View Full Version : The emerging Democratic minority
Jan 6th 2005
From The Economist print edition
Lexington
The emerging Democratic minority
Time to squash a bit of political revisionism
Two months after the bitterest defeat in living memory, things are looking up for the Democrats. Or at least they are looking up in the rarefied world of political commentary. John Judis and Ruy Teixeira, who published “The Emerging Democratic Majority” shortly before the Republicans' triumph in the 2002 mid-term elections, argue that “George Bush won re-election by a smaller margin than Bill Clinton, Ronald Reagan, Richard Nixon or Dwight Eisenhower—and against a deeply flawed Democratic opponent.” Scott Turow points out that the Republicans owed their gains in the House entirely to redistricting in Texas. On NPR and the BBC, a crushing defeat for American liberalism is metamorphosing into a damn close-run thing.
Warnings about Republican fragility are also coming from less predictable quarters. Christine Todd Whitman, Mr Bush's first environmental chief, thinks he missed an opportunity to broaden his support in the most populous parts of the country. Ken Mehlman, the Republican Party's new chairman, warns that the majority is “not overwhelming” and won't produce “automatic victories”. Jonathan Rauch, a libertarian commentator, compares Mr Bush's Republicans to Margaret Thatcher's Tories: overreach could be followed by years in the wilderness.
The Bush White House certainly has its problems. Mr Bush's job-approval rating is stuck at 49%, the lowest for any re-elected president. Most American voters now think that invading Iraq was a mistake. The Republican Congress is afflicted with a strange mixture of hubris and fractiousness. Yet the candidates vying to lead the Democratic Party should definitely not deny the magnitude of Mr Bush's victory last November—let alone declare it a mere detour from the road to a Democratic majority.
Think for a moment of all the traditional excuses that Democrats make for losing elections: that the party was torn apart by internal rivalries; that the electorate focused on trivia; that the economy was doing unnaturally well; that the Republicans had far more money; and, perhaps most important of all, that voter turnout was disgracefully low. None of these applied in 2004.
The Democrats united early and enthusiastically behind John Kerry. The election turned on big issues: terrorism, Iraq and tax cuts (and Mr Kerry dealt with them admirably in the debates). The economy was iffy at best. Mr Bush's $40m advantage over Mr Kerry in fund-raising was more than offset by the spending power of shadow groups. Democratic-leaning “527s” spent $292m compared with $113m for their Republican rivals, and trade unions spent $192m compared with a mere $17m by business groups. The level of voter turnout was the highest for decades. And yet the Republicans swept the board.
Mr Bush not only won 51% of the popular vote—something no Democrat has managed since 1964. His party succeeded in improving its hold on both the House and the Senate while also maintaining its majority among governors and its advantage among state legislators. Yes, gerrymandering in Texas helped in the House, but given that 90% of incumbents are re-elected it may take years to erode the Republicans' 30-seat margin. As for the Senate, the Democrats are going to have to defend more vulnerable seats in 2006.
Democratic apologists argue that Mr Bush failed to engineer a political realignment as big as Reagan's in the 1980s (when the white working class abandoned the Democrats). But Mr Bush does not need to repeat such a tectonic shift in order to create a Republican majority. He merely needs to consolidate his Republican base while further eating into Democratic constituencies such as minorities and women. Joanna Sixpack has abandoned the Democrats in the same way that Joe did 20 years ago. Mr Kerry trailed Mr Bush among non-college-educated white women by 23 points. Overall, the Democrats' lead among women has shrunk from 16 points in 1996 to three in 2004.
Similarly, the Republicans look closer to being a big-tent party than their rivals. They have deepened their hold on the conservative South; but they can also boast the governorships of some of the country's most liberal states, such as New York and California. And they seem to be better at making converts than Democrats are. A survey at the two parties' conventions found that only 14% of Democratic delegates had switched sides, compared with 28% of Republican delegates.
An excuse or a symptom?
Democratic apologists say Mr Kerry was a deeply flawed candidate. But who would have done better? Screamin' Howard Dean? Or snorin' Dick Gephardt? Of course, Mr Kerry was no Bill Clinton, but Mr Bush was no Ronald Reagan: such naturals appear only once in a generation. Mr Kerry, like Al Gore, was a symptom of the Democrats' problems, not the cause of them.
Mr Rauch is right to warn of overreach. The history of second-term presidencies is hardly auspicious, and there is a clear danger of social conservatives alienating more middle-of-the-road voters: look at the way that fratricide and extremism are eroding the Republicans' grip on Colorado. But the comparison with Lady Thatcher actually underlines the structural strengths of the Republican revolution. Conservative Party membership halved between the mid-1970s and the late-1980s. By contrast, in 2004 Mr Bush deployed the biggest army of party volunteers in Republican history. And while Lady Thatcher could never rely on a vibrant conservative movement (unless you regard a couple of think-tanks as a movement), American conservatism has been going from strength to strength since the 1950s.
None of this means that the Republicans have a lock on power: the American people have always been nervous about handing all branches of government to a single party. But whoever becomes the Democratic Party chairman next month should not imagine he is leading the majority.
Copyright © 2005 The Economist Newspaper and The Economist Group. All rights reserved.
MistrSynistr
01-10-2005, 01:04 PM
As human beings, we all have our vices, flaws, and mistakes.
I tend out of the life I have lived to make these mistakes, then correct them under better judgement that comes from maturity, education, and experience.
This is my opinion, on how I've come to accept this "life" we all know so little about.
Maybe, for those, especially those who voted for George W. Bush, have a different perception on life. I ask myself that often. What do these people see that I am blind to? Or are people just raised differently and view negative, intolerant actions in a different light?
For me, to compare the character, intelligence, flaws, mistakes, and higher learning of George W. Bush to John F. Kerry is a slap in the face to compassionate, free-thinking, educated human beings everywhere. We ALL have our faults. But these men are in no way shape or form compareable.
It's the 49er's to the Steelers here people. The "flip flopping" (Which obviously anyone clearly thinking would realize John Kerry "flip flopped' because he either made a mistake and wanted to correct it from maturing on certain subjects OR was completely lied to about information and CHANGED his mind) compared to ALL of Bush's dastardly, inhumane, profit filled agenda's is a no brainer. From cover ups to lies to just plain out not giving a $hit. There is no contest as a human being and a person.
Could we of had a "better" candidate, most certainly. But I have been trying to figure out if anyone did any research into this man John Kerry and realized how genuine he really was. He wasn't out for his "win" like G.W. He was out for YOU, the American people, and not just the Democratic party, but ALL of you. He wanted to do his best to make us all think positive of him. Not "with us or against us". I don't know why it's only I who sees this. It's a belief constructed from facts presented to me. Not if's and but's and maybe so's that George's platform was based on. It's not out of faith that I believed Kerry. It was out of the information presented about him, and the information presented about G.W. The resume's speak for themselves.
