Mplssoxfan Posted February 13, 2006 Share Posted February 13, 2006 Blatantly stolen from another message board: Bush Fails To Prevent East Coast Blizzard Minorities Hit Hardest by Some Lefty Reporter 02/12/06 As President Bush and his staff cowered in the White House, the snow continued to pile up on the many poor and African Amercian victims who could not afford to get out of town or to safety in Florida. Crucial supplies of blankets, hot cocoa, popcorn and dark rum - so essential to surviving the stress of any major snowstorm - lay in stores undelivered. "Where is the government? I need my sidewalk shovelled so I can get out to buy my damn lottery tickets!" said one D.C. resident from his living room. "Why are we wasting money in Iraq when we could be spending it here on me?" Progressive blogs blasted the President for his inaction. "We find the timing terribly suspicious - just as the Domestic Spying hearings kick into high gear, what happens? A major northeast Blizzard. Why now?" wrote blogger FukAmericanNBush2. Hearings into the Blizzards' effect on hearings are almost a certainty. Howard Dean has suggested he will call for an investigation once his new medications kick in and John Kerry took a break from the sporting activities of the glamourous super-rich in some exotic locale (random choice: Ice Sailing in Finland) to call for new legislation outlawing snowstorms. "The Republican Congress has dropped the ball once again. I have always been a staunch supporter of anti-snow legislation, except for certain locations where I ski. Snow has no business on our roads and the President and Congress knows that." Calls for impeachment over "SnowGate" as some are calling it already are mounting as deeply as the snow itself, and what will be discovered underneath will prove to have a truly chilling effect on the Republicans, as the inevitable thaw proceeds. Or something like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
juddling Posted February 13, 2006 Share Posted February 13, 2006 Nice article...but let's get real. Bush can't even protect us from the gun-weilding VP much less snow!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NUKE_CLEVELAND Posted February 13, 2006 Share Posted February 13, 2006 QUOTE(juddling @ Feb 13, 2006 -> 11:33 AM) Nice article...but let's get real. Bush can't even protect us from the gun-weilding VP much less snow!!!! LOL! Article was hilarious, but some lefty will probably start whining about the storms effects before long. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoxFan562004 Posted February 13, 2006 Share Posted February 13, 2006 this is a great article, but I do agree with Nuke, some liberals will start crying about a response to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted February 13, 2006 Share Posted February 13, 2006 I have to say, on this board anyway, I see a LOT more of the GOP'ers saying the Dems will blame everything on Bush, then any liberals or anyone else actually doing so. I've said it before, the GOP is vastly superior to the Dems at marketing. This is not an insult, its a compliment. They are particularly good at theme-building (Dems complain about everything and never contribute ideas), and reverse-position placement (defend the theft of freedoms by calling it defending freedom). Combine them, and the result is the argument made in this thread. Neat trick, huh? It works on a significant chunk of the soft middle of the electorate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Controlled Chaos Posted February 13, 2006 Share Posted February 13, 2006 (edited) QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Feb 13, 2006 -> 12:17 PM) I have to say, on this board anyway, I see a LOT more of the GOP'ers saying the Dems will blame everything on Bush, then any liberals or anyone else actually doing so. I've said it before, the GOP is vastly superior to the Dems at marketing. This is not an insult, its a compliment. They are particularly good at theme-building (Dems complain about everything and never contribute ideas), and reverse-position placement (defend the theft of freedoms by calling it defending freedom). Combine them, and the result is the argument made in this thread. Neat trick, huh? It works on a significant chunk of the soft middle of the electorate. I don't think it's marketing as much as I think most people believe in the inherent good of other people. Most democrats want me to believe Bush is a bad evil person and I don't. I'm supposed to believe he is a racist, oil hungry, religious crazed, war mongering, anti evironmentalist who hates women and our civil liberties. Well I don't believe it. I believe he wants the best for this country, and while his opinions may differ from others, he isn't an evil person. He isn't out to hurt the poor and help the rich. He didn't go to war for oil. He wasn't sitting at his desk in the white house saying....slow down with the help for New Orleans, they're mostly black people. He isn't spying on two old ladies chatting about their next crocheting project. The more ridiculous the accusations democrats come up with the more I tend to not believe them. That's what works on a significant chunk of the soft middle of the electorate Edited February 13, 2006 by Controlled Chaos Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Kickass Posted February 13, 2006 Share Posted February 13, 2006 But you seem to believe the exact opposite about Dems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Controlled Chaos Posted February 13, 2006 Share Posted February 13, 2006 QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Feb 13, 2006 -> 12:56 PM) But you seem to believe the exact opposite about Dems. We never even talk about specific Dems... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted February 13, 2006 Share Posted February 13, 2006 QUOTE(Controlled Chaos @ Feb 13, 2006 -> 01:55 PM) I don't think it's marketing as much as I think most people believe in the inherent good of other people. Most democrats want me to believe Bush is a bad evil person and I don't. I'm supposed to believe he is a racist, oil hungry, religious crazed, war mongering, anti evironmentalist who hates women and our civil liberties. Well I don't believe it. I believe he wants the best for this country, and while his opinions may differ from others, he isn't an evil person. He isn't out to hurt the poor and help the rich. He didn't go to war for oil. He wasn't sitting at his desk in the white house saying....slow down with the help for New Orleans, they're mostly black people. He isn't spying on two old ladies chatting about their next crocheting project. The more ridiculous the accusations democrats come up with the more I tend to not believe them. That's what works on a significant chunk of the soft middle of the electorate Thank you for further illustrating my point with your post: open with the "good people of America" statement, make some wild accusatory statements and attribute them to Democrats (even though no on here is saying those things), throw in some hyberbole examples, and close with the labeling of the all Dems as not deserving of your opening statement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigSqwert Posted February 13, 2006 Share Posted February 13, 2006 QUOTE(Controlled Chaos @ Feb 13, 2006 -> 01:55 PM) He isn't out to hurt the poor and help the rich. He didn't go to war for oil. He wasn't sitting at his desk in the white house saying....slow down with the help for New Orleans, they're mostly black people. He isn't spying on two old ladies chatting about their next crocheting project. I didn't realize you two were so tight and that he actually confides in you, telling you his true motives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted February 13, 2006 Share Posted February 13, 2006 QUOTE(BigSqwert @ Feb 13, 2006 -> 02:03 PM) I didn't realize you two were so tight and that he actually confides in you, telling you his true motives. OK Chaos, I must concede, there is one person on this board who tends to blame everything on Bush (*cough* Sqwert *cough*) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Controlled Chaos Posted February 13, 2006 Share Posted February 13, 2006 QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Feb 13, 2006 -> 01:02 PM) Thank you for further illustrating my point with your post: open with the "good people of America" statement, make some wild accusatory statements and attribute them to Democrats (even though no on here is saying those things), throw in some hyberbole examples, and close with the labeling of the all Dems as not deserving of your opening statement. I guess you think I had some sort of agenda with my repsonse. I wasn't making statements regarding any dems on this board, I was referring to things Democratic leaders have said...Carter, Clinton, Pelosi, Kennedy. Who gives a flying f*** what you or I say on soxtalk.com...I was just giving my opinion on what turns some of the middle, but whatever dude. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxy Posted February 13, 2006 Share Posted February 13, 2006 QUOTE(Controlled Chaos @ Feb 13, 2006 -> 02:59 PM) We never even talk about specific Dems... Except Hillary, Carter, Kerry, Clinton, Gore. . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigSqwert Posted February 13, 2006 Share Posted February 13, 2006 QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Feb 13, 2006 -> 02:06 PM) OK Chaos, I must concede, there is one person on this board who tends to blame everything on Bush (*cough* Sqwert *cough*) hey...I voted for Bush in 2000. But I can admit mistakes, unlike people in the current administration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Controlled Chaos Posted February 13, 2006 Share Posted February 13, 2006 QUOTE(BigSqwert @ Feb 13, 2006 -> 01:03 PM) I didn't realize you two were so tight and that he actually confides in you, telling you his true motives. I never said I knew his true motives. I'm saying I believe in the inherent good of most people and I don't belive his true motives are evil. Most democratic leaders preach otherwise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigSqwert Posted February 13, 2006 Share Posted February 13, 2006 QUOTE(Controlled Chaos @ Feb 13, 2006 -> 02:15 PM) I never said I knew his true motives. I'm saying I believe in the inherent good of most people and I don't belive his true motives are evil. Most democratic leaders preach otherwise. I did too until the whole Iraq thing. Seemed to be a hidden agenda right from the start as I saw no correlation to 9/11. That's when he lost me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Kickass Posted February 13, 2006 Share Posted February 13, 2006 It seems that the people who have been using good and evil terms the most lately, have not been Democrats. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Controlled Chaos Posted February 13, 2006 Share Posted February 13, 2006 QUOTE(Soxy @ Feb 13, 2006 -> 01:09 PM) Except Hillary, Carter, Kerry, Clinton, Gore. . . Usually the only time I see stuff on them is when people are commenting on what they said about the administration or things the administration did wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevin57 Posted February 14, 2006 Share Posted February 14, 2006 (edited) QUOTE(BigSqwert @ Feb 13, 2006 -> 02:18 PM) I did too until the whole Iraq thing. Seemed to be a hidden agenda right from the start as I saw no correlation to 9/11. That's when he lost me. I'll agree that Bush has done a lousy job at explaining the broader picture of the war on terror. I'd refer anyone to an engaging book, The Pentagon's New Map by Thomas Barnett (PBS also taped a multi-part presentation he gave to military types.). He articulates and advocates what the overall strategy on terror is: a transformation of tyrannical states, especially in the Middle East. Iraq was seen as a critical "cog, and from a military point of view, an "easier" State in which to accomplish this with hardware. However, the overall and ultimate goal is to bring this part of the world into a more democratic, modern stance. Now, one can have lots of arguments about some of these assumptions, but I am supportive of the need to transform this part of the world if one is to stem terrorism. For every one terrorist killed, two more can be created. At the same time, it is not possible in this age of globalization for us to pretend or hope that the disaffected of our world will "just leave us alone." So, there's got to be a combination of political, educational, military, etc. approaches to deal with this problem. Bottom line: it's going to be a 40-50 year process...one not dissimilar from the Cold War strategy. Edited February 14, 2006 by kevin57 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AngelasDaddy0427 Posted February 15, 2006 Share Posted February 15, 2006 All I know is it's going to be 4 freaken degrees up here after tomarrow... If it doesn't get back up into the 50's soon i'm going to write a letter to my congressman... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts