The Democrat Thread

[Balta1701]

The point is kind of weak and actually it's entirely moot to be honest. Who the f*** would care if someone was building a Christian center there? There would be no controversy and nothing to talk about.

If someone wanted to build a Christian center in Mecca or Jerusalem, I'd support it wholeheartedly and I'd hope everyone else would as well. The locals in Mecca, for example, would not. Which is exactly why this country is right.

[kapkomet]

The point is kind of weak and actually it's entirely moot to be honest. Who the f*** would care if someone was building a Christian center there? There would be no controversy and nothing to talk about.

 

 

If someone wanted to build a Christian center in Mecca or Jerusalem, I'd support it wholeheartedly and I'd hope everyone else would as well. The locals in Mecca, for example, would not. Which is exactly why this country is right.

 

You're only thinking this through about 15% to 25% of the way here. This is ALL, from every angle, a poltical statement.

 

Built it? /// Uhhh Ground Zero!! (check). In this way, we can make those stupid American f***ers racist pigs that they are, even though building here is of course imflammatory to begin with...

 

let's get those Allah Hating people in our face, because it makes us look like the tolerant ones (check).

 

Pull in the political leaders and start the back and forth (check).

 

Imam makes phone calls talking about what a meat feast this is turning into - send more money - NOW - so we can get the shariah mentions in here... (check)

 

Imam meets with mayor Bloomburg, tells him he'll get some cash out of the deal in the backroom, Mayor announces this as a great idea (check this one is the chaching kind)

 

Call in more controversy by saying that they are only coming to this particular site out of revverence, love, peace, and all that crap for the people who died there that day (check) ....... all the while knowing that even the action being considered is condecending, provacative, and just downright "morally repugnant" knowing the seeds down there. (check)

 

Now you have the Sean Hannity's of the world running around talking how bad this is (check) and therefore how much better they all really are, because ultimiately a "peaceful (YET DISRESFECTFUL AS HELL) religion" wants to clearly set up base there to make a name for themselves on one of the most controversial places in the world.

 

For Chris's sakes, just make the movie about it and get it over with... bunch of attention whores trying to make points that frankly don't need to be made there.

[Balta1701]

[Balta1701]

Is it even worth noting that the other 2 mosques near the WTC site have a habit of filling up to the point that they have to close their doors...such that there is legitimate demand in the area for additional worship facilities in that region?

[HuskyCaucasian]

You're only thinking this through about 15% to 25% of the way here. This is ALL, from every angle, a poltical statement.

 

Built it? /// Uhhh Ground Zero!! (check). In this way, we can make those stupid American f***ers racist pigs that they are, even though building here is of course imflammatory to begin with...

 

let's get those Allah Hating people in our face, because it makes us look like the tolerant ones (check).

 

Pull in the political leaders and start the back and forth (check).

 

Imam makes phone calls talking about what a meat feast this is turning into - send more money - NOW - so we can get the shariah mentions in here... (check)

 

Imam meets with mayor Bloomburg, tells him he'll get some cash out of the deal in the backroom, Mayor announces this as a great idea (check this one is the chaching kind)

 

Call in more controversy by saying that they are only coming to this particular site out of revverence, love, peace, and all that crap for the people who died there that day (check) ....... all the while knowing that even the action being considered is condecending, provacative, and just downright "morally repugnant" knowing the seeds down there. (check)

 

Now you have the Sean Hannity's of the world running around talking how bad this is (check) and therefore how much better they all really are, because ultimiately a "peaceful (YET DISRESFECTFUL AS HELL) religion" wants to clearly set up base there to make a name for themselves on one of the most controversial places in the world.

 

For Chris's sakes, just make the movie about it and get it over with... bunch of attention whores trying to make points that frankly don't need to be made there.

[GoSox05]

So Sharron Angle talked about how great privatized social security was under Augusto Pinochet. I wonder what would happen if Obama came out tomorrow and said he was a big fan of certain policies in Cuba during the 70's.

 

 

[KipWellsFan]

You're only thinking this through about 15% to 25% of the way here. This is ALL, from every angle, a poltical statement.

 

Built it? /// Uhhh Ground Zero!! (check). In this way, we can make those stupid American f***ers racist pigs that they are, even though building here is of course imflammatory to begin with...

 

let's get those Allah Hating people in our face, because it makes us look like the tolerant ones (check).

 

Pull in the political leaders and start the back and forth (check).

 

Imam makes phone calls talking about what a meat feast this is turning into - send more money - NOW - so we can get the shariah mentions in here... (check)

 

Imam meets with mayor Bloomburg, tells him he'll get some cash out of the deal in the backroom, Mayor announces this as a great idea (check this one is the chaching kind)

 

Call in more controversy by saying that they are only coming to this particular site out of revverence, love, peace, and all that crap for the people who died there that day (check) ....... all the while knowing that even the action being considered is condecending, provacative, and just downright "morally repugnant" knowing the seeds down there. (check)

 

Now you have the Sean Hannity's of the world running around talking how bad this is (check) and therefore how much better they all really are, because ultimiately a "peaceful (YET DISRESFECTFUL AS HELL) religion" wants to clearly set up base there to make a name for themselves on one of the most controversial places in the world.

 

For Chris's sakes, just make the movie about it and get it over with... bunch of attention whores trying to make points that frankly don't need to be made there.

 

 

ur weerd

[Rex Kickass]

If this were a 'Christian' center, would he have stood up as strongly for this? We all know the answer to that.

 

Again, this is all just a big show.

 

If it came up at all, I'd wager that he would, actually. But if this was a "christian" center in Lower Manhattan, I'm pretty sure you wouldn't have fearmongering political hacks generating fake outrage about it.

[mr_genius]

so now Barack Hussein Obama wants to build a mosque on ground zero in New York huh

 

disgraceful.

[bmags]

So Sharron Angle talked about how great privatized social security was under Augusto Pinochet. I wonder what would happen if Obama came out tomorrow and said he was a big fan of certain policies in Cuba during the 70's.

 

You don't have to go that far, look at the ridicule for ever bringing up how a european gov't might be doing something better, you get the "well why don't you live there" and weakness blah blah. And those gov'ts obviously don't brutalize their populations.

[KipWellsFan]

so now Barack Hussein Obama wants to build a mosque on ground zero in New York huh

 

disgraceful.

 

 

Yah and that crazy judge who voted against the Nevada law and then released a press release about it!

 

What horrible people.

 

Kudos to Obama for standing up against ignorance, prejudice, fear, and political expediency.

Edited August 16, 2010 by KipWellsFan

[NorthSideSox72]

Yah and that crazy judge who voted against the Nevada law and then released a press release about it!

 

What horrible people.

 

Kudos to Obama for standing up against ignorance, prejudice, fear, and political expediency.

I think mr_g was being sarcastic there.

 

[Rex Kickass]

If you want proof that this is all about election posturing? Look no further than Right Wing talker WABC, the flagship of Hannity, Imus, and Rush. Over the weekend, they decided to interview a dude from Hamas about his views on it. Not surprisingly, he supports it.

 

Cover of today's New York Post? "HAMAS BIG BACKS MOSQUE"

 

Again and again, a significant part of the Republican party drives to victory by exclusion, rather than inclusion.

 

Moving to exclude gays from marriage, "Border Security" (which isn't really about all our borders, just our Mexican border), and now trying to prevent muslims from building a place to worship.

 

And frankly I don't know what's worse. The fact that the second largest political party does this? Or the fact that it seems to work.

[Balta1701]

If you want proof that this is all about election posturing? Look no further than Right Wing talker WABC, the flagship of Hannity, Imus, and Rush. Over the weekend, they decided to interview a dude from Hamas about his views on it. Not surprisingly, he supports it.

 

Cover of today's New York Post? "HAMAS BIG BACKS MOSQUE"

 

Again and again, a significant part of the Republican party drives to victory by exclusion, rather than inclusion.

 

Moving to exclude gays from marriage, "Border Security" (which isn't really about all our borders, just our Mexican border), and now trying to prevent muslims from building a place to worship.

 

And frankly I don't know what's worse. The fact that the second largest political party does this? Or the fact that it seems to work.

(R-NY Rep Peter) King, the Long Island congressman, said that in terms of social issues, the raging controversy over the Arizona border laws is providing more than enough ammunition for Republicans in key districts.

 

“The Arizona immigration law is there, there’s no reason to be raising an issue of gay rights” as a wedge, he said.

Link

[Rex Kickass]

It's just proof that the GOP really has nothing to run on. There's no plan to help get the economy moving with them. Their strategy has and will be obstruction, period.

 

80 days out and instead of the focus being on the economy, the focus is on mosques.

[StrangeSox]

And it's working.

[Jenksismyhero]

It's just proof that the GOP really has nothing to run on. There's no plan to help get the economy moving with them. Their strategy has and will be obstruction, period.

 

80 days out and instead of the focus being on the economy, the focus is on mosques.

 

Please. Like any party has actual policy to run on. The GOP is using the playbook of the Dems in 2004 and 2008 - b**** and moan without offering any real alternatives other than the opposite of what's happening now. (And it's not like the Dems came up with that tactic on their own).

 

And what more is there to say on the economy? It still sucks and Obama's crazy spending hasn't helped anything.

 

 

[NorthSideSox72]

Please. Like any party has actual policy to run on. The GOP is using the playbook of the Dems in 2004 and 2008 - b**** and moan without offering any real alternatives other than the opposite of what's happening now. (And it's not like the Dems came up with that tactic on their own).

 

And what more is there to say on the economy? It still sucks and Obama's crazy spending hasn't helped anything.

I'll ignore the "Obama's crazy spending" part since his spending has been no more crazy than his predecessor.