But this is just my opinion. I know how Bush supporters will preach endlessly about what Bush is doing for "Freedom this and Freedom that", but we all know it's tired, it's a layer of mularky constructed to get you people to say exactly what you have been for the past 4 years, and unfortunately, 4 more to come.
I do this to clear my head, and hopefully, someone who is borderline about their decision to vote Bush in again will read this and open their mind and study all these things and come to a better decision not only for themself, but for America.
L.A. BRONCOS FAN
01-11-2005, 06:14 AM
http://www.bartcop.com/coble-withdraw.JPG
But I have been trying to figure out if anyone did any research into this man John Kerry and realized how genuine he really was.
A politician who's "genuine"? How naive are you?
He wasn't out for his "win" like G.W.
Any politician who doesn't want to win at any cost will never make it to the Presidential level.
I don't know why it's only I who sees this.
Because you're young, naive, and inexperienced?
Any comments on the article other than your belief on how wonderful Kerry is?
http://www.bartcop.com/coble-withdraw.JPG
Figures.
A meaty opinion piece on the delusions, evasions and excuses of the Democratic faithful and all LABF can muster is a bartcop bitmap.
Clearly, just about any level of discourse above simplistic pictures is just too much for LABF's "intellect".
MistrSynistr
01-12-2005, 07:48 AM
A politician who's "genuine"? How naive are you?
Any politician who doesn't want to win at any cost will never make it to the Presidential level.
Because you're young, naive, and inexperienced?
Any comments on the article other than your belief on how wonderful Kerry is?
Your distaste for tolerance and compassion solves anything anyone has ever thought about you.
Being naive would probably, (hate to sound condescending here) yea, probably make me believe a candidate who lies directly to us about numberous things and is wholeheartedly proven otherwise. Because I don't "believe" that maybe, kinda, sorta, somehow, it's possible-that Iraqi people will be "better off" in the long run. Because I care about issues here and now and rely on facts and better judgement to make my decisions. So if that's the definition of naive, you must be a know-it-all.
Actually, I'm quite sure even though you may be able to spell big words better than me and throw them into compassionless sentences, I'd 110% guarantee my life experience far surpasses yours in any aspects, unless of course you want to get into duck hunting and NASCAR, then I'm naive. :dummy:
Your distaste for tolerance and compassion solves anything anyone has ever thought about you.
Please. I'm far more tolerant and compassionate than most. For one, I don't call Bush a "sociopath", when there's no real reason other than your bitterness about him that makes you say that.
Being naive would probably, (hate to sound condescending here) yea, probably make me believe a candidate who lies directly to us about numberous things and is wholeheartedly proven otherwise.
Oh my God, a politician that lies! HORRORS!
Do you know when a politician lies? When he or she opens her mouth. Even Kerry.
Keep that tried-and-true principle in mind.
L.A. BRONCOS FAN
01-12-2005, 05:07 PM
Figures.
A meaty opinion piece on the delusions, evasions and excuses of the Democratic faithful and all LABF can muster is a bartcop bitmap.
Clearly, just about any level of discourse above simplistic pictures is just too much for LABF's "intellect".
:laugh:
I knew I could "get W*GS' goat" - just like clockwork.
BTW, that's a great 'toon in your post!
L.A. BRONCOS FAN
01-12-2005, 05:08 PM
http://www.bartcop.com/brown-and-poor.jpg
TexanBob
01-12-2005, 06:02 PM
Which one lied about President Nixon sending him to Cambodia in Christmas, 1968, which he said for many decades and in Senate speeches was *seared* into his mind? Was that Bush or Kerry?
Yes, it was a little thing and a long time ago but since his entire campaign was devoid of issues, policies and specifics, it's difficult to call Kerry a liar when he couldn't hold the same position on anything two days in a row.
To say Bush lied about WMDs (which is the usual starting point when discussing "Bush lies", you have to accept that he must have already known Saddam had no WMDs in order to intentionally lie about it. Yet, Clinton said Saddam had WMDs. Clinton's State Department said Saddam had WMDs, Bush's State Department said Saddam had WMDs, the CIA (with Clinton's appointee at the helm) said Saddam had WMDs and Senators from both sides of the aisle (including Kerry), who get the same intelligence reports that the White House does, said Saddam had WMDs and further *voted* to authorize the use of force against Iraq, stating their belief that Saddam had WMDs.
So if Bush, intentionally lied about WMDs, so too did practically all the Democrats and Republicans in Washington that were in a position to know. So, are they all liars too or just Bush?
If you think "just Bush" then you really are naive or a nominee for the anchor desk at CBS News.
L.A. BRONCOS FAN
01-12-2005, 06:32 PM
PILGER FILM REVEALS COLIN POWELL SAID IRAQ WAS NO THREAT
"The policy of containment is not working. The weapons of mass destruction programme is not shut down. It is up and running now."
Not only was every word of this false, it was part of a big lie invented in Washington within hours of the attacks of September 11 2001 and used to hoodwink the American public and distract the media from the real reason for attacking Iraq. "It was 95 per cent charade," a former senior CIA analyst told me.
An investigation of files and archive film for my TV documentary Breaking The Silence, together with interviews with former intelligence officers and senior Bush officials have revealed that Bush and Blair knew all along that Saddam Hussein was effectively disarmed.
Both Colin Powell, US Secretary of State, and Condoleezza Rice, President Bush's closest adviser, made clear before September 11 2001 that Saddam Hussein was no threat - to America, Europe or the Middle East.
In Cairo, on February 24 2001, Powell said: "He (Saddam Hussein) has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbours."
This is the very opposite of what Bush and Blair said in public.
Powell even boasted that it was the US policy of "containment" that had effectively disarmed the Iraqi dictator - again the very opposite of what Blair said time and again. On May 15 2001, Powell went further and said that Saddam Hussein had not been able to "build his military back up or to develop weapons of mass destruction" for "the last 10 years". America, he said, had been successful in keeping him "in a box".
Two months later, Condoleezza Rice also described a weak, divided and militarily defenceless Iraq. "Saddam does not control the northern part of the country," she said. "We are able to keep his arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt."
So here were two of Bush's most important officials putting the lie to their own propaganda, and the Blair government's propaganda that subsequently provided the justification for an unprovoked, illegal attack on Iraq. The result was the deaths of what reliable studies now put at 50,000 people, civilians and mostly conscript Iraqi soldiers, as well as British and American troops. There is no estimate of the countless thousands of wounded.
In a torrent of propaganda seeking to justify this violence before and during the invasion, there were occasional truths that never made headlines. In April last year, Condoleezza Rice described September 11 2001 as an "enormous opportunity" and said America "must move to take advantage of these new opportunities."
http://pilger.carlton.com/print/133099
I knew I could "get W*GS' goat" - just like clockwork.
The only one being gotten around here is you, kiddo.
