vietnam. It's ok--I still like him. (if you don't know what this pic represents--google "Ballot Box 13" If you think we are bad--do some research on Great Britain's politic, especially when the PM has to stand before Parliment and just take whatever verbal abuse they choose to sling at him.

Agreed, but does that mean we should stop calling for bipartisanship, partnership, and candor? Partisanship is important in many ways, but when it comes to political discussion, throw it away and discuss the issues.

EDIT: Spelling error... whoa.

[This message has been edited by theBDub (edited 04-27-2011).]

I actually prefer the mood of the UK parliament to what goes on in our congress. They actually talk to each other and not to the cameras. They actually debate rather than just stand up and read boring speeches. And they aren't afraid to use a little humor or sarcasm.

Does anyone watch PBS Newshour? I haven't sat through it in a while but this thread got me wondering if they are still showing pictures of servicemen killed in action like they have been doing since the beginning of Afghanistan.

quote Originally posted by Scottzilla79: Does anyone watch PBS Newshour? I haven't sat through it in a while but this thread got me wondering if they are still showing pictures of servicemen killed in action like they have been doing since the beginning of Afghanistan.

Every Friday at the end of the show ever since casualties in the war began.

[This message has been edited by tbone42 (edited 04-27-2011).]

I actually prefer the mood of the UK parliament to what goes on in our congress. They actually talk to each other and not to the cameras. They actually debate rather than just stand up and read boring speeches. And they aren't afraid to use a little humor or sarcasm.

Does anyone watch PBS Newshour? I haven't sat through it in a while but this thread got me wondering if they are still showing pictures of servicemen killed in action like they have been doing since the beginning of Afghanistan.

quote Originally posted by Scottzilla79: I actually prefer the mood of the UK parliament to what goes on in our congress. They actually talk to each other and not to the cameras. They actually debate rather than just stand up and read boring speeches. And they aren't afraid to use a little humor or sarcasm.

Go to your State Capitol and sit in with the Senate. They have conversations and they are almost exactly like what we have on here.

quote Originally posted by theBDub: Agreed, but does that mean we should stop calling for bipartisanship, partnership, and candor? Partisanship is important in many ways, but when it comes to political discussion, throw it away and discuss the issues. EDIT: Spelling error... whoa.

Yep, that's gonna suddenly happen after about 236 years of status quo. It doesn't happen here, or even in nations known for their politeness such as Japan. The ONLY place where there is little or no, loud boisterous partisanship, is in nations where there is absolute tyrantical rule--and even that, in view of recent developments in North Africa and the Mid East--is changing. There will always be much dissent, polite and otherwise, just as there was in the Continental Congress. I'm not being cynical, just being a realist. This is simply our kind of democracy, where issues are discussed and argued on streetcorners, taverns, cobblershops and now--on the web.

quote Originally posted by maryjane: Yep, that's gonna suddenly happen after about 236 years of status quo. It doesn't happen here, or even in nations known for their politeness such as Japan. The ONLY place where there is little or no, loud boisterous partisanship, is in nations where there is absolute tyrantical rule--and even that, in view of recent developments in North Africa and the Mid East--is changing. There will always be much dissent, polite and otherwise, just as there was in the Continental Congress. I'm not being cynical, just being a realist. This is simply our kind of democracy, where issues are discussed and argued on streetcorners, taverns, cobblershops and now--on the web.

I agree with this entire post. But I don't think you are understanding my point. There is a huge difference in disagreeing and just butchering the other side. I am for disagreement, and discussion, and political conversations. This is all good. Issues should be discussed everywhere we go, because they are important to our lives.

They should be DISCUSSED. Discussions carry respect. There isn't always respect here. I'm not Jazzman, calling for a lack of disagreement or saying everyone else is wrong. I am not the dictator of the forum. I just believe, maybe naively, that discussion is a two-party equal event, not just one-party bashing another.

It could happen.......perhaps.

