Today, on the Republican Propaganda Channel (misnamed Fox News), one of the Announcers made a remarkable statement:
www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/08/fox-news-host-americans-k_n_228209.html
He says Americans keep marrying other species. It was pure Republican philosophy as far as I can tell, taken to it's logical extreme.
I'd like to see some decent poems about this statement. Republicans can even enter this one, if they have enough intelligence to write a coherent poem at any rate. I'm still ill and not up to writing much, but could use a good laugh.
Usual rules apply. No profanity, bashing, or semi-literacy, i.e., you have to know the difference between "your" and "you're" and so on. Grammar, spelling and punctuation important, but from Republicans I don't expect so much, so you can enter poems with malapropisms if you like.
Contest is Over
- Contest was judged on July 30
- Rewards: Gold: 400, Silver: 100, Bronze: 50
- Final notes: I'm not up to commenting on poems this morning, so I apologize if I didn't get a comment posted on your poem. I was disappointed in how few entries I got here, but at least some of them were good in their own right (write).
Thanks for entering. I hope to see you again in any other contest I might have.
Contest Winners
-
• Viewed by judge. Prewrite [remove]
-
When did we get divided
into Republicans being only humans,• Commented on by judge. [remove] -
• Viewed by judge. Prewrite [remove]
-
• Viewed by judge. [remove]
Gold trophy winner
Silver trophy winner
Bronze trophy winner
Entries [5]
1 - 5 of 5
Add a comment
Comments
-
That was hilarious!
-
lmao. I love fox news.
I remember when the red eye had a segment bashing canada's efforts in the war started by their country...all of canada was up in arms over it for days until they issued a half-assed apology.
that network is a joke. -
hmmm...i won't lie, i am a republican, my boyfriend (unfortunately) is a democrat.
let me just say....party affiliation aside, we are all human. and, personally, as one of those gun-toting redneck republicans, I did strap a picture of Obama to a bottle rocket this fourth. Oddly enough, he is trying to get rid of more of our nuclear missiles. can anyone say socialism much? national debt has been tripled since Obama was sworn in, and last I checked, Fox is the only news network that mentioned it. -
-
I don't want to turn this into a thread on Ecrivain's contest, but I am thoroughly flummoxed by your assertion that nuclear arms reduction is a socialist thing. You see, during the Cold War, both the Socialists in the USSR and the capitalists in the US were building a helluva lot of nuclear weapons.
Also, did Fox News happen to inform you that the National Debt was quintupled under George Bush? For that matter, are you aware that debt does not become debt until it is actually accrued - and that, since only one-tenth of the stimulus has been spent, that means that the Nnational debt has actually gone down under Obama?
Socialism, by the way, is when the prevailing philosophy is that the people own the resources. For an example, you should look at the way the state of Alaska taxes oil companies and 'redistributes" the wealth through rebates to Alaska citizens. That is socialism. So is social security and medicare. And public education. -
-
You are, of course, correct on all points ...
but remember that you are replying to a Republican. You can't reason with them. It's like Charlie Brown said about Lucy: "It's like talking to a brick wall." -
-
I know, but I cling to hope. I hate being so optimistic, but if I weren't, I guess i, too, would be a Republican.
(Again, sorry for soap-boxing in your contest comments.) -
-
Twenty-five years ago maybe ...
but there is no longer an actual Republican Party. The one we have now is the new-Nazi Party, which still uses the name of a once proud and dignified party, which is now nothing but the shill for a lot of racists, bigots, and hate-mongers
The Republican Party died with Barry Goldwater. -
-
(this is why I don't make political remarks anymore...sheesh)
the one thing I have to say is that the Nazi party was about purifying the earth. last time I checked, Republicans weren't murdering millions of jews, blacks, and gays. in fact, on the point of "racism" it was rich southern DEMOCRATS who were the slave holders.
I love to be called a racist, a bigot, and a hate-monger. sure, I will be the first person to admit that I have some prejudices. I'm prejudiced against smokers, they killed my mother. I'm prejudiced against SOME native americans, due to past experiences. But what i love most of all is when I was working as a cashier during the presidential election, I was called a gun-toting redneck, and a n*** loving whore. For NOT sharing my political beliefs.
as for the socialism remark....I realize now that it was mis-placed. my apologies. I benefited from socialism growing up, in teh form of medicaid and SSI. Huey P. Long is one of my favorite politcal figures in history.
It just disturbs me that Obama is trying to get rid of missiles. does he really think North Korea and Iran are going to follow by example? I may have been born at night, but I sure as hell wasn't born in the dark.
as for Alaska....Sarah Palin, anyone?
I saw religion thrown into this discussion as well. let me ask...when did religion and state mix? everyone says keep it seperate....but the fact is, our government was founded on the ideals of strong christian Community leaders. Jefferson, Washington, and even Franklin (contrary to his lascivious lifestyle in Europe) were all christians.
-
-
-
-
I'm seeing this lady astride a nuke like Slim Pickens, all yahooing an' s#%&; or playing with herself and a red button at the same time like Dubya.