Do you have anything to offer of substance that refutes the opinions presented in that article?
The Democrats are truly looking at decades of powerlessness. Doesn't that bother you?
TexanBob
01-13-2005, 10:36 AM
The Democrats are truly looking at decades of powerlessness. Doesn't that bother you?
I don't think they are. It's cyclical. They were talking about years of doom for the Republicans after Watergate - but there they were in 1980 regaining the presidency and, soon after, taking back the Senate.
The Democrats were said to be doomed after Mondale/Dukakis but - voila - four years later they have Clinton and are back in charge.
When you're the party in power, you have a greater ability to screw up and the greater ability to make enemies while enacting policies (Immigration? Patriot Act?).
Eventually, Americans want a change because they tire of the party in power. And, until another credible alternative steps up, that's going to be the Democrats as soon as Americans tire of the Republicans.
And the Democrats have the advantage of a cheerleading media to make them appear as an attractive alternative even when they run candidates who have no new ideas and no policy positions.
But the Dems definitely need a makeover and it means finding somebody like Clinton was in 1992, masquerading as a tempered moderate, to lead them back towards the middle.
Thanks for the comments, TexanBob.
If LABF would ever get over his bitterness, and hatred of Bush, and his addiction to bartcop, he might proffer opinions as you did.
Amazing how informed discussion can have utility, isn't it?
But the Dems definitely need a makeover and it means finding somebody like Clinton was in 1992, masquerading as a tempered moderate, to lead them back towards the middle.
I agree. But, given that Dean has a credible shot at running the DNC, the Dems are going the wrong way. They need to excise their hard-left wing (which Clinton more-or-less did) or else they're looking at being a minority party for quite some time.
L.A. BRONCOS FAN
01-13-2005, 05:53 PM
Do you have anything to offer of substance that refutes the opinions presented in that article?
I usually don't waste my time reading the propaganda you post; I can get the same message by tuning into Rush the Junkie or Sean Insannity.
L.A. BRONCOS FAN
01-13-2005, 05:56 PM
The Democrats are truly looking at decades of powerlessness.
Is that what your magic eight ball says, little buddy?
Doesn't that bother you?
I'll bet it gives you quite a chub, huh?
I usually don't waste my time reading the propaganda you post; I can get the same message by tuning into Rush the Junkie or Sean Insannity.
Does it take practice to make such asinine comments, or does it come naturally to you?
L.A. BRONCOS FAN
01-14-2005, 12:45 AM
...the Dems are going the wrong way. They need to excise their hard-left wing (which Clinton more-or-less did) or else they're looking at being a minority party for quite some time.
You have it bass-ackwards again.
Clinton's strategy worked for its time, but this isn't 1992 - a lot has changed.
Meanwhile, the GOP media monolith has been so successful in shaping people's perceptions of reality that "left" has come to be perceived as "hard left" these days, and far too many liberals feel an inexplicable need to apologize for their convictions. This is what needs to change.
The grassroots of the party is totally fed up with "republican light," the politics of appeasement, and the obligatory, knee-jerk apologies for being liberal.
More Lieberman-like Democrats are only going to alienate the grassroots of the party. The party needs to clarify and to emphasize what makes it different from the GOP if it wants to get back on track.
Clinton's strategy worked for its time, but this isn't 1992 - a lot has changed.
Imagine if Gore had run as "Clinton-clone" in 2000. Would it have worked?
Meanwhile, the GOP media monolith has been so successful in shaping people's perceptions of reality that "left" has come to be perceived as "hard left" these days, and far too many liberals feel an inexplicable need to apologize for their convictions. This is what needs to change.
Unabashed liberalism is a dead end in this country, politics-wise. Of course, what you call "liberalism" is really "progressivism", which is even more unpalatable to the voters, for good reason.
The grassroots of the party is totally fed up with "republican light," the politics of appeasement, and the obligatory, knee-jerk apologies for being liberal.
Well, sticking to principle and letting those principles crucify you in the minds of voters has some sort of integrity - but if you don't want voters to lead you to what they want from their politicians, then they'll abandon you at the polls.
More Lieberman-like Democrats are only going to alienate the grassroots of the party. The party needs to clarify and to emphasize what makes it different from the GOP if it wants to get back on track.
True, and when the voting populace finds your message unworthy of their vote? Do you attack them for being stupid? That's your tactic of late, and it works like a charm. NOT.
TexanBob
01-14-2005, 10:48 AM
You can take every Democrat presidential candidate of the past 40 years and split them into two groups: liberal Northerners and Southern "moderates". Here's the scoreboard:
1964 - Lyndon Johnson, Southerner, won.
1968 - Hubert Humphrey, Northerner, lost.
1972 - George McGovern, Northerner, lost.
1976 - Jimmy Carter, Southerner, won.
1980 - Jimmy Carter, Southerner, lost.
1984 - Walter Mondale, Northerner, lost.
1988 - Michael Dukakis, Northerner, lost.
1992 - Bill Clinton, Southerner, won.
1996 - Bill Clinton, Southerner, won.
2000 - Al Gore, Southerner, lost.*
2004 - John Kerry, Northerner, lost.
(* - won popular vote but lost electoral vote).
So, since JFK in 1960, no liberal Northerner has won the presidency even though the Democrats have tried it FIVE times. OTOH, every Southerner has won more votes than the Republican other than Carter's second campaign when he had been emasculated by the Iranian hostage crisis and a horrible economy.
The only national referendum we have is presidential elections and when a liberal has run as a liberal, he has lost every time in the past 40 years. It's only when Democrats cloak themselves as Southern Baptists do they win. That may be an unpleasant thing to accept but you can't argue with the facts.
Liberalism, in a national election, is a losing proposition.
Rascal
01-14-2005, 10:54 AM
You can take every Democrat presidential candidate of the past 40 years and split them into two groups: liberal Northerners and Southern "moderates". Here's the scoreboard:
1964 - Lyndon Johnson, Southerner, won.
1968 - Hubert Humphrey, Northerner, lost.
1972 - George McGovern, Northerner, lost.
1976 - Jimmy Carter, Southerner, won.
1980 - Jimmy Carter, Southerner, lost.
1984 - Walter Mondale, Northerner, lost.
1988 - Michael Dukakis, Northerner, lost.
1992 - Bill Clinton, Southerner, won.
1996 - Bill Clinton, Southerner, won.
2000 - Al Gore, Southerner, lost.*
2004 - John Kerry, Northerner, lost.
(* - won popular vote but lost electoral vote).
So, since JFK in 1960, no liberal Northerner has won the presidency even though the Democrats have tried it FIVE times. OTOH, every Southerner has won more votes than the Republican other than Carter's second campaign when he had been emasculated by the Iranian hostage crisis and a horrible economy.
