The Main Man's epiphany while watching the DNC

[TheMainMan25]

I was watching the Democratic National Convention last night and watched Bill Clinton speak. That guy is a great Orator (ha ha ha...Orator....sorry). For you youngins (or dummies) that don't know what that means, it means he's a great public speaker. While watching him and had an epiphany. Before I tell you what that is, let me give you a little background about me.

I spend a lot of time in my car and my CD player is broken, so I have to listen to radio. As we all know, radio sucks, so I would find myself flipping channels, listening to whatever I found entertaining-even talk radio (these bastards have invaded FM now!!!!)

I hear conservative radio talk show hosts bash John Kerry, the Clintons, and any other so-called "liberal". The claim to base their views on the facts. Now, while watching Bill Clinton speak last night, I realized that he too has his own facts about the Republicans and other "conservatives." That's when it hit me.........we're being played!!!!!!!

Let me explain what I mean. Each side has their own facts and say that they are basing their views on the "issues" and the "truth". There cannot be different versions of the truth. The truth by its very defiinition implies something singular. There is a truth out there, but the politicians won't tell you all of it. They'll give you bits and pieces or the truth, they'll give you a santized version of it, but never the real thing. Why? Because if you knew the entire truth, it would make your stomach turn. So, these slimy, two-faced, sons of bitches take whatever bit or piece that they think you can stomach and feed it to you. What results is a lot of finger pointing and name calling. "You Republicans supported this", "Oh yeah, we'll you Democrats supported this at the same time".

We're being played. The sad thing about this is, most people know that they're being played and continue to play the game anyway. Not me. I hear people talk about this election being one of the most important in our lifetimes. Well, you can do it without me. I refuse to play anymore (and that whole "one vote can make a difference" stuff is bull****). But I won't complain either. This is my first and last time complaining. It's just that...well, I'm gonna sound crazy, but I'm not so bear with me.....there's gotta be a better way to run a government than this crap. And I'm not talking about Ralph Nader or independent parties-that's just more of the same. I'm sure we could find something better-if we wanted to. I may be the only one who wants to. Oh well.....

Ok, I'm done. I feel much better now.

[Chazz]

Ya know, when Hillary came out last night, the first thing the wife said was that Hillary had some work done. I almost pissed my pants because I was thinking that she looked like the little robot girl off of "Small Wonder". I know you youngsters out there won't remember that show, but Hillary always acts like a damn robot. Bill comes out and all I could think of was Monica underneath the podium giving him head, because he kept this sheepish smile on his face the entire time he spoke.

