Anyone for a nightcap?

[Homburg]

Um. Well, candlelight is flattering!

I'm Fair and Balanced ITW - just like it says under my avatar. Anyway, I don't think he's corrupt, per se. He just believes his political beliefs are divinely inspired.

So you're the Fox News of Lit? I'm not sure how I feel about that, even if it might lead to you being tied up in Netzach's backyard.

And the divinely inspired thing is exactly what terrifies me. Dominionists give me nightmares. Seriously.

 

[intothewoods]

So you're the Fox News of Lit? I'm not sure how I feel about that, even if it might lead to you being tied up in Netzach's backyard.

And the divinely inspired thing is exactly what terrifies me. Dominionists give me nightmares. Seriously.

Well, gee, that sounds familiar...have you heard of our President??? Name me a Democrat who says, I prayed and decided to go to war. Or because of the 'coming of the end of days', we don't need environmental protection laws. Again, I am telling you, the two parties are not the same, despite the Democrats' multiple failings, including, gasp - shudder - the horror - registering the underclass to vote.

What nerve of those Democrats. I try my hardest to spit on the illiterate hoards myself, wherever I go, but it does take up so much time. If only we had someplace to send them.

And yes, I'm in a mood. I would do better tied up in Netzach's backyard, though I think it's kind of cold in Minnesota.

 

[Chris_Xavier]

Gee.. did someone forget to take her Midol today?

*ducks out of the room to avoid the shoe that is being hurled at my head*

 

[intothewoods]

Gee.. did someone forget to take her Midol today?

*ducks out of the room to avoid the shoe that is being hurled at my head*

That's your comeback? I've actually never taken midol, but the packaging is so darn appealing.

 

[Homburg]

Well, gee, that sounds familiar...have you heard of our President??? Name me a Democrat who says, I prayed and decided to go to war. Or because of the 'coming of the end of days', we don't need environmental protection laws.

Pay more attention to Deep South Democrats.

And I did not vote for our current president either time. Prescient

Again, I am telling you, the two parties are not the same, despite the Democrats multiple failings, including, gasp - shudder - the horror - registering the underclass to vote.

There is no worthwhile difference between them. On each issue, they tend to differ by degrees. Yes, you can take the extreme ends of the parties and show how different they are, but witness the majority of each and you'll see that they vary by degrees. Neither party seeks to produce meaningful change (regardless of Edwards' platitudes), nor do they seek to increase our freedom, realistically reduce govt waste, or really do a goddamned thing other than spend loads of money and get reelected.

What nerve of those Democrats. I try my hardest to spit on the illiterate hoards myself, wherever I go, but it does take up so much time. If only we had someplace to send them.

And yes, I'm in a mood. I would do better tied up in Netzach's backyard, though I think it's kind of cold in Minnesota.

I will say that I find it enjoyable to be needled with similar, or perhaps even more, ferocity as you favour the opposition with when my core message is "They both suck". Are you grumpy because I do not sing the praises of your chosen interest group, or because I deride the two-party stranglehold en toto?

And I have absolutely no clue where you're going with the "illiterate horde" comments, so here is a random piece of political imagery that I find particularly happy-making:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v472/moonduck/warning-fascism.jpg​

 

[Chris_Xavier]

That's your comeback? I've actually never taken midol, but the packaging is so darn appealing.

No.. I was just being an ass.. as you know so well I can be.

 

[intothewoods]

Deep south democrats are a dying breed!

Oh my god, you infuriate me Homburg. It's not just about who's running for president. I agree with you that "they both suck" and I don't need you to sing the praises of democrats. But for the love of all that is good and holy, you are smoking crack if you think everything and everyone that makes up the democratic party is the same as everything and everyone that makes up the republican party.

And fuck that - the bottom line is that there are consequences to having a republican or republicans in power - to your civil liberties, to my uterus, to our respective bedroom activities, to gay rights, to the environment and on and on. How can you say it doesn't matter?

 

[Chris_Xavier]

Like there aren't consequences to having a Democrat in the Oval Office? I personally shudder at the thought of either "extreme" in power. The ultra-left wing is communinism - and they are still out there - don't let those pieces of the Berlin Wall for sale fool you.

 

[Homburg]

Deep south democrats are a dying breed!

*shurg* And? You asked for democrats that play that tired old "Praise Jebus" card and look to The Lord for guidance. Deep South Democrats do just that, much like their Republicans counterparts.

But, wait! For my next magic trick I can also show Republicans that don't follow the dictates of Invisible Sky Fairy.

Oh my god, you infuriate me Homburg.

Hawt.

It's not just about who's running for president. I agree with you that "they both suck" and I don't need you to sing the praises of democrats. But for the love of all that is good and holy, you are smoking crack if you think everything and everyone that makes up the democratic party is the same as everything and everyone that makes up the republican party.