The only national referendum we have is presidential elections and when a liberal has run as a liberal, he has lost every time in the past 40 years. It's only when Democrats cloak themselves as Southern Baptists do they win. That may be an unpleasant thing to accept but you can't argue with the facts.
Liberalism, in a national election, is a losing proposition.
yeap which was why I was glad when they named Edwards as their candidate. They may not like it, but this country is conservative or at least religious, and that is a major part of the voting population. Until they recognize that, the democrats will continue to be befundled.
Rascal
01-14-2005, 10:55 AM
True, and when the voting populace finds your message unworthy of their vote? Do you attack them for being stupid? That's your tactic of late, and it works like a charm. NOT.
This is the only thing LABF knows. You say anything against him and you are instantly put into the stupid category.
MistrSynistr
01-14-2005, 11:06 AM
Which one lied about President Nixon sending him to Cambodia in Christmas, 1968, which he said for many decades and in Senate speeches was *seared* into his mind? Was that Bush or Kerry?
Yes, it was a little thing and a long time ago but since his entire campaign was devoid of issues, policies and specifics, it's difficult to call Kerry a liar when he couldn't hold the same position on anything two days in a row.
To say Bush lied about WMDs (which is the usual starting point when discussing "Bush lies", you have to accept that he must have already known Saddam had no WMDs in order to intentionally lie about it. Yet, Clinton said Saddam had WMDs. Clinton's State Department said Saddam had WMDs, Bush's State Department said Saddam had WMDs, the CIA (with Clinton's appointee at the helm) said Saddam had WMDs and Senators from both sides of the aisle (including Kerry), who get the same intelligence reports that the White House does, said Saddam had WMDs and further *voted* to authorize the use of force against Iraq, stating their belief that Saddam had WMDs.
So if Bush, intentionally lied about WMDs, so too did practically all the Democrats and Republicans in Washington that were in a position to know. So, are they all liars too or just Bush?
If you think "just Bush" then you really are naive or a nominee for the anchor desk at CBS News.
The President of the United States has a little more behind the scenes insight then the dopes in Congress and the House, my friend. You think Bush didn't recieve more intelligence and discussion than what he lead on to the rest of the people he was trying to dupe to get into this war?
Oh, the difference, you say. Yes, the difference is those who finally were informned and educated of the facts CHANGED their stance on the war. Those who knew it all along kept up with the same old charade of "Regardless, it was right" No matter what we do, it's ok. We're the good guys.
You're the naive one. You're the one who see's only the thin layer Bush and his goons portray to the public. You're as dopey as someone who believes a book handed to you is the word of god, and nothing can change that, not even facts, because "That's what I believe". Now let's go cause harm to others over a belief and not a fact.
Naive, you people kill me.
Or worse yet, may end up getting me killed.
Rascal
01-14-2005, 11:33 AM
yet another attack on Christians by a liberal on this board, and you guys wonder why we don't vote democrat. Keep it up, each time only confirms that I will never again vote for a democrat.
You may not agree with it, but you don't have to insult or ridicule us for our beliefs.
RaiderH8r
01-14-2005, 11:52 AM
yet another attack on Christians by a liberal on this board, and you guys wonder why we don't vote democrat. Keep it up, each time only confirms that I will never again vote for a democrat.
You may not agree with it, but you don't have to insult or ridicule us for our beliefs.
This is the way of the new left, you will be ridiculed into agreement. Thus far it has worked wonders. Angry little people that some are. I find it hilarious. They profess to be the harbingers of free speech and thought, and all is fine and well....if you agree with them.
Rascal
01-14-2005, 11:59 AM
This is the way of the new left, you will be ridiculed into agreement. Thus far it has worked wonders. Angry little people that some are. I find it hilarious. They profess to be the harbingers of free speech and thought, and all is fine and well....if you agree with them.
To be honest, I typically agree with democrats economic plans then republicans but with all of these attacks on me because of my beliefs, not limited to just those on this board obviously, I doubt I will ever vote for one again no matter how much I may disagree with the Republican candidate...take Tom Coburn for example.
L.A. BRONCOS FAN
01-14-2005, 09:27 PM
Imagine if Gore had run as "Clinton-clone" in 2000. Would it have worked?
The way Gore ran was just fine (as evidenced by the fact that he won the popular vote and, if not for the GOP election fraud, would have won the presidency as well.)
Unabashed liberalism is a dead end in this country, politics-wise.
Thanks for giving us an illustration of my earlier point about the right-wing noise machine and its power to shape people's perceptions of reality. Liberalism isn't dead - it's just that the right-wing echo chamber has repeated this message long and often enough that large numbers of gullible, easily-led people have come to believe it.
True, and when the voting populace finds your message unworthy of their vote?
You are wrong in the assumption that the voting populace finds the liberal message "unworthy." The majority of Americans do not share the values held by right-wing extremists like the bush neocons. The GOP has only been able to 'win' the last two elections through election fraud and judicial coups.
The only way the neocons have been able to 'win' the support of undecideds and moderates is through fear-mongering, sleazy marketing/attack ads, scorched earth politics, and the exploitation of ignorance (willfull or otherwise.) They have only been able to win by deception, e.g., by putting a false face on their party and its core values by selecting Arnold and Rudy (not DeLay and Lott) to represent them at their convention. Hardly a "worthy" approach to winning the public trust.
L.A. BRONCOS FAN
01-14-2005, 09:34 PM
...They may not like it, but this country is conservative....
It would be more accurate to say that the country is more-or-less divided (polarized, you might say) among liberals and conservatives.
But the real joke (on you) is the unexamined belief that the bush neocons share traditional conservative values.
The bush neocons are radical right-wing extremists - pure and simple.
L.A. BRONCOS FAN
01-14-2005, 11:31 PM
"Unabashed liberalism is a dead end in this country..."
W*GS and the right-wing corporate noise machine/echo chamber have a strategy:
Repeat the above message about liberalism over and over until the American people are distracted from the disastrous consequences of bush's policies and decisions as commander-in-thief. Repeat until Americans no longer notice that bush and the GOP are cementing the absolute merger of corporate interests with governement power at the expense of the people.
Unfortunately, it seems to be working.
The way Gore ran was just fine (as evidenced by the fact that he won the popular vote and, if not for the GOP election fraud, would have won the presidency as well.)
Winning the popular vote isn't the metric, and the oft-repeated mantra of "GOP election fraud" on your part is just old, tired, and worn out.
If Gore had run as "staying the course" (as GHWB did in 1988) he would have creamed Bush just as GHWB pulverized Dukakis. For some reason, however, he chose (or his handlers chose for him) to run away from the Clinton legacy of eight years of "peace and prosperity" and he turned what should have been a landslide into an extremely close election. Gore couldn't even carry Tennessee. Gore tried to set himself so apart from Clinton that voters weren't sure what the heck he stood for.
