Can't We All Get Along !!

alan1000 · 11-01-2006, 03:32 AM

I know, more of the same, one liners, 30 second sound bites................. but we as a nation we have a future that needs to be addressed as a nation, not as POLITICAL PARTYS

The life blood of this nation is at stake, and while we fight each other, our ENEMYS fight both of us and DIVIDE us even more than we divide ourselves........................ how does that benefit us as a nation..... are own SELFISH self interest will destroy us as a nation (ROMAN EMPIRE) not to be dramatic, but there are those comparisons............I think as a nation we can rise above all this, but degrading the very best of what we are is destructive to only us.

you tell me

DosEquis · 11-01-2006, 03:49 AM

You tell me, because any time some one of my kind says we need to change a plan in Iraq they say we are helping terrorists. This is not a one sided issue and before you get over your self gratifying positions regarding terrorism Sean Hannity, we are never going to comprimise.

You have to realize we need a change because the shit we are doing is not... is NOT working, and there is only one group that can fix it. The Iraqi people. You want to talk about uniting the country, talk to the guy who has been in charge for 6 years. It is his job and if he had any policy worth a fuck this country would be united. Where is your sense of accountability sir? Where do you draw the line when it is time to hold someone responsible? How many free passes do you give the administration? Seriously your kind needs to man the fuck up and say what is wrong and right before just blindly accepting something. This is beyond ridiculous.

That said their are only a few things that can bring us together as a country so that are democratic processes work properly.

FORCE people to be involved such as a draft for military and civil services.

When a program is passed say "this is the taxes we need to get it done and pay for it". When there is a war we need there has to be a war bond setup that says "we need to raise this much money so we can fight" and pay some taxes so we don't run a deficit. We need pay as you go immediately or there will be no such thing as spending cuts regardless of party.

We need term limits.

We need to get rid of paid lobbyists who buy votes.

We need campaign finance reform. There is no reason why it should take 3 million dollars to run for congress, 5-10 million to run for senate, and 200 million to run for president. None of those jobs pay anywhere near that kind of salary and it makes no sense to pay that much to run for office.

Until we force people to be apart of our government via taxes and services, combine with term limits, lobbying, and campaign finance reform, we will continue to get fucked in the ass regardless of part in power.

ballz2wallz · 11-01-2006, 09:20 AM

Lieberman agreed along the same lines as you, and you see what happened to him. He wanted to forego partisan politics, and work together to a solution. Now he's got to do it on his own. And by golly, he will.

thatguyoverthere · 11-01-2006, 10:05 AM

Lieberman wasn't rejected by the Democrats of Connecticut because he wanted us all to get along. Lieberman supported a war that turned out to be a mistake. His intentions may have been honorable, but he still needs to be held accountable and responsible. That's one of the big differences between Democrats and Republicans: Democrats are more willing to hold their representatives accountable, while Republicans only want to win, and to hell with their principles.

Want an example? Look at the Republican support Lieberman is getting. Republicans are willing to ignore all of Liebermans liberal positions and support him simply because he supported the war. Lieberman supports abortion rights? Suddenly, that's no big deal to the Republicans.

The only thing that matters to Republicans is the only thing that they can do competently: defeat Democrats.

As to the real point of the thread, you're right, Alan. A house divided against itself cannot stand. But when you have two parties like we do, each side has to demonize the other while ignoring their real problems. Democrats refuse to articulate their positions or even agree on what their positions are, while Republicans abandon their positions whenever it's politically convenient. Neither party nor their supporters seem to realize this. Fix those two problems and we'll have come a long way to helping the country become a better place.

ballz2wallz · 11-01-2006, 10:25 AM

Originally Posted by thatguyoverthere

Lieberman wasn't rejected by the Democrats of Connecticut because he wanted us all to get along. Lieberman supported a war that turned out to be a mistake. His intentions may have been honorable, but he still needs to be held accountable and responsible. That's one of the big differences between Democrats and Republicans: Democrats are more willing to hold their representatives accountable, while Republicans only want to win, and to hell with their principles.

Want an example? Look at the Republican support Lieberman is getting. Republicans are willing to ignore all of Liebermans liberal positions and support him simply because he supported the war. Lieberman supports abortion rights? Suddenly, that's no big deal to the Republicans.

The only thing that matters to Republicans is the only thing that they can do competently: defeat Democrats.

Lieberman's stance is to get over partisan politics and work together for a common cause; that cause happens to be the war on terror, and subsequently our Iraq mission. The underlying root of this is bypassing partisan politics. That is what the Republicans are praising him for. His party turned their back on him because of their myopic view of the issues. They could care less about working together for a greater cause, but would rather focus on one small part of that...Iraq.

Scrum · 11-01-2006, 10:42 AM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

Lieberman's stance is to get over partisan politics and work together for a common cause; that cause happens to be the war on terror, and subsequently our Iraq mission. The underlying root of this is bypassing partisan politics. That is what the Republicans are praising him for. His party turned their back on him because of their myopic view of the issues. They could care less about working together for a greater cause, but would rather focus on one small part of that...Iraq.

That is exactally why the Republicans are supporting him. Over the one issue of the war.
Democrats are tired of him waiting to support Democratic causes until the 11th hour.

thatguyoverthere · 11-01-2006, 10:44 AM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

Lieberman's stance is to get over partisan politics and work together for a common cause; that cause happens to be the war on terror, and subsequently our Iraq mission. The underlying root of this is bypassing partisan politics. That is what the Republicans are praising him for. His party turned their back on him because of their myopic view of the issues. They could care less about working together for a greater cause, but would rather focus on one small part of that...Iraq.

The Republicans are praising him because he supports their Iraq war, not because they want to bypass partisan politics. What a laugh. And the Republicans are willing to let the other 90% of Joe's left wing positions slide, simply because he supports the Iraq war. Talk about myopic!!!

It seems that you could be a gay illegal immigrant socialist abortion doctor on welfare, but if you support the Iraq War, you're okay by the Republicans! Some conservatives here have rightly recognized that and are disgusted by their party abandoning its positions because of a single issue: the Iraq War (which, in your words, is just a "small part", or as Bush calls it, "a comma.")

You call it working together for a greater cause, yet the Iraq war is increrasing the threat of terrorism. Supporting the war doesn't change that fact. Democratic voters recognize this and voted accordingly.

ballz2wallz · 11-01-2006, 10:56 AM

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

That is exactally why the Republicans are supporting him. Over the one issue of the war.
Democrats are tired of him waiting to support Democratic causes until the 11th hour.

No, it's a little deeper than that. They like the fact that he doesn't tow the party line over one issue, that he's willing to stand up for things he truly believes in, even if it means risking his political career. That takes balls, and he's being acknowledged for that.

ballz2wallz · 11-01-2006, 10:58 AM

Originally Posted by thatguyoverthere

The Republicans are praising him because he supports their Iraq war, not because they want to bypass partisan politics. What a laugh. And the Republicans are willing to let the other 90% of Joe's left wing positions slide, simply because he supports the Iraq war. Talk about myopic!!!

It seems that you could be a gay illegal immigrant socialist abortion doctor on welfare, but if you support the Iraq War, you're okay by the Republicans! Some conservatives here have rightly recognized that and are disgusted by their party abandoning its positions because of a single issue: the Iraq War (which, in your words, is just a "small part", or as Bush calls it, "a comma.")

You call it working together for a greater cause, yet the Iraq war is increrasing the threat of terrorism. Supporting the war doesn't change that fact. Democratic voters recognize this and voted accordingly.

If you listen to the Republicans praising Lieberman, every single one of them acknowledges that he's still 90% liberal and they don't agree with him on anything else. They then follow that up with the fact that he's standing up for what he believes in. If you actually listen to what they say, you'll know that what you'er saying is wrong.

alan1000 · 11-03-2006, 01:25 AM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

Lieberman agreed along the same lines as you, and you see what happened to him. He wanted to forego partisan politics, and work together to a solution. Now he's got to do it on his own. And by golly, he will.

we must win in the war on TERROR, and winning that we must win them also in IRAQ.......................... it should not be partisan................ LIEBERMAN is right and that 10 % means 100%

garbagemanlb · 11-03-2006, 01:47 AM

Originally Posted by alan1000

I know, more of the same, one liners, 30 second sound bites................. but we as a nation we have a future that needs to be addressed as a nation, not as POLITICAL PARTYS

The life blood of this nation is at stake, and while we fight each other, our ENEMYS fight both of us and DIVIDE us even more than we divide ourselves........................ how does that benefit us as a nation..... are own SELFISH self interest will destroy us as a nation (ROMAN EMPIRE) not to be dramatic, but there are those comparisons............I think as a nation we can rise above all this, but degrading the very best of what we are is destructive to only us.

you tell me

You should take a good look at yourself on this subject. I just read your thread on 'appeasement' and 'cutting and running'. If you want any unity, you must understand the other sides viewpoint and not denegrate their views to talking points and pointless rhetoric.

SICKGUY · 11-03-2006, 02:23 AM

Originally Posted by DosEquis

You tell me, because any time some one of my kind

LOL @ my kind. "oh yes, the liberal curse flows through these veins as well. we will be victorious in battle against the conservative overlords that roam the heartland, brother!"

sorry, i have been drinking tonight

tbone · 11-03-2006, 09:26 AM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

If you listen to the Republicans praising Lieberman, every single one of them acknowledges that he's still 90% liberal and they don't agree with him on anything else. They then follow that up with the fact that he's standing up for what he believes in. If you actually listen to what they say, you'll know that what you'er saying is wrong.

LOL, no it's not that noble, but I wish it was. Here is the real reason:

POLITICAL GAIN!

Gasp, no say it isn't so.....yes it's politcal gain.

Since the primary and Lieberman's decision to seek re-election as an independent, Republicans have determined that they can gain more politically by supporting Lieberman and casting him as the victim of an anti-war, liberal-dominated Democratic party than they can gain from backing their own candidate, Alan Schlesinger. So uniform is their support for Lieberman that Schlesinger received only 4% in a recent poll.

With Republicans looking to make the race about Democrats' record on national security and Lieberman emboldened by the recent foiled terror plot in London, will the general election boil down to that key issue, or will it also turn on a host of domestic issues on which Democrats say Bush has failed?

Republicans for Lieberman? - Politics - MSNBC.com

ballz2wallz · 11-03-2006, 10:10 AM

Originally Posted by tbone

LOL, no it's not that noble, but I wish it was. Here is the real reason:

POLITICAL GAIN!

Gasp, no say it isn't so.....yes it's politcal gain.

How can you say that when it was blatant political suicide within his party? He knew what was going to happen; he did it anyway.

tbone · 11-03-2006, 01:16 PM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

How can you say that when it was blatant political suicide within his party? He knew what was going to happen; he did it anyway.

Oh no, you misunderstand, I'm not saying Lieberman was doing it for political gain, but the GOP supporting him is for political gain.