Do you read what I post? Or do you just index back to one post that reached down deep, touched you in a private place, and stoked a rraging white-hot anger directed at moi? (completely hawt, by the way. Rawr)

I'll quote myself:

There is no worthwhile difference between them. On each issue, they tend to differ by degrees. Yes, you can take the extreme ends of the parties and show how different they are, but witness the majority of each and you'll see that they vary by degrees. Neither party seeks to produce meaningful change (regardless of Edwards' platitudes), nor do they seek to increase our freedom, realistically reduce govt waste, or really do a goddamned thing other than spend loads of money and get reelected.

Tell me, please, where that says "everything and everyone that makes up the democratic party is the same as everything and everyone that makes up the republican party"?

And fuck that - the bottom line is that there are consequences to having a republican or republicans in power - to your civil liberties, to my uterus, to our respective bedroom activities, to gay rights, to the environment and on and on. How can you say it doesn't matter?

Have the democrats significantly advanced sexual freedom? Have they significantly advanced gay marriage rights? Have they protected our civil liberties? Where were they when the Patriot act was on the table? Voting for it, that's where. Where were they when the Iraq War was being voted on? Oh yeah, a fat lot of them were voting for it.

You know what? The republicans are awful, I agree, but the democrats aren't shining white knights valiantly defending our honour.

They. Both. Suck.

Do you want civil liberties? Sexual freedom? Reproductive rights? Gay marriage? Vote green or libertarian, or some other party that respects those things. The democrats pay lip service to them.

 

[intothewoods]

Like there aren't consequences to having a Democrat in the Oval Office? I personally shudder at the thought of either "extreme" in power. The ultra-left wing is communinism - and they are still out there - don't let those pieces of the Berlin Wall for sale fool you.

Yeah, cause Dennis Kucinich is so electable. Clinton was fairly moderate, actually. No electable Democrat is ultra left wing.

 

[Chris_Xavier]

Yeah, cause Dennis Kucinich is so electable. Clinton was fairly moderate, actually. No electable Democrat is ultra left wing.

HRC electable? Moderate? Did you know she started out her political career as a "Goldwater Girl"?

 

[intothewoods]

*shurg* And? You asked for democrats that play that tired old "Praise Jebus" card and look to The Lord for guidance. Deep South Democrats do just that, much like their Republicans counterparts.

But, wait! For my next magic trick I can also show Republicans that don't follow the dictates of Invisible Sky Fairy.



Hawt.




Do you read what I post? Or do you just index back to one post that reached down deep, touched you in a private place, and stoked a rraging white-hot anger directed at moi? (completely hawt, by the way. Rawr)

I'll quote myself:



Tell me, please, where that says "everything and everyone that makes up the democratic party is the same as everything and everyone that makes up the republican party"?




Have the democrats significantly advanced sexual freedom? Have they significantly advanced gay marriage rights? Have they protected our civil liberties? Where were they when the Patriot act was on the table? Voting for it, that's where. Where were they when the Iraq War was being voted on? Oh yeah, a fat lot of them were voting for it.

You know what? The republicans are awful, I agree, but the democrats aren't shining white knights valiantly defending our honour.

They. Both. Suck.

Do you want civil liberties? Sexual freedom? Reproductive rights? Gay marriage? Vote green or libertarian, or some other party that respects those things. The democrats pay lip service to them.

Stop dry humping your keyboard.

Valid points, but a of couple of things...Many may play the Jesus card, but only one President has actually appointed people run departments who believe that no policy is needed because judgment day is coming.

Do the Democrats pay lip service to all of the things I listed? Yes. But do they appoint judges who will uphold a freaking sodomy law? Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act, but would a Democratic congress have passed it? I don't think so. They both suck, but the Democrats suck less.

I'm losing brain power because I need to be fed, and to run an errand or two. Later skater.

 

[Homburg]

Yeah, cause Dennis Kucinich is so electable. Clinton was fairly moderate, actually. No electable Democrat is ultra left wing.

I kinda like Kucinich. I'm not totally sure why. The smoking hot wife helps, but there's something about him that I like. Not saying he'd make a good president necessarily, but I like him.

Clinton, and I'll take some heat for this, wasn't a bad president overall. He had some honesty issues that taint an otherwise pretty good run. Yeah, he had his problems, but the country ran fairly well during his term. Whether he deserves credit for that, or not, is another debate.

Stop dry humping your keyboard.

That sounds so damned painful. Ouch.

Valid points, but a of couple of things...Many may play the Jesus card, but only one President has actually appointed people run departments who believe that no policy is needed because judgment day is coming.

And the president is the whole of the party?

Do the Democrats pay lip service to all of the things I listed? Yes. But do they appoint judges who will uphold a freaking sodomy law? Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act, but would a Democratic congress have passed it? I don't think so. They both suck, but the Democrats suck less.

I'm losing brain power because I need to be fed, and to run an errand or two. Later skater.

At the end of the day, I just want a president that speaks well and doesn't make us all look like idiots on the world stage. I personally have given up hope for meaningful change and improvement, and I'll settle for not looking stupid. It's not much to ask for, right?

 

[intothewoods]

HRC electable? Moderate? Did you know she started out her political career as a "Goldwater Girl"?

She's in the range of electable, and she voted for the Patriot Act and for sending troops to Iraq. She has not been a big critic of the administration by any means. That's what I was saying to you on IM - Hillary as liberal champion is fiction.

 

[Homburg]

She's in the range of electable, and she voted for the Patriot Act and for sending troops to Iraq. She has not been a big critic of the administration by any means. That's what I was saying to you on IM - Hillary as liberal champion is fiction.

Hillary liberal? Hell no. And that's an albatross around her neck right now. She's too establishment. Too conservative, and (D)-people don't want More of The Same in 2008.

 

[midwestyankee]

She's in the range of electable, and she voted for the Patriot Act and for sending troops to Iraq. She has not been a big critic of the administration by any means. That's what I was saying to you on IM - Hillary as liberal champion is fiction.

BINGO! And she's a freaking evil fiction to boot.

 

[Chris_Xavier]

Whether he deserves credit for that, or not, is another debate.

You forget that he paid the North Koreans to stop producing weapons grade nuclear material (which they didn't), failed to nab Osama when we had the chance (when he was in Sudan and they didn't want him around anymore)- thus allowing for two embassies to be blown to hell and 9/11, and it was under his reign that OKC got its foundation shook up.

 

[Homburg]

You forget that he paid the North Koreans to stop producing weapons grade nuclear material (which they didn't), failed to nab Osama when we had the chance (when he was in Sudan and they didn't want him around anymore)- thus allowing for two embassies to be blown to hell and 9/11, and it was under his reign that OKC got its foundation shook up.

No, I didn't. I just do not think those events alone were worth indicting him. As I said, he had his problems.

1) Paying the North Koreans - Better NK with some money than NK with nukes. It sets up a bad precedent, sure, but given the consequences to SK, I'll bend a bit.

2) Osama - Whatever. There are a billion what-if scenarios out there. You can blame anyone you want for anything you want if you dig far enough and make enough tenuous connections. At the end of the day, we were ripe for major terrorist attack, and everybody knows it. It was a "when" scenario, not an "if" one.

3) OKC - OKC reflects badly on Clinton how? It happened on his watch, woo. If that's enough reason to call him bad, well, Bush is an utter cock in the ass.

And stop causing me to defend Clinton. These are lame-ass attacks. Gig him on the meaty stuff, not insipid shit like this. The NK thing has the most teeth, and it's still thin.

 

[intothewoods]

I
And the president is the whole of the party?

No, but the president has appointment powers.

I also like Kucinich and thought Clinton was a decent president.

 

[intothewoods]

No, I didn't. I just do not think those events alone were worth indicting him. As I said, he had his problems.

1) Paying the North Koreans - Better NK with some money than NK with nukes. It sets up a bad precedent, sure, but given the consequences to SK, I'll bend a bit.

2) Osama - Whatever. There are a billion what-if scenarios out there. You can blame anyone you want for anything you want if you dig far enough and make enough tenuous connections. At the end of the day, we were ripe for major terrorist attack, and everybody knows it. It was a "when" scenario, not an "if" one.

3) OKC - OKC reflects badly on Clinton how? It happened on his watch, woo. If that's enough reason to call him bad, well, Bush is an utter cock in the ass.

And stop causing me to defend Clinton. These are lame-ass attacks. Gig him on the meaty stuff, not insipid shit like this. The NK thing has the most teeth, and it's still thin.

Agreed.

 

[intothewoods]

BINGO! And she's a freaking evil fiction to boot.

She's not evil. Again, fiction. She's neither extreme.

 

[Homburg]

No, but the president has appointment powers.

You're all over the map here, ITW. We're discussing republicans and religions, and I'm giving you grief for using President Prayguide as your sole example, and now you mention appointment powers? Um, I'm not tracking here.

I also like Kucinich and thought Clinton was a decent president.

Decent is a good term for his presidency. Decent meaning adequate or slightly more than adequate. The moral version of decent has no place with Bill

Agreed.

Of course you would agree, Rabid Donkey Fangirl.

 

[midwestyankee]

She's not evil. Again, fiction. She's neither extreme.

Evil may be a slight overstatement, but ask yourself this: how much of the appropriation of executive power done by the Bush administration do you think HRC would give back? How much of the sullying of the constitution do you think she will willingly repair?

And make mine a single malt, neat, please.

 

[intothewoods]

You're all over the map here, ITW. We're discussing republicans and religions, and I'm giving you grief for using President Prayguide as your sole example, and now you mention appointment powers?

Dude, I am telling you that there is a diffeence between talking about God and being a fundamentalist Christan cum pol and appointing people who think protecting earth's environment is stupid, because judgment day is coming any minute.

 

[intothewoods]

Evil may be a slight overstatement, but ask yourself this: how much of the appropriation of executive power done by the Bush administration do you think HRC would give back? How much of the sullying of the constitution do you think she will willingly repair?

And make mine a single malt, neat, please.

Good question. She is power hungry, and maybe she wouldn't cede that power. I still don't think she's evil. More like, typical.