Thanks for giving us an illustration of my earlier point about the right-wing noise machine and its power to shape people's perceptions of reality. Liberalism isn't dead - it's just that the right-wing echo chamber has repeated this message long and often enough that large numbers of gullible, easily-led people have come to believe it.
I said "unabashed liberalism" - the strident kind that resides on the coasts and on college campuses. The kind that most Americans find distasteful. The kind that Clinton rightly recognized as an electoral dead end and thus gained himself 8 years of political power. As a Clinton Democrat, you should agree that if Dean assumes the mantle of the DNC, the Democrats are going to wandering the wilderness for a looooong time. It was precisely the Clinton strategy of marginalizing the unabashed liberal wing of the Democratic Party that won him the Presidency - and when he retreated from his centrist stance in 1993 and into 1994, the voters smacked him hard by giving the GOP control of Congress. Clinton didn't veer nearly as far leftward after that lesson. His talent as an astute politician allowed him to see that; why haven't you?
You are wrong in the assumption that the voting populace finds the liberal message "unworthy." The majority of Americans do not share the values held by right-wing extremists like the bush neocons. The GOP has only been able to 'win' the last two elections through election fraud and judicial coups.
Repeat the lie often enough... Sorry to borrow your line, but it fits.
How do you explain the ever-increasing strength of the conservative movement since (at least) 1980? Consider that in the 24 years since then, Congress has gone from very strongly Democratic to solidly Republican, the President has been a Republican for 2/3 of that time (and for another four), and the GOP has only strengthened its hold on governorships and state legislatures. Is all that due just to fraud and "judicial coups"? Have Americans embraced conservativism as a political philosophy? Have the Democrats not yet learned that unabashed liberalism just doesn't sell?
The only way the neocons have been able to 'win' the support of undecideds and moderates is through fear-mongering, sleazy marketing/attack ads, scorched earth politics, and the exploitation of ignorance (willfull or otherwise.)
(The quotes around "win" are entirely superfluous - the GOP has been on a rampage as of late)
Why have the voters responded so positively (by giving the GOP their votes) to such tactics? Is the American voter that stupid or inattentive? The Democrats engage in their fair share of political tricks too - is it that they just aren't as good at the rough-and-tumble political stuff?
They have only been able to win by deception, e.g., by putting a false face on their party and its core values by selecting Arnold and Rudy (not DeLay and Lott) to represent them at their convention. Hardly a "worthy" approach to winning the public trust.
So why did the Democrats pick Kerry over Dean, when Dean had the very strong early momentum? Was it because the Clintonistas in the DLC knew full well that Dean was the McGovern of the 21st century and his candidacy would have been political suicide? Are there no embarassing skeletons in the Democratic closet, best kept hidden from voter view lest their hard-left progressivism truly turn voters away?
Overall, LABF, I find it odd that you've called yourself a Clinton Democrat, yet you sound far more like a Deaniac. Why the schizophrenia?
W*GS and the right-wing corporate noise machine/echo chamber have a strategy
Who said I agreed with the opinion piece I posted? You see, I like to post stuff designed to elicit comment and discussion, not necessarily that I agree with its content.
Repeat the above message about liberalism over and over until the American people are distracted from the disastrous consequences of bush's policies and decisions as commander-in-thief.
Note, again, that I didn't say liberalism was dead - that unabashed liberalism (and all the unpalatable-to-the-voter positions implied by straight-up "progressivism") was political suicide. Would you rather stick to your principles and wander in the political desert, powerless and ignored, or take into account the preferences and reasoning of the voter and amend your policies accordingly? I've had this argument with libertarians too, LABF, and it's not a binary choice.
And since Bush's approval ratings are quite low, I believe Americans aren't distracted at all - it's just that in this past election, Kerry did a really piss-poor job of getting his message across.
Repeat until Americans no longer notice that bush and the GOP are cementing the absolute merger of corporate interests with governement power at the expense of the people.
Strangely, the same thing was said of Clinton and his support of NAFTA, freer trade, welfare reform, and so on, particularly from the union-bought-and-paid-for Gephardt clique and the extreme lefties in the Democrats. Was it bad that Clinton turned his back on the liberals in his party on those issues?
L.A. BRONCOS FAN
01-16-2005, 06:00 AM
...the oft-repeated mantra of "GOP election fraud" on your part is just old, tired, and worn out.
Only to deluded right-wingers like you who continue to deny the reality of said fraud.
Blocking out all that reality must take a whole lot of energy (which might explain why you feel "old, tired, and worn out.")
L.A. BRONCOS FAN
01-16-2005, 06:08 AM
Note, again, that I didn't say liberalism was dead - that unabashed liberalism (and all the unpalatable-to-the-voter positions implied by straight-up "progressivism") was political suicide. Would you rather stick to your principles and wander in the political desert, powerless and ignored, or take into account the preferences and reasoning of the voter and amend your policies accordingly?
rofl
"Unabashed" liberalism?
Is that an actual school of political thought?
Is its counterpart "Ashamed Liberalism?"
That has to be about the dumbest "distinction" I've ever heard.
BTW, I see you're still buying into the right-wing myth that liberalism is somehow repugnant to the majority of the electorate.
How long are you going to go on feeding from Bill O'Liely and Ann Coulter's trough?
W*GS is apparently content to allow corporate right-wing media to shape his perceptions of reality.
Only to deluded right-wingers like you who continue to deny the reality of said fraud.
Kiddo, it's you and your few fellow Really Angry lefties who are in denial. Bush won the Presidency, twice. That's the reality - deal with it.
Blocking out all that reality must take a whole lot of energy (which might explain why you feel "old, tired, and worn out.")
Your never-ending bitterness has made you a laughingstock. No, we're not laughing with you, we're all laughing at you.
L.A. BRONCOS FAN
01-17-2005, 04:16 AM
Kiddo, it's you and your few fellow Really Angry lefties who are in denial. Bush won the Presidency, twice. That's the reality - deal with it.
All of the above is only "reality" if you are an easily-led, easily duped sheep whose perceptions of reality are shaped by the corporate/GOP noise machine/echo chamber.
Sound familiar?
Your efforts to slip the proof of election fraud down the memory hole aren't working, W*GS.
Too many people have seen the proof.
Your never-ending bitterness has made you a laughingstock.
Your never-ending inability to distinguish between bitterness and legitimate criticism of corrupt leaders has made you just another right-wing buffoon and a poster boy for arrested moral development.
Rascal
01-18-2005, 06:53 AM
It would be more accurate to say that the country is more-or-less divided (polarized, you might say) among liberals and conservatives.
But the real joke (on you) is the unexamined belief that the bush neocons share traditional conservative values.
The bush neocons are radical right-wing extremists - pure and simple.
and you are so full of hatred towards anything Bush that you have become blinded and a subsequent fool. My post had nothing to do with Bush, yet you bring him up...pathetic.
Since when was it required for a liberal to be non-religious and a conservative to be religious? It's not. But the fact is that the majority of people in this country are religious...and that was a major factor in this election...like it or not.