-
"Socialism, by the way, is when the prevailing philosophy is that the people own the resources. For an example, you should look at the way the state of Alaska taxes oil companies and 'redistributes" the wealth through rebates to Alaska citizens. That is socialism. So is social security and medicare. And public education."
Right you are, Adelmann.
The US is well on its way to socialism.
Forget the people who have the entrepreneurial spirit and who invest their own time, sweat, money, intellectual capacity and skill into mining those resources. EVERYONE should benefit from those who are able in those ways to mine them. Right? Because without those people who are so able, those resources would not be mined.
Those who are able should be slaves to those who are not. "To each according to his need, from each, according to his ability." -- So we each should live to service everyone but ourselves?
Those of us who are able must sacrifice our lives to those who are not?
When socialized health care is made real here in the US, shall I pay for my neighbor's choice to have 5 children for whose health care he cannot pay? Am I responsible for his choices in life?
Or will the government decide to take away our neighbor's choice of how many children he is allowed to produce? What about his other life choices? Will he be allowed to eat beef (Oh noes, cholesteral (sp)) or what about butter, eggs, milk?) Likely not, because those of us who are able will not be ABLE to pay for those choices. So look forward to the government telling you what you can eat, mandating exercise regimens, measuring what you consume, etc.
Or - alternatively, those of us who are able will choose not to pay. Read Atlas Shrugged (not necessarily you, Adelmann
-- not sure really, where you stand, but chose your reply -- well, to which to reply).
I am ready for Galt's Gulch. I am ready to go on "strike". Any one else?
Things to think about.
Lilac Moon
Grrr -- edited to correct typo. -
-
The problem is that dear Ms. Rand never envisioned a world where the very wealthy were not the industrialists, and where the very wealthy were unwilling and unable to support themsleves through labor. Her world envisioned two classes: the innovators and the followers. In actuality, there are many classes. Galt' gulch would not work in today's world because the very wealthy do not innovate, the innovators do not work, and the workers have long since stopped caring about the classes that show them not one ounce of empathy.
-
-
Actually, she DID envision that world -- the people you are describing ("the very wealthy who are not industrialists") are discussed -- many are what she called the "Looters." Others she described as simply wastrels. The character in Atlas Shrugged, Wesley Mooch, is just one example.
She had no truck with those who did not work for a living. She had nothing but contempt for those who did not produce something worthwhile (and something worthwhile could be investing money to support an entrepreneur whose idea and work ethic were worth investing in and it could be supporting others who are working, or charity -- she discussed supporting people who were of value to the person who wished to be charitable) or who took advantage of legislation to pillage the wealth (work) of others.
I wonder if you have you recently read Atlas Shrugged.
Galt's Gulch would never support or accept Looters or the type of person you describe.
I guess also what concerns me about the direction this country is going is that we may all become responsible for our neighbors' choices.
I started to go on about this (what will happen when we are paying for our neighbors' choices, including the US government all up in our bidness regardin how many kids we can have, what we can eat and our sexual and other life choices) but this is a site dedicated to poetry...
All I can say is, I remain ready for Galt's Gulch
Lilac Moon
-
-
-
-
Jesus was a socialist.
-
-
Yes, he certainly was. Funny that the so-called religious right ...
seem to overlook that in their mad rantings. Then again, they are mostly crazy anyway, so what can you expect. Maybe someday they will get a chance to explain their multiple stupidities to Jesus himself. That would be an interesting conversation to listen in on.
-
-
Oh, for crying out loud.
I can't stand it when people casually throw the word "socialist" around in an effort to insult the liberal viewpoint. It's ignorant, and you insult yourself as much as me by engaging in it. I can see why a Republican would find the wording of Jim's contest pretty offensive. I tend to agree with him politically as often as not, but I don't approve in this case. I don't think it's constructive to make blanket public statements about large groups of people like that as a rule. So I get that when you read this page, you wanted to get back at the author. What I don't get is why, like so many people on both sides of the aisle, you choose to engage in stupid, pointless conversations like this one. You're never going to convince anyone of anything by insulting them, and among like-minded folks all you'll accomplish is making yourself feel good at an absent stranger's expense. So why bother? How about we all come in from recess and behave like people who think? I would expect a community of self-described poets to be fully capable of something more than party-line boilerplate and name-calling.
What do nuclear missiles have to do with socialism? Nothing whatsoever. Do you even know what socialism is? Sounds like you haven't read Karl Marx. As I recall, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (part of whose defunct membership we now call Russia) had more nukes than we did. China has nukes. North Korea has nukes. Granted, these are all communist countries I'm talking about (know the difference?), and even Marx himself said true socialism would never work in the real world, but if you'll let me pretend a communist country is the same as a socialist country, I just listed all the major ones, and they all have nukes. Seems like having nukes is as socialist as it is capitalist. If Iran winds up with them, it'll be theocratic, too. If we decide to get rid of nukes, it will be because they're hugely dangerous to have around, not because we're socialists.
