Greg ([info]heyyon) wrote,
@ 2006-11-04 19:40:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend  Next Entry
Fuck Barbaro


This is the one and only time I'll be upset the US is entirely represented by blue states. If this happens in a few weeks, the world is a much much better place.

(10 comments) - (Post a new comment)


[info]dougs_content
2006-11-05 01:35 am UTC (link)
I'm totally moving to Canada. How can the people be so stupid to vote for democrats. I can't believe that just happened. I hate this country. But all the FOX news polls said the republicans were up. The election was totally rigged!

Hooray role reversal!

(Reply to this)


[info]dougs_content
2006-11-05 01:42 am UTC (link)
Oh, and I was the one for full, unquestioned, unchallenged, unilateral control of the US... yeah, uh huh... surrrrreeeee.

Let's see what other quotes I can throw back at you that you were shoving down my throat.

"Absolute power corrupts absolutely."

"The majority should never opress the minority."

Hmm, I can see all that talk about getting all angles and having a debate and comprimising was all bullshit.

The sad part is, you are way worse than me and you don't even know it.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]heyyon
2006-11-05 01:57 am UTC (link)
You still are the one for unquestioned, unchecked, unilateral control. Have you read the article in Rolling Stone about the ways that the Republican Party has taken the Democrats entirely out of the legislative process. It's high school antics like not saying where a meeting in... then hiding behind doors when you get caught. Or giving a debater only one night of preparation to bring in experts, and the such, and gather their info and such... and when they do it successfully, declare the commitee closed (literally slamming his gavel while a Dem was talking), and when that failed to stop the Dem from giving up the floor... the Rep committee head walked out of the room, turned the lights out and locked the door behind him.

Sides, we both know it'll never go blue like that. I'm just hoping to see more blue than red, because that DOES make the world a better place.

And are you not reading the poll?! FUCKING BARBARO TURNED THE NATION BLUE. the horse! the fucking horse.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]dougs_content
2006-11-05 02:52 am UTC (link)
You are absolutely correct, because I believe in absolutely everything that the Republican party does, no questions asked. Yep, Foley sending dirty notes to male pages, yep, hes a Republican, so I must be for that as well. Bush wanting to put in an ammendmant keeping gay people from getting hitched... I must want that as well, because, he is a Republican, and I do not deviate from the party what so ever (note the layered sarcasm).

So, instead of actually answering the question to me calling you on your true desire for unilateral control, you point somewhere else. I am not letting you change the subject.

What happened to all that crap you were telling me about how great it is to have a healthy debate, or was that simply because your party was the minority?

No, it will not go blue like that, but I sure as hell never even insinuated or desired for it to go red like that, because unlike you, I actually desire debate, and simply because the party that I align with the most does not apply that idea does not mean I agree with their actions.

"I'm just hoping to see more blue than red, because that DOES make the world a better place."

Wow, opinion stated as fact. Well done, I yield to your well-argumented point supported by factual information.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]heyyon
2006-11-05 02:59 am UTC (link)
You *have* stated that with a Republican majority, they should pass bills with little concern for how the other side would react. That's siding with unilateral control of power. Regardless, the half-joke that an entirely Democratic Congress would be a good thing is that... a half-joke. Half only because I do firmly believe a blue-slanted Congress is a dire need of the American nation in order to neuter an utterly horrible presidency.

But really, you should know by now that I hate the idea of one entity controlling the US. I even hate the concept of a two party system as such because of the lack of options and the terrible state of partisanism in legislature.

But really, now, I never even came close to posing that as fact. It's on its own damn line, and is two line breaks from the phrase "the horse! the fucking horse." How much weight do you really think I'm hanging on that statement? Somewhere between none and very fucking little.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]dougs_content
2006-11-05 04:06 am UTC (link)
Shit, I replied and it didn't post. Fuck!

Ummm, I said something about how it *could* be good to see a power swing in congress, but I'm not sure if this is the Presidency to have it in. I foresee lots and lots of vetos and a congress that will not be able to get anything done.

Regarding the majority deal, your quote of me was taken out of context. The stipulation was that *if* the democratic leadership was going to continue to disallow even a vote on one of Bush's nominees (Samuel Alito and/or John Bolton), then I could not argue with the administration making a recess appointment in order to get the position filled if it seemed that the democrats were going to react the same way for every nominee.

Assuming the democrats take both the House and the Senate (that may be a tall assumption), I want them to impress me. Believe me, I am not bent on hoping for them to fail, as some may believe. I have very specific concerns, and hopefully they will be addressed.

I would love nothing more than to see them turn things around, because I do understand that this administration has implemented a lot of policy poorly. However, this is not me surrendering my belief that republican policy does not work. This is simply an admittance to the fact that the policies were not implemented properly, or overstepped what should have been done, as these policies have worked before in history.

Wasn't that horse injured or dead or something?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]citeyoursources
2006-11-05 04:08 pm UTC (link)
This is simply an admittance to the fact that the policies were not implemented properly, or overstepped what should have been done, as these policies have worked before in history.

Exactly which policies are you talking about?

/completely lost on the horse

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]dougs_content
2006-11-05 05:57 pm UTC (link)
The better question would be which policies I am not talking about. By policy, I mean in the general sense, the basic tenants of republican (well, more so neoconservative) party. This election will be a referendum on Bush, not so much Republican policy. The republicans would have been better off having a presidental election right now rather than a mid-term election.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]citeyoursources
2006-11-05 07:59 pm UTC (link)
We've been in agreement before about Bush not being a true Republican, so I'm not sure why you're saying it's just the unfortunate way he implements "conservative" policies that's the problem. He's completely mangled and suffocated republican policy, IMO - the basic tenet of the true Republican party being small government and personal liberty/responsibility.

The secondary problem is that instead of distancing themselves from his ridiculous abuse of power to begin with, the rest of the party supported him, and has only now started to cower with elections coming up and approval ratings going down.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]dougs_content
2006-11-05 08:59 pm UTC (link)
I think the reason Bush was supported for the time that he was, even when his non-republican policies were being pushed, is that the name "Republican" was tagged with them, whether it followed true tenents or not, and that name needed to be protected. For the longest time the media was labeling him as a neoconservative, which is simply outright false.

Well, what I mean is that for the few things that he has done that fit in Republican policy, he has not implemented them properly (Afghanistan, some of Iraq, although the Invasion of Iraq really would not fall as neoconservative in nature, border security, stregthening intelligence).

(Reply to this) (Parent)

(10 comments) - (Post a new comment)

Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…