 

But you are right on the first part - there is very little difference. The Dems ran in 2008 on, primarily, we aren't Bush. The GOP is running primarily in 2010 on "we aren't Obama". There is some subtle difference, in that the GOP has been a lot more about blockading and bringing government to a halt, where as the Dems capitulated to a lot of GOP s*** in Bush's time - for good or for bad. But the overall themes are mostly similar.

 

Actually, I'll add one more important difference, and this one is one of the reasons why its been a lot harder for me to vote GOP the last few cycles. The GOP has focused a lot more on fear and anger, the lowest common denominators, than the Dems have. That does bother me.

 

[Jenksismyhero]

I'll ignore the "Obama's crazy spending" part since his spending has been no more crazy than his predecessor.

 

But you are right on the first part - there is very little difference. The Dems ran in 2008 on, primarily, we aren't Bush. The GOP is running primarily in 2010 on "we aren't Obama". There is some subtle difference, in that the GOP has been a lot more about blockading and bringing government to a halt, where as the Dems capitulated to a lot of GOP s*** in Bush's time - for good or for bad. But the overall themes are mostly similar.

 

Actually, I'll add one more important difference, and this one is one of the reasons why its been a lot harder for me to vote GOP the last few cycles. The GOP has focused a lot more on fear and anger, the lowest common denominators, than the Dems have. That does bother me.

 

So to push the bailout and healthcare reform Obama and the dems weren't selling the "omg if we don't do something there's going to be a catastrophe?" line? I mean i agree, the GOP is running with (not creating, a key difference) the anger of its base about the policies being implemented. But we're talking about basic political tactics here.

[Balta1701]

So to push the bailout

Who was President on October 3, 2008?

[NorthSideSox72]

So to push the bailout and healthcare reform Obama and the dems weren't selling the "omg if we don't do something there's going to be a catastrophe?" line? I mean i agree, the GOP is running with (not creating, a key difference) the anger of its base about the policies being implemented. But we're talking about basic political tactics here.

I said a lot more, not singularly. The Dems do it too, just not to the same extent. That's my read on it.

 

And the bailout stuff started under Bush anyway, and that was fear that was pretty well founded.

 

[Jenksismyhero]

I said a lot more, not singularly. The Dems do it too, just not to the same extent. That's my read on it.

 

And the bailout stuff started under Bush anyway, and that was fear that was pretty well founded.

 

sorry, i meant the stimulus bill, not the bailout. though both were equally retarded IMO

 

[NorthSideSox72]

sorry, i meant the stimulus bill, not the bailout. though both were equally retarded IMO

The "bailout", as in TARP, was not only a necessity, but it was one of the more successful programs the government put in place in recent memory. They allocated $750B, used only about $200B, have gotten back almost $150B of that with interest, and will probably only have a final cost of around $40B last I looked. And considering the dire consequences of inaction, that was highly worth it.

 

Now the Stim bill, on the other hand, was poorly executed and a huge wasted opportunity.

 

[Rex Kickass]

I'll ignore the "Obama's crazy spending" part since his spending has been no more crazy than his predecessor.

 

But you are right on the first part - there is very little difference. The Dems ran in 2008 on, primarily, we aren't Bush. The GOP is running primarily in 2010 on "we aren't Obama". There is some subtle difference, in that the GOP has been a lot more about blockading and bringing government to a halt, where as the Dems capitulated to a lot of GOP s*** in Bush's time - for good or for bad. But the overall themes are mostly similar.

 

Actually, I'll add one more important difference, and this one is one of the reasons why its been a lot harder for me to vote GOP the last few cycles. The GOP has focused a lot more on fear and anger, the lowest common denominators, than the Dems have. That does bother me.

 

Actually, Obama ran on a platform of change in 2008. He rose a pretty high bar for himself that year, and he's paying the price now. You could say that 2006 the Democrats ran primarily on a "We're not Bush" platform, but I would argue that 2008 was very different.

 

In 2008 there was a platform that won.

Lily Ledbetter, repeal of DADT, health care reform, wall street reform, shifting the focus of the military from Iraq to Afghanistan were all key parts of his platform and many of these things were enacted.

Many of these things were in the platform of 2006, but got drowned out by the frustration.

 

You can even make an argument that the platform of rooting out corruption has, more or less, been honored as well. True, you can point to Rangel and Waters as examples of how that's not true. But in reality, the fact that two very powerful congresspeople have essentially been sidelined to the backbench due to ethics violations, and are literally being put on Congressional trial within three months of an election is a testament to how serious the Democrats have been in this regard. How many ethics trials were you seeing in 2006 held by the House of Representatives? None, because the ethics committee wasn't actually active.

 

What's different between 2006, 1994 and today is that in previous years, when you peeled back the motivating anger - there was real, serious policy. Even in 1994 with the Contract on America - there were significant policy initiatives and goals that the GOP sought to pass in their first term. This year, when you peel back the anger - you only find more anger.

[Balta1701]

Now the Stim bill, on the other hand, was poorly executed and a huge wasted opportunity.

And yet, all things considered...it's been remarkably successful at pushing back the onset of deflation by nearly a year and a half.