I am in favor of funding a few social programs with some of the $651.2 billion (that's $0.21 of every tax dollar and 47% of all military expenditures world-wide, FYI) that we currently spend on the military, but that doesn't make me a socialist. I'm a capitalist like you. Likewise, while there are definitely some neocons out there whose racist, nationalist, war-mongering rhetoric freaks me out and offends me quite a bit, that doesn't make them fascists. I would be just plain wrong if I called them that. The real issue is I don't agree with them, and I want to subvert their viewpoint. There are much better ways to do that than discrediting myself.
Know what? Most of the global community has been in favor of nuclear disarmament longer than you've been breathing. Know why? We can blow up the entire world several times with the number nukes we have now. Seems a bit silly to keep firing them off after the point when we and all of our enemies have been incinerated at 1,000,000 degrees Celsius, don't you think? Why not bump that total back to just enough warheads to obliterate all non-cockroaches on the planet one time? No matter what happens, we'll never know the difference, right? Obviously you've thought of all this, but I figured I'd mention it.
By the way, if you think Fox is the only news source talking about the deficit going way up under Obama, maybe you should read transcripts of Obama's own speeches a little more often. This is not some well-guarded secret. The numbers on the national debt are available to anyone interested on the Internet. If that doesn't work for you, switch on a left-leaning radio network like NPR sometime. They talk about it roughly every other morning, seems like. Have you thought about what a balanced budget would have meant this year, incidentally? It was never even a possibility. We were in it for $1 trillion+ in red ink this year from just doing the stuff W put us up to.
Know who was the last President to balance the budget? Clinton, a Democrat. Know who changed that his first year in office? George W Bush. Know who was the architect of our national debt in the first place? Reagan. And his administration did it very much on purpose, too. I know that because they've said so in plain English. Crack a history book sometime. The "tax and spend liberal" label hasn't applied to a Democratic President in a very, very long time, and "bigger government" has been the philosophy of every Republican President at least since Nixon, and arguably since Eisenhower. That rhetoric is all complete and utter garbage. It's meaningless crap that power-hungry people say to discredit one another in the eyes of millions of people who aren't well enough informed to know the difference, and they keep saying it because that's exactly what it does. One of the things I like best about Barack is that he never, ever does that. Not even during the election, while people like you were baselessly branding him a socialist.
The straw-man arguments your ego uses to create "the bad guys" it needs to justify itself are not real. You're talking about real people. How much more would we get done in this country if we all got our facts straight and made sure we had a point before addressing our countrymen? Try it. That goes for everyone in here. -
-
Well said , I agree with everything there, and I feel less of a need to watch this thread and reply because looks like you said it all.
-
and btw, I have read karl marx. also, clinton balanced the budget and happened to be a democrat. lincoln, T. roosevelt, and eisenhower were all republican. party affiliation really has nothing to do with how good or bad a president you are. sure, bush screwed up, but lets see Obama deal with 9-11 or the like. I think Bush did a bang-up job with that. also, Clinton had several opportunities to take care of Bin laden but didn't. America looked like a dog with its tailed tucked between its legs after the 93 WTC bombing.
as for clinton....did he fix the debt with or without his pants around his ankles? (couldn't resist)
also, clinton's "success" had a lot to do with the dot com boom.
what is with the anti-republican stuff? I mean seriously, I'm a republican, i'm proud of that. Sure, Obama will probably be an OK president. I like some of his ideas. not all, but some. I'm not 100% republican. i don't go around shooting at posters or pictures of Obama, though i know democrats on democratice underground website has stated that bush is "evil incarnate". Last time i checked, the apocolypse hasnt' arrived. Next thing I will be attacked for is my religion. First United Methodist, by the way.
-
-
Atttacking you? Read again, please.
Anti-Republican stuff? What anti-Republican stuff? Did you even read what I wrote? All I did was respond to what you said in your post . Just for your review, here's what that was:
1. No matter how we vote, we are all human.
2. You are a gun-toting, red-neck Republican.
3. You strapped a picture of Obama to a bottle rocket on Independence day instead of shooting at it like you would if you were 100% Republican.
4. It is an act of socialism to get rid of nuclear missiles.
5. The national debt has tripled since Obama took office.
6. To your knowledge, Fox is the only news network which has reported on the national debt since 20 January 2009.
I responded to #1 by agreeing with you and further pointing out that we are also all countrymen, and it doesn't help anyone's cause when we declare each other enemies of capitalism, no matter how much our disagreements on policy might make us want to call each other the bad guys.
I did not comment on #2.
I inferred from #3 (reasonably, I think) that you did not like Barack Obama or his policies.
I responded to #4 by pointing out that socialism has absolutely nothing to do with nukes and referring you to Marx. Marx was pretty clear on what socialism means, and you seem to think it has something to do with weapons of mass destruction. Those were not even imagined in the time of Marx. I would urge you to read him again.
I pointed out that most of the world has agreed since long before you were born that getting rid of nukes is a good idea. Furthermore, it doesn't even diminish our divine right to wipe out all life on this planet as we see fit if we reduce our arsenal, and would not weaken us militarily at all. Any one of those warheads could wipe out a major city in a matter of seconds if the wrong folks got hold of it. Iran has no nuclear weapons yet. North Korea has, at most, 2-4. We have thousands of them. It was 1945 the last time we actually used one, and Japan got some new national holidays as a result. If we were to use one today, it would shoot our global reputation even more than stuff like sanctioned torture, unjust foreign wars, scandals that cost other countries trillions of dollars, and being generally arrogant. Plus we might get nuked ourselves in response. So why not get rid of a few?