From the "McCain Concession speech" thread:

"America NEEDED a polite and educated president after the rude drunken moron we have had the last 8 years."

Yep he's still actively posting here in OT.

quote Originally posted by newf: How many times do I have to state this, I wonder? I like to challenge people on what they believe sometimes to see why it is they do. Sometimes I will point out things that seem false or untrue when people say them or ask them to back their statements up. If you consider that trolling I suggest you google what a troll is because you and many other here seem to have no idea what it means or are interpreting it wrong. I'm sure I've been baited into arguements at times and maybe even posted when P.O.ed but my honest opinion is that when someone goes "against the conservative grain" on here they tend to get attacked. Maybe you are correct and the same thing was done to Conservatives previously but if you didn't enjoy that why would you act in the same manner?

Over the internet, typing what we say, it is difficult to know what people really are saying and how they're saying it.

quote Originally posted by fierobear: Newf often comes across as being a contrarian, arguing for the sake of arguing, sometimes comes across as just a s*** disturber and bordering on a troll. His arguments do not always appear to take the form of reasoned discourse.

I disagree.

quote Originally posted by Boondawg: I disagree.

I disagree with your disagreement in part. He has stated he does at times, point out and challenge statements he feels are an issue or at issue with. A 'devil's advocate' of sorts. I think he enjoys it up to a point--as do most of us. Sometimes, the pot needs to be stirred which is why the FF required the govt to freely allow for assembly, and dissent.

Tho I am normally loathe to discuss the ratings (and reasons for) that I give out, I have

quote mostly an adversary, but an extremly civil one. A + to any debate

beside his name. (note I didn't say what his actual rating is)

[This message has been edited by maryjane (edited 04-27-2011).]

quote Originally posted by maryjane: It could happen.......perhaps. From the "McCain Concession speech" thread: "America NEEDED a polite and educated president after the rude drunken moron we have had the last 8 years." Yep he's still actively posting here in OT.

He also said

"brought an barely educated pole dancer in as a running mate." in the same post.

I get that politics has never been nice I will continue to read and post in political discussion when the pendulum swings back in a year and a half and I hope I receive the same treatment I've given.

quote Originally posted by theBDub: Go to your State Capitol and sit in with the Senate. They have conversations and they are almost exactly like what we have on here.

Illinois? It's not even a democracy.

quote Originally posted by Scottzilla79: Illinois? It's not even a democracy.

I assume Missouri is more polarized than Illinois with that response.

Well, I guess all I can say is I went to the Missouri State Senate and it was one of the coolest things ever. It was genuine political discussion, and sometimes they'd gang up and make fun of the other side, but always ALWAYS had very strong points on both sides. It really was really awesome.

quote Originally posted by theBDub: He also said "brought an barely educated pole dancer in as a running mate." in the same post.

I sure hope he doesn't talk about a girlfriend or wife like that.

There is no debate, the state is pretty much run by daleys and madigans. The system is so corrupt. The mayor of Chicago really runs the whole state. Why else would you have a senator, congressman, white house cheif of staff, etc running in a mayoral election.

quote Originally posted by newf: Yup exactly my point, it's the Commander in Chief "Dubble U" that had to make the decisions to start 2 wars with no exit strategy and left it to the current administration to sort out. Fact is both wars are a mess.

I didn't see you make that point. Sorry. I'll address it now. Fact is ... both wars are not a mess. All wars are a mess. Is it war, or kiss azz ?

quote Originally posted by newf: ... make the decisions to start 2 wars with no exit strategy ...

Heh, the exit strategy for any fight is to first win. You don't make exit plans before you start a war. Draw down plans ? "Conditions on the ground" as Commander in Chief Bush said, determined by the generals. There were also political and social benchmarks to be met. Wars of today are not as they were before. Especially if the enemy is not a country and rather insurgents. It's not like you can get a surrender declaration with agreed upon conditions.