The real joke is that you honestly thought Kerry even had a chance and still claim victory. He didn't win on freaking state between the Northeast and California...thanks to him, and the democratic party, being unable to connect to the people and realize that the majority of American's are religious. But like you they are to incompetent to see what the average Joe can see.
Too many people have seen the proof.
The value of the "proof" is in the eye of the beholder.
Your never-ending inability to distinguish between bitterness and legitimate criticism of corrupt leaders has made you just another right-wing buffoon and a poster boy for arrested moral development.
"Legitimate criticism" doesn't include the terms "sociopath" and "Nazi", for starters.
Thus, you're just a bitter, angry, hateful little person. Sort of a mini-Moore. Then again, a school bus is a Mini compared to Moore.
L.A. BRONCOS FAN
01-18-2005, 08:03 PM
The value of the "proof" is in the eye of the beholder.
Looks like somebody's been skipping logic class.
Proof isn't a matter of "value" - it's a matter of fact.
"Legitimate criticism" doesn't include the terms "sociopath" and "Nazi", for starters.
It does when the subject of criticism does exhibit sociopathy and does engage in Nazi-like behavior (not to mention when the subject's family fortune was, in large part, amassed in trading with the Nazis.)
Your inability to see all this only distinguishes you as an ostrich.
Thus, you're just a bitter, angry, hateful little person. Sort of a mini-Moore. Then again, a school bus is a Mini compared to Moore.
There you go giving us another demonstration of your inability to distinguish between bitterness/anger/hatred and legitimate objection to/criticism of corrupt leaders and their crimes against humanity. You just can't help it, can you? Covering Smirk's flank is an obsession for you.
BTW, just mention the names "Michael Moore," or "Bill Clinton" to see W*GS' bitterness, anger, and hatred in full force.
Looks like somebody's been skipping logic class. Proof isn't a matter of "value" - it's a matter of fact.
In many kinds of discussions, "proof" isn't a fact, it's a matter of opinion as to whether the presented argument meets the definition of "proof".
It does when the subject of criticism does exhibit sociopathy
Examples?
and does engage in Nazi-like behavior
Such as?
(not to mention when the subject's family fortune was, in large part, amassed in trading with the Nazis.)
How much is "in large part"? What percentage of the Bush "family fortune" came from "trading with the Nazis", and, does what Prescott Bush did count as "trading with the Nazis".
Or are you just engaging, as usual, in rhetorical overreach?
There you go giving us another demonstration of your inability to distinguish between bitterness/anger/hatred and legitimate objection to/criticism of corrupt leaders and their crimes against humanity.
Was Clinton corrupt? Did he commit "crimes against humanity", either by comission or omission?
L.A. BRONCOS FAN
01-19-2005, 09:46 PM
In many kinds of discussions, "proof" isn't a fact, it's a matter of opinion as to whether the presented argument meets the definition of "proof".
Not in this "kind" of discussion (which concerns matters of fact.)
Examples? Such as?
I've provided thousands of them, which, in your case, only confirms the old adage "there are none so blind as those who will not see."
How much is "in large part"? What percentage of the Bush "family fortune" came from "trading with the Nazis", and, does what Prescott Bush did count as "trading with the Nazis".
Large enough that the U.S. Government seized Bush's assets under the Trading With the Enemy (i.e. Nazis) Act. (But I suppose that's not large enough for W*GS - unless it's Clinton who's the guilty party, that is.)
Or are you just engaging, as usual, in rhetorical overreach?
Leave it to a Bush Davidian to dismiss Bush's U.S. Government-documented trade with the Nazis as "rhetorical overreach."
Was Clinton corrupt? Did he commit "crimes against humanity", either by comission or omission?
No, but as Ken Starr's top cabana boy, I'm sure you're still diligently combing Arkansas motel rooms and searching for 'evidence.'
Large enough that the U.S. Government seized Bush's assets under the Trading With the Enemy (i.e. Nazis) Act.
What is the whole story? Provide it, please.
L.A. BRONCOS FAN
01-20-2005, 05:22 PM
What is the whole story? Provide it, please.
Been there, done that a thousand times already. The records detailing how Bush's assets were seized under the Trading with the Enemy Act are in the U.S. Library of Congress.
And still you close your eyes for Dim Son.
Been there, done that a thousand times already. The records detailing how Bush's assets were seized under the Trading with the Enemy Act are in the U.S. Library of Congress.
Is that it? There's nothing more - end of story?
Really?
L.A. BRONCOS FAN
01-21-2005, 04:40 PM
Is that it? There's nothing more - end of story?
Really?
I'm sure you'll find a way to let grandpa off the hook for trading with the Nazis anytime now...
Let me guess - "Clinton did x, y, and z; therefore, Prescott Bush gets a pass."
Conservative logic - you gotta love it.
I'm sure you'll find a way to let grandpa off the hook for trading with the Nazis anytime now...
What does "trading with the Nazis" mean, specifically?
Don't you find it odd that Howard Dean's grandma was a bridesmaid at Prescott "Sieg Hiel!" Bush's wedding?
Perhaps Dean has some swastika-tainted skeletons in his closet. Would you be a dear and check it out for all of us? You'd be a real peach!
L.A. BRONCOS FAN
01-22-2005, 12:56 AM
What does "trading with the Nazis" mean, specifically?
If you could read, you would have already ascertained the answer to your question from all the sources with which I've provided you over the past -what? - two years?
What's next?
You'll inform us that the U.S. Library of Congress is just a mirror site for bartcop.com?
Don't you find it odd that Howard Dean's grandma was a bridesmaid at Prescott "Sieg Hiel!" Bush's wedding?
It's Friday night - W*GS has already fired up the bong, I see.
Can't wait for W*GS to present those Library of Congress documents detailing how Dean's (or his grandma's) assets were seized for trading with the enemy.
Should be funny to watch.
BTW, I also heard Jesse Jackson's third cousin's grandfather once did some yard work for Prescott Bush.
That ought to get grandpa off the hook once and for all!
(You see - arguing like W*GS and his fellow conservatives is as easy as falling out of bed.)
Perhaps Dean has some swastika-tainted skeletons in his closet. Would you be a dear and check it out for all of us? You'd be a real peach!
Next time you put the bong down for a minute, be sure to send us a postcard from "perhaps" world.
(Or BushWorld. Same difference.)
If you could read, you would have already ascertained the answer to your question from all the sources with which I've provided you over the past -what? - two years?
Just as I suspected - you don't know, nor can you summarize.
"Trading with the Nazis" has a nice ring to it, but doesn't accurately relate the actions of Prescott Bush, any more than "burns children alive" accurately describes the actions of Janet Reno.
L.A. BRONCOS FAN
01-24-2005, 10:55 PM
Just as I suspected - you don't know, nor can you summarize.