I responded to #5 by pointing out that not only is our rising national debt not Obama's doing, and not only was it absolutely W's doing, furthermore, it was an explicit, intentional aim of the Republican party's patron saint, Ronald Reagan. Did you catch that? Reagan wanted a big national debt. It was an actual goal of his administration, and I heard one of his own officials explicitly say as much on national radio. W picked up where Reagan left off and took fiscal irresponsibility to a fantastic extreme. Now, in the first 6 months of Obama's presidency, you want to lay the debt at his feet because he's the guy signing the checks W made out for him? Are you completely serious? McCain would be signing the same checks, and W is thanking god it's not him. He couldn't get away from his own mess fast enough.
I responded to #6 by mentioning that NPR regularly reports on the national debt, so it's OK to get your news from someone other than Rupert Murdoch now.
Show me where I have bashed anyone. These are all just facts.
Now you say Obama couldn't handle a 9/11 scenario, and W did a fantabulous job of it. FIrstly, don't you think it would be pretty tough to keep the American populace from removing all its money from the banking system when all the economic indicators are saying stuff like "Worst Recession since the Great Depression?" I'd call that quite a crisis. I know I'll never forget watching the Dow-Jones lose 2,000 points in one week. Sounds tougher than standing on a pile of rubble in New York and saying, "We're going to get these bastards!" on network television.
What was it, exactly, that was so uncommon about that performance? I look back on it and see opportunism. At a time when he is so completely written off by the American public that his perceived stupidity has inspired a sitcom on Comedy Central, he sees the whole country angry and traumatized because we're not used to being attacked, and has the presence of mind to quickly label his entire messed-up agenda "patriotism." After that he tells the US military to go get the bad guys. That last part is the only thing I can think of that you might be talking about when you say he did such a great job. Anyone else in his position would have stood on that pile of rubble and done very much the same thing, because that's sort of the bare minimum expected based on his job description in that situation. Doing it doesn't make him America's Winston Churchill. Was he even really that inspiring in the act? We certainly didn't get anything on par with FDR's "December 7th, 1941 ... a day that will live in infamy..." out of him. Surely you don't imagine another politician would have stood up there and said something like, "OK, my fellow Americans, nothing to see here. Just an incident with some planes. Everything is OK."
W had a chance to catch bin Laden, too, by the way. Even if I agreed that the best idea in that situation is to topple a foreign government in the same place where Alexander the Great, the USSR and a whole host of other great empires got their asses kicked, Clinton's failure to catch bin Laden isn't nearly as remarkable as W's act of declaring war, sending our military to Afghanistan, toppling the Taleban with no exit strategy, then openly abandoning the search for bin Laden so he could send our military on another wild goose chase with no exit strategy in Iraq on false pretenses. Saddam's oil was more important to him. I'm not going to say he's evil, but I will say that he and his boss Dick Cheney were unquestionably the most disastrous administration for America and the world since at least Warren G. Harding's lovely Teapot Dome scandal. If you ask me, though, Harding didn't do nearly as much damage. W took the best set of circumstances he could have asked for and turned them into the most impressive, far-reaching quagmire in modern history. Literally everyone except himself and oil companies is worse off today because of him, and even our allies have trouble trusting us now. I'd say he's easily the worst president of all time.
Lastly, I didn't like hearing that the President of the United States was cheating on his wife, either. That's none of my business, though. You'll notice they're still married anyway, and given the choice, I know I'd rather see the President's marriage messed up than the whole world. -
-
thank you, but I'm sure I understand the gravity of nuclear weapons, thank you. I've passed many a MAF, as I live next to one of the three American bases to have Nuclear weapons as one of their duties to guard. Also, my sister is a missile cop in the Air Force.
as for G.W. Bush declaring war, technically, this began as a "Police conflict", much like Vietnam. I do not see how the economy failing can be compared to BLATANT MURDER. that is what 9-11 was. MURDER. and I recall gas prices going down during the last part of the GW Bush administration. I watched it drop from 4 bucks a gallon to a buck fifty.
I have admitted that the socialism was ill-placed. I seem to have mis-arranged my argument in my first comment and I meant to place a statement on the current single-payer healthcare issue. sorry, i am in the medical field, I really don't want my pay to go down anymore than it already has, considering all of my job opportunities are going over seas.
as for President Clinton's shameful personal life, yes, it should be just that, personal. However, would you hire someone to run a day care if he is a pedifile? (excuse any mis-spellings, please) No. Would you give someone a credit card if they have a crappy credit history? No. would you listen to the minister in the pulpit on Sunday morning talking about goodness and all that shee-bang, if he didn't show it in his personal life? Clinton's actions in his personal life reflected poor morals, poor personal strength, and a very pathetic person lying to the American people. "I did NOT have sexual relations with that woman." He BLATANTLY LIED to the american people and the Supreme Court.
I figured that one out and I was a CHILD when that happened. I was eight years old. and I knew what he did was wrong on sooo many levels.
I wish people would quit praising him for figuring out how to balance the governments checkbook. and yes, I know its a lot more difficult than that. -
-
Did you not hear me asking questions, or are you just refusing to think about them? As I stated in the first paragraph of my original response to your post, I have already heard all the party-line boilerplate, so there is no need for you to re-state it for me. Repeating the same stuff other people have already said over and over is not the same thing as having a conversation or a debate. All words exchanged in that mode are wasted, like when tourists visit countries whose language they can't speak, and try to get their message across to the locals by repeating the same English that wasn't understood the first time louder and louder.
I don't care if your ego needs to believe your perspective is 100% correct. It isn't, and neither is mine. There is no such thing as a 100% correct perspective. If you don't believe me, study philosophy.
If you're going to reply to this post, please think about the questions I'm asking instead of just reacting emotionally. Communication may be used to express emotions, but this is intellectual subject matter, and emotions rarely contain well-considered messages. I am your countryman, not your enemy. Got it? I'm hoping three paragraphs will have been enough to finally convey this idea. If not, I give up.
You have only asked one question. Here is what I understand you to be saying. Correct me if I'm wrong: People with bad credit should not be given credit cards, pedophiles should not be given positions in child care, and a preacher is not credible if he does not practice what he preaches. Clinton lied about having sex with Monica Lewinsky, and that was wrong. Yes, that was wrong. I think I see the analogy you're trying to make, but it doesn't work for me so far.
Questions:
1. If Lewinsky had no complaint, why was he being asked about giving the president a BJ in the first place? It was none of our business, and still isn't.
2. Do you honestly equate a pedophile day care professional with a President who cheats in his marriage?
3. If Clinton's infidelity while president is like having bad credit, how is being president like having a credit card? A credit card is an open line of credit that one is expected to pay back. Where in the job description of President does it say anything about being faithful in one's marriage?
Argument:
I was cheated on in my marriage, so my heart goes out to Hilary, but don't you think it was quite a lot harder on her to have her marriage put under the microscope like that? How regularly do we hear jokes cracked about her sexual desirability to her spouse on prime time TV 10 years later because of that? Despite her lucrative book deal, Lewinsky will be painted as a whore for the rest of her life. So who benefitted from that inquiry? I'll tell you who: congressional Republicans and George W. Bush, who wouldn't have had a snowflake's chance in hell of convincing slightly less than half of the electorate + Antonin Scalia that he was better than Gore if Clinton's name hadn't been smeared with mud. It was always about power - not morality. Surely you can see that. If things were otherwise, you wouldn't be talking about it in the context of a political discussion.
Infidelity is as old as commitment, and the President married his wife, not the USA. Therefore I say we shouldn't have been talking about his extramarital affair unless Lewinsky felt she had been abused by the President's position of power. Surely she did not imagine the President was going to leave his wife for her, and she never complained about their little fling. I don't approve of it, but it's still none of my (or your) business, and has nothing to do with the job Clinton was doing as President. If you can accept that he's a flawed individual who cheated on his wife, why is an unwillingness to admit as much to a bunch of folks who have no business asking him about it a big shocker?
It was a national issue only because of our puritanical streak in this country, and the fact that congressional Republicans smelled blood. Puritan sensibility is not mandated by law; infidelity is immoral in my opinion, but still not a crime; politics is, has been, and will always be about peoples' agendas and what lengths they will go to in an effort to see them realized. Case in point: Want to defeat the President's agenda? Distract the public from the successes of his administration by pretending his marriage says something about his job performance. Does it in fact? Who cares, as long as a bunch of Republicans wind up in office after the next election? Isn't that a more honest way of looking at it?
Now I will repeat my previous questions, and I hope you'll think about them this time:
1. Could you please give me just one rational, well-considered argument against reducing the number of nuclear weapons we'll never use to the point where we can kill everything on earth only once? Anecdotal assertions that you understand the gravity of nuclear weapons do not accomplish that.
2. Your original speculative statement that Obama could not handle an event like 9/11 is not supported by your argument that BLATANT MURDER is not a comparable thing to a failing economy. That might be why people were really traumatized at that point in time, but that fact says nothing about what is entailed in dealing with the situation. Could you please explain clearly why it is you feel W was so amazing in that situation?
I remember it pretty well, and it seems to me that his response to the situation consisted mostly of talking tough, starting two wars, alienating the entire global community by being unilateral and arrogant, and riling up enough flag-wavers to scare Congress into taking away a bunch of my civil liberties out of ignorance (because they were BLATANTLY LIED to about WMD's) and fear of being seen as "weak on terror." Furthermore, terrorist organizations have benefitted hugely from his policies, and terrorist attacks are far more frequent world-wide now than they ever were under Clinton. Want to encourage Osama bin Laden? Turn him into John Dillinger. Make him global public enemy #1, then stop looking for him and create a golden opportunity for him to recruit more terrorists by invading a sovereign nation for NO REASON. How is any of that stuff good? Seems to me his response to 9/11 has been an unmitigated disaster of epic proportions that wound up costing more American lives than were lost in the 9/11 attacks, countless civilian deaths in Iraq, Pakistan and Afghanistan, and a truly fantastic amount of money we needed for other stuff.