No - the problem is that, when presented with all the evidence, you still refuse to admit you are wrong.
"Trading with the Nazis" has a nice ring to it, but doesn't accurately relate the actions of Prescott Bush,
Bush's assets were seized by the U.S. Government under the "Trading With The Enemy Act."
The 'enemy' in question was the Nazi Party.
If this isn't accurate/unequivocal enough for you, then you must be (gasp) a bush shill defending a threatened (but discredited) belief.
...any more than "burns children alive" accurately describes the actions of Janet Reno.
There you go blaming the Clinton administration for the consequences of your hero David Koresh's actions again.
Don't you right-wingers ever take responsibility for anything your favorite cult leaders, survivalist types, and gun nuts do?
http://www.bartcop.com/don-connie-jay-shawn.jpg
Bush's assets were seized by the U.S. Government under the "Trading With The Enemy Act."
What fraction of what assets? And, is that it? Was Prescott Bush unique in this regard?
There you go blaming the Clinton administration for the consequences of your hero David Koresh's actions again.
You think the government was entirely blameless for what happened at Waco? Why?
L.A. BRONCOS FAN
01-26-2005, 01:19 AM
What fraction of what assets? And, is that it? Was Prescott Bush unique in this regard?
A large enough fraction for the U.S. Government to seize his assets under the "Trading With the Enemy" act. (Maybe repetition is the key to comprehension where W*GS is concerned.)
And, is that it? Was Prescott Bush unique in this regard?
Translation:
"If I can find someone else who has committed the same crime, then bush is no longer guilty. Such is the magic of conservative logic."
You think the government was entirely blameless for what happened at Waco? Why?
You obviously think Koresh was blameless. (Or at least less to blame than the federal government.) Why?
"If I can find someone else who has committed the same crime, then bush is no longer guilty. Such is the magic of conservative logic."
It's actually your "logic" bounced back at you...
Think about why that is.
You obviously think Koresh was blameless. (Or at least less to blame than the federal government.) Why?
I don't think Koresh was blameless - but I do hold FBI agents and other federal agents to a higher standard than I do kook pseudo-Christians. There are a lot of questions left unanswered about the actions of the government at Waco that you apparently feel are best left that way.
Why?
alkemical
02-18-2005, 10:12 AM
And maybe, just maybe koresh was right....... (sorry i had to throw some conspiracy in here)
L.A. BRONCOS FAN
02-18-2005, 03:54 PM
It's actually your "logic" bounced back at you...
Think about why that is.
Not at all. Show me where I have tried to absolve some Democrat or another for some instance of wrongdoing by deflecting to the deeds of some repug. It's always just the opposite - I point out the misdeeds of the current administration, and you and your fellow conservatives deflect to Clinton.
There are a lot of questions left unanswered about the actions of the government at Waco that you apparently feel are best left that way.
Why?
And what "unanswered questions" might those be?
Show me where I have tried to absolve some Democrat or another for some instance of wrongdoing by deflecting to the deeds of some repug.
How many times have you used the "why pay attention to jaywalking when murder is taking place" cliche?
I've never once seen you agree with someone else's assessment of a Democratic error, or wrongoing - indeed, you seem to believe that such things simply don't exist. Why?
And what "unanswered questions" might those be?
Read "No More Wacos" by Blackmon and Kopel. Here's a few off the top of my head.
Why did the BATF insist on carrying out its initial raid despite knowing that the element of surprise was gone? Why did the BATF insist on the raid, anyway, when it was well-known that they could have picked up Koresh without incident when he was away from the "compound"? Why did the FBI feel it necessary to engage in psychological warfare tactics? Why did the FBI use a chemical agent known to be highly flammable, and in concentrations known to be fatal, especially for children? Why is there compelling evidence that FBI agents were shooting into the buildings after the fire had started?
Do you really think we know the full story, LABF? Or is it that Koresh was a kook and thus it really doesn't matter - he and his inane followers, including the children, deserved to die?
L.A. BRONCOS FAN
02-18-2005, 11:13 PM
How many times have you used the "why pay attention to jaywalking when murder is taking place" cliche?
When I've used this "cliche," it has always been in support of a valid argument or observation. Do you deny that there was one set of moral, ethical, and legal rules for Clinton and the Dems and another, "less exacting" and more "flexible" set for Smirk and the GOP? If so, then the facts are certainly not on your side. Case in point: The recent GOP revision of ethics rules in response to the DeLay indictments.
I've never once seen you agree with someone else's assessment of a Democratic error, or wrongoing...
Then you probably just haven't noticed.
- indeed, you seem to believe that such things simply don't exist. Why?
I believe no such thing.
First of all, the GOP - not the Democratic Party - has been in control of all three branches of government for the last four years. Naturally, then, in the course of the discussion of current events, the Dems' profile has been as diminutive as their influence. Second, as I said, there is an enormous double standard re: rules of conduct/accountability for Dems vs. rethugs. Repugs get away with murder while spitting on the sidewalk elicits calls for a full-fledged investigation if you're a Democrat. Hence, the playing field currently needs leveling on the GOP side - not on the Democrats' side. Third, right-wingers like you already have a gazillion Rush Limbaughs and Bill O'Lielys and Ann Coulters saturating the airwaves with anti-Democratic hate speech. The people who want to bury the Democratic Party own the airwaves. Why would you need even more anti-Democratic stroke fodder (from me) here? How much is enough?
Do you really think we know the full story, LABF? Or is it that Koresh was a kook and thus it really doesn't matter - he and his inane followers, including the children, deserved to die?
Of course the children didn't deserve to die - which is precisely my point.
Koresh had primary responsibility for those children; they were in his custody.
Instead of surrendering to the authorities, he chose to endanger those children and to put their lives in jeopardy - all for some whacky ego trip.
If that isn't the behavior of a "kook," then I don't know what is.
Instead of surrendering to the authorities, he chose to endanger those children and to put their lives in jeopardy - all for some whacky ego trip.
I see you've bought the government's story hook, line, and barrel.
Why is it that when a Republican is President, you'll believe wholeheartedly just about any whacky conspiracy theory that implicates the President and his party in the most evil of deeds, but when Clinton was President, the government did very little wrong. Everything bad that happened was someone else's fault.
Would you surrender to the authorities if you had a reasonable belief that you would be immediately killed if you did so? Remember, the BATF had attacked in full-assault mode. Why would you believe the same government agents if they now said "Come out, you'll be safe"? Just how gullible are you?
No, I'm not a right-winger. If there's one mistake (of many) that you make, it's that assuming that anyone who disagrees with you is a conservative. I am not.
L.A. BRONCOS FAN
02-19-2005, 05:15 PM
I see you've bought the government's story hook, line, and barrel.
So which part of my previous claim are you denying?
That Koresk was primarily responsible for those children?
That he chose to put their safety and their lives in jeopardy?
Why is it that when a Republican is President, you'll believe wholeheartedly just about any whacky conspiracy theory that implicates the President and his party in the most evil of deeds...
Why is it that, when presented with facts that expose "the most evil deeds" by a repug president, you invariably dismiss such facts as a "conspiracy theory?" How are you different from any other right-winger in this respect?
No, I'm not a right-winger. If there's one mistake (of many) that you make, it's that assuming that anyone who disagrees with you is a conservative. I am not.
You're not a right-winger or a conservative because you disagree with me.
You're a right-winger and a conservative because you side with the right wing (and attack/oppose liberals) in almost every debate on any issue.
Your actions speak for themselves.
So which part of my previous claim are you denying? That Koresk was primarily responsible for those children? That he chose to put their safety and their lives in jeopardy?
Koresh did not initiate the events that caused the deaths of those children - the federal government did. You've yet to explain why the government did what it did and the manner in which it did it.
Have you read "No More Wacos" yet?
Why is it that, when presented with facts that expose "the most evil deeds" by a repug president, you invariably dismiss such facts as a "conspiracy theory?"
Because such "facts" come from you, and your credibility is shot, what with your well-known tactics of half-truths, deceits, and outright lies. You just can't tell the whole story, and tell it straight. You have to put your particular (bizarre) spin on what you present, supply only part of the evidence, and insert your own comments without proper attribution. You exclude any contrary evidence, and attempt to reduce complex issues down to soundbite bumper-sticker-ready slogans and cheap shots.
You've admitted you're not genuinely interested in discussion or debate - you've stated that all you're doing is venting your apparently unending supply of bitterness, rage, and hate.
Your intellectual integrity and credibility are less than zero.
You're not a right-winger or a conservative because you disagree with me.
That's your metric, not mine. Have you changed it?
You're a right-winger and a conservative because you side with the right wing (and attack/oppose liberals) in almost every debate on any issue.
Not at all. You just don't pay attention because all the venting you're doing has made you blind. Period.
TexanBob
02-19-2005, 11:34 PM
The BATF had infiltrated the Davidians with an informer. The informer got word back to them saying Koresh knew they were coming for him. Yet, it was also known that Koresh made a regular foray into town for supplies unarmed and the BATF could have easily nabbed him from a car or on the street minus all the collateral damage. The issue was that the BATF was coming up against budget cutbacks back in Washington and wanted a dramatic seizure to justify their funding level....well, Koresh gave them a lot more drama than they bargained for. The BATF even made sure the Waco media was there to videotape them in action only to see the whole mission blow up in their faces.
Koresh was a kook but the BATF wound up not only empowering him but playing right into his Messiah complex by completely mishandling the situation. That is what ultimately led to the deaths of the children. Regardless of who set off the spark that ignited the building, the federal government pushed them to that point and it was completely unnecessary. All they had to do was wait for him to ride into town and arrest him there but they weren't satisfied with that. Instead, they wanted to put on a show and they wound up not only killing a bunch of innocent children but also some of their own officers in the process. Still makes me mad just thinking about it.
I'm sure LABF will now proceed to tell us that it was all Governor Bush's fault.
L.A. BRONCOS FAN
02-20-2005, 07:23 PM
Koresh did not initiate the events that caused the deaths of those children - the federal government did.
So you deny that the children were in Koresh's custody and that Koresh had ample opportunity to ensure the safety of the children by surrendering to the law?
Why do you always defend criminals and sociopaths?
Is it because you identify with them?
Because such "facts" come from you, and your credibility is shot..
Just as I expected - instead of an actual rebuttal to the points I made, you can only flail away with groundless generalizations like this one.
You've admitted you're not genuinely interested in discussion or debate - you've stated that all you're doing is venting your apparently unending supply of bitterness, rage, and hate.
I "admitted" no such thing. I did say that I came here primarily to vent, but venting doesn't preclude participation in debates (as evidenced by the countless debates in which I've cleaned your clock.) And "bitterness," "rage," and "hate," are your words - not mine. (Which, when translated from winger-speak to English always = "any presentation of facts which exposes GOP/BushCo incompetence, impropriety, and/or criminality, usually accompanied by a call for accountability")
Your intellectual integrity and credibility are less than zero.
What happened to your intellectual "integrity" when I blew up your argument re: the causes of the great depression? (Among other examples of your self-righteous hypocrisy.)
So you deny that the children were in Koresh's custody and that Koresh had ample opportunity to ensure the safety of the children by surrendering to the law?
Do you deny that the government made a great many mistakes at Waco that led directly to the deaths of those children? We executed, rightly, McVeigh for killing innocents in OKC - yet more children died at Waco than in the Murrah building.
Why do you always defend criminals and sociopaths?
Is it because you identify with them?
This is always the sort of "response" or "argument" you make when you get desperate, LABF. I'll let it pass, since it's clear you've lost it.
Just as I expected - instead of an actual rebuttal to the points I made, you can only flail away with groundless generalizations like this one.
What I said, and you (typically) deleted, was so good I'm going to say it again.
You just can't tell the whole story, and tell it straight. You have to put your particular (bizarre) spin on what you present, supply only part of the evidence, and insert your own comments without proper attribution. You exclude any contrary evidence, and attempt to reduce complex issues down to soundbite bumper-sticker-ready slogans and cheap shots.
You've admitted you're not genuinely interested in discussion or debate - you've stated that all you're doing is venting your apparently unending supply of bitterness, rage, and hate.
Your intellectual integrity and credibility are less than zero.
What happened to your intellectual "integrity" when I blew up your argument re: the causes of the great depression? (Among other examples of your self-righteous hypocrisy.)
(Boy, the things you write, LABF, when you get your dander up. It's cute.)
You never supported your claim that the Depression was due to "unbridled capitalism", which was your foundational assertion. Since you never proved that, the rest of your argument dissolved into the aether, and thus, you didn't "win".
You really need to get some help with your debate tactics and style. High school freshmen with a few weeks of forensics class could easily chew your arguments into hamburger - provided you didn't decimate them yourself, as you are wont to do.
But please, keep going, LABF. All of us need a chuckle (at your expense, of course).
TexanBob
02-21-2005, 12:33 AM
So you deny that the children were in Koresh's custody and that Koresh had ample opportunity to ensure the safety of the children by surrendering to the law?
Not at all. That's what a sane man would do but it should have been obvious, after two months, that the BATF, FBI, etc. were not dealing with a sane man. They shouldn't have gone in there to start with but, once they put Koresh in that position, they had to wait him out. Without food or water, the Davidians would have eventually broken or killed themselves off without the government applying tanks and tear gas to force the situation.
That was major blunder #2. Major blunder #1 happened the first day when they decided to invade a house that was armed to the teeth and knew the invasion was about to commence. It pains me that some good LEOs died because some knucklehead insisted on a show of force rather than simply arresting their man.