New question:
Could you please explain your assetion that Iraq/Afghanistan were police actions like Vietnam?
Argument:
We overthrew two governments, then installed new ones that take orders from us, which is exactly how the Romans took over all of Europe, and exactly what the USSR did in Poland, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, Romania, Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania and the rest of the Warsaw Pact countries. Maybe our two most recent all-out wars just seem like police actions to you because we had no exit strategy in either case, and therefore had to enforce order in both countries with our own military after we utterly vanquished the enemy, but at the same time we never decided to call Iraq and Afghanistan he 51st and 52nd United States. It is true that both wars were waged with a total lack of foresight like Vietnam (which was Johnson's fault - a Democrat), but we never defeated the North Vietnamese. They set up shop immediately after they kicked our asses out, and are still running things over there with zero help from us.
New question:
Could you please explain how a drop in gas prices at the end of Bush's second presidency is attributable to him in any way?
Argument:
Gas prices under Clinton dipped as low as $0.72 per gallon for regular, and were around $1.40 when W got elected. After that, they began an upward spike to well over $4.00 per gallon that never slowed down until the 2008 presidential election hit full swing. ExxonMobil regularly made $5-7 billion per quarter under Bush, and he was relentless in his drive to completely deregulate that industry as president. Why did gas prices drop like a brick around the time of the election?
1. Because gas prices always go down around the time of a presidential election.
2. Because the economy tanked, and commodity prices dropped like a brick.
3. Because big oil wanted to shrink from the public eye, so that John and Jane Q. Public and their goldfish memories would be less preoccupied with the consequences of being completely dependent on a monopoly whose fixed prices impact literaly every aspect of their lives around election day. If gas prices are too high on election day, the legislative agendas of the truly disturbing number of elected leaders that serve big oil stand to look pretty suspect to anyone who knows how to use the google search engine, particularly since the outgoing president, vice president and their entire cabinet - who all made their fortunes working for big oil, and were consistent in nothing more so than their efforts to serve its business interests - had the lowest approval rating since the 1940's. If they lower prices, perhaps they can manage to sell people on an absurd idea like the notion that the solution to our energy woes lies in giving big oil even more ways to turn a buck: "Drill baby, drill" offshore and in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge.
That's enough for now, I think. Once again, please don't bother responding if you're just going to repeat a bunch of party-line garbage. I don't want to hear about what is obvious to an 8-year-old, because 8-year-olds can't vote for good reason. I don't want to hear about how the Founding Fathers were all Christian, so therefore 200+ years later all 350 million of us should have to accept the legislative agenda of the Religious Right. I don't want to hear about how Saddam was such a bad guy, and that justifies invading his sovereign nation unprovoked while we remain chummy with our partners-in-oil Saudi Arabia, whose regime is widely considered the greatest human rights offender worldwide. I don't want to hear about how presumed terrorists can be safely labeled horrible people who deserve to be killed/tortured/indefinitely imprisoned without any criminal charges, let alone the kind of fair trial we'd give a serial killer. All that stuff is emotionally charged, opinion-based rhetoric that I do not subscribe to, and I've heard it before. Obviously you side with the conservative world view, or you would not call yourself a Republican, and I'm not questioning your right to have that world view. I want to respect your ability to step outside its protective confines and consider things independently. I want to see that you're not just mouthing words, and I have good reason to believe you disagree with me on a principled, well-considered basis. Unlike Jim, I am open to the idea that such might be the case. -
-
I am sure she won't respond sensibly to anything you say.
I've been dealing with these people for 45 years, and I've never found one of them who can give me a cogent argument even vaguely resembling what you've done here. They know absolutely zero about anything, and their discourse is always straight out of Orwell's 1984, i.e., doublespeak. To them, facts are immaterial.
You did, however, make an error in your statement about the U.S. being founded by Christians. It was not ever intended to be a Christian country. The founders made that clear from the beginning. It was intended to be a nation where all religions were acceptable. In a treaty that the U.S. made with a Muslim nation very early on, it was explicitly stated that the U.S. was not intended to be a Christian country, but a multi-religious society. I can find the information if you like. Thomas Jefferson was so disgusted with the Christian religion that he sat down with a Bible and razorblade and cut out everything he felt was ridiculous. By the time he got done, not much was left.
Like the young lady, I am a Methodist, but I don't think that's really relevant here. I only mention it because she did. I believe in STRICT separation of church and state, as did ALL of the founding fathers. Non one of them wanted a state religion, and for good reason. They had seen for themselves what state religions do, and knew what a mare's nest really looks like. When W was telling us that he talked to God, I thought he should be locked up in a padded room. Instead, they re-elected him (although I'm sure he stole that election, in Ohio, just like the Supreme Court stole the first one for him in Florida.)
Anyway, you won't get a rational answer from the young lady. She isn't capable of answering rationally because she doesn't think rationally. -
-
Rational thought is something anyone can do if they keep their emotions out of the way. For example, the second half of what you just said is purely opinion, and perhaps those opinions motivated the first part, but that doesn't mean your opinions can't have some semblance of a factual basis. That's why I'm asking for a rational argument.
The fact that the country was founded by Christians is empirically true, and wholly independent of the question of whether or not they they intended to establish a theocracy. I was stating that disembodied fact because it's the one that gets misconstrued by the rhetoric I'm tired of hearing, not because I use it to draw the same conclusion. -
-
Yes, I agree with your points ...
but I wanted to definitely clarify that one. This was not a country founded to be Christian. The majority of the original important founding fathers were deists, but not Christians.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Racism
Since the only indiginous race in the U.S.are the "Indians"
and the rest are a hotch potch of world wide racial origins
the "Race preservation" argument is a none starter for
Republican Fascists who typically come out of the woodwork during a world Capitalist Slump,looking for a scapegoat
.......George..... -
RSVP!!!
-
So while Fox is a joke- and incredibly bias and inaccurate, all of you slamming republicans are being stupid.
Does anyone else remember Obama's acceptance speech?
I think he said something along the lines of 'Don't create more divisions, and don't create more problems. He wants us to see where each other is coming from and try to understand.'
I'm a Democrat but I think there is something to be gained from every side and that as a country we won't get anywhere if we don't actually agree to disagree on some things or compromise. We have to see each other's sides because we need the viewpoints on both sides to pass laws, and we need to find a way to tolerate each other. Obama said change, and that means within Democrats too being more open minded, not just an administration and policy change.
Also, not all republicans have that extreme views, plenty are good people who I share basis core values with, at least those I know.
Just like they say all Democrats are all crazy tree huggers- by saying the republicans are all not able to comprehend anything , its a mass generalisation. There are plenty of crazy democrats, who I personally think should not be in office, but that doesn't mean all of us are like that.
-
-
Actually, Obama's point has caused endless problems ...
and slowed everything down since co-operating with Republicans appears to be impossible. All they know how to do is say no and practice their usual obstructionism.
I think you are extremely naive if you expect anything more from them, except possibly for the two women Senators from Maine. -
-
Well, we need to try, there are some that are less extreme. I wasn't referring to those elected being reasonable- but there are plenty people who are republicans who can be reasoned with- half the people in power now are idiots, minus the new administration.
Its called compromise, time, and seeing where people come from.
I expect nothing from anyone, however I expect my own party to try, and to make an effort.
Wars get started over less , we s hould be grateful we have two parties with strongly different views and we aren't at war that's amazing considering the rest of the world. My five year old cousins settle disagreements with less immaturity sometimes then our politicians, we need to stop finding wasy to disagree and look for ways that unite us, and build off of that.
Very few are doing that. -
-
I know some Republicans (although I wish I didn't) ...
including my own sister. Republicans, as someone said to me earlier, don't read, so they have no idea how stupid they actually sound to everyone but their own misguided minions. The only way I can talk to my own sister is to avoid politics altogether, since she knows nothing about politics. She's a Republican because our mother was one, and has no idea that the Republican party no longer exists.
There's one halfway sensible Republican on this site (called exit-stage-right I think), but he's the only one I know, or have known in the last 25 years. At least he's the only one I am aware of, and the Republicans I do know are so stupid I can't hold a sensible conversation with any of them on virtually any subject. I live in a senior citizens center filled with people who are so poor they can't afford to go out to eat more than once a month, if that. The idea of their being Republicans is risible, but unfortunately, they don't seem to get it. Of course living in Iowa means that most of them had parents or grandparents who were Republicans. That's their only reason for being Republicans. They blather on about "socialism" constantly, and are too dumb to know that the Social Security that supports them is pure socialism. So is the Medicare that pays their hospital bills.
Sorry, but I can't buy your assertations. -
-
I live in Cali so most of the people are Democrats, and most republicans are fairly decent. I know many democrats though who are only democratic because their parents were, and plenty of people who believed in Obama, but who are so brainwashed and really don't understand certain values, and who are incredibly prejudiced. Many kids at my school actually, they are Democratic but believe in some things culture and religion wise that astound me sometimes.
I'm not saying Dems are bad just that it goes for both sides; isn't Iowa a fairly conservative state too? So I would think they might me less reasonable and I wouldn't count senior citizens very good evidence for a lack of sensibility. Seniors tend to be a little forgetful, and most are struggling because their beliefs are fast becoming less popular as the world is c hanging- they believe in things crazy to us. Also if tmany you know are all seniors, that doesn't help your case because they aren't valid examples.
I know some however that are good people- I actually have two mildy close friends who are, and while on some values I disagree, both are really good people and we agree on many things. They are willing to hear both sides and I've discussed many of my views with one of them and she's willing to hear me out and concede that I make sense. The only point of contention for her and I is Gay marriage which she is strongly against due to according to her 'personal experiences' and I'm for it and dont' understand how strongly against it she is without reasoning.
The other girl did a speech which was something the entire 9th had to do, on being tolerant of other people's views and listening rather than judging and trying to compromise and understand. It was really good. -
Jim, I hear what you're saying - I really do - but I live in the DC Metro area, which is so overwhelmingly Democrat that I'm not sure why the Republicans bother voting at all. Even here, so many people were gung-ho about invading Iraq back in 2003 that at one point I started to wonder if maybe I was the one who had lost his mind. I'm no cynic, but the truth, I think, is that most people everywhere are know-nothing sheep who are easily led in stupid directions by divisive, manipulative rhetoric. That's why there's such a strong need for great leaders. There are no good guys or bad guys - just a lot of people who have been taught to see them. Otherwise we could never have a presidential election without discussing real issues. If you think about it, it even kind of makes sense: A room with too many visionaries in it will never agree on anything. Likewise, a room with none will reliably bolt in the direction that makes the majority feel good.
So you can choose to jump headlong into the fray of uninformed, pissed-off people who see their own countrymen as enemies to be defeated with the help of the re-manufactured, partisan barbs our once-great news media have gotten so good at couching as information, or you can see that scheme for what it really is - somebody's "divide and conquer" control tactic aimed at the masses - refuse to take part in that somebody's purely negative exercise, and try to shake the unthinking combatants up a little by saying something they haven't heard about 1,000,000 times already. Why bother writing them off? All it does is rile them up more. People will pleasantly surprise you a lot more often if you show them respect and good faith, and don't give up on them when they disappoint you. They're not going anywhere, and you'll certainly never convince them all that they're wrong by condemning them, but you might end up changing a few minds if you try to relate to them as people and hope for the best. And what more powerful way is there to touch a stranger than through art? -
-
I appreciate your point ...
but since I've tried all of those things over the last 25 years, I am through giving them the benefit of the doubt. I have come to the conclusion that they are either willfully evil or willfully stupid, and usually both.
-
-
-
-
-
-
good luck with this contest!
-
-
Thanks for stopping by ...
the purpose of this contest is to make people wake up and pay attention. So far it's working fairly well. At least some people here are now thinking of something besides sappy love poems and slicing their wrists.
-
-
you definitely know how to get peoples attention and although i cannot always enter. i always check your contests out...
truth be told you cant really write if youre slicing your wrist anyways.....
-
-
Not quite ...
you can write a message in blood on the wall, or wherever.
-
-
-
-
Fox News is no more guilty of propogandizing than any liberal television station.
i didn't see CNN cover any one of Obama's incredibly pathetic attempts at public speaking without the aid of the trusty teleprompter, but we heard ALL about how much sarah palin's wardrobe costs.
please. every piece of news you hear on TV is biased. -
-
Such nonsense ...
I wonder what alternate Universe you come from? No more guilty my dying *ss.
-
-
"He says Americans keep marrying other species. It was pure Republican philosophy as far as I can tell, taken to it's logical extreme."
WTF? Did you watch the video to which you linked? LOL (btw, should be "its"). The hosts on that show were stunned, to say the least.
"I'd like to see some decent poems about this statement. Republicans can even enter this one, if they have enough intelligence to write a coherent poem at any rate. I'm still ill and not up to writing much, but could use a good laugh. "
"No profanity, bashing..."
LOL
Interesting -- you've set up a contest with rules -- yet your commentary on those rules breaks your rules
This guy is OBVIOUSLY a nutbag and the interviewers, people from FOX news (whom you are demonizing) are obviously shocked and dismayed with what this nutbag is saying.
C'mon lol
Lilac Moon
Edited to add: I am a registered democrat. Why? because I thought democrats were critical thinkers. But I am thinking; perhaps they are not.
The older I get, the more I see that "democrats" and "republicans" are the same; they assume the worst of each other and demonize the other "party" every chance they get. It's boring and counter-productive.
Political affilations are a game and life is too short to play it. I will probably change my registration to Libertarian (and this contest helped), because it's the only philosophy that prizes the indiviual and so far, it has the most honest analysis of what motivates human beings (and yes, it does make room for "charity" -- look it up).
-
@ Penman since I have no other way of communicating:
I wanted to comment on your piece, but you are apparently ignoring me and I have NO idea why.
Your profile shows this when I look at it: 0 favs, 101 friends. 42 ignored...
I have to wonder -- what does this mean? Maybe Allpoetry's software is bugged? It's unusual to see someone ignoring that many people, not to mention the ratio of friends versus those ignored.
I won't comment here on your work until I know what's going on.
Hoping this is a bug,
Lilac Moon -
-
You know, it's funny ...
but I did like Atlas Shrugged, and The Fountainhead. Both were excellent books. However, I think Ayn Rand was a nutcase all the same. She wrote a really evil book which reminded me of a cross between Mein Kampf and Stalin's diary. It was sickening and disgusting.
What amazes me is that you claim to admire Atlas Shrugged and yet the people you are defending are the looters. They entirely own the Republican Party. I've forgotten more about being a Republican that you'll ever know, having been one most of my life. I know what Republicans are supposed to be, and it's not bigots, hate-mongers, liars, thieves, and profiteers, not to mention Ku Klux Klanners, and all manner of nutcases and morons.
The Republican Party died with the last two decent Republicans, Barry Goldwater and Everett Dirksen.
-
-
Thank you for the bronze. Congratulations to all the winners.
Adding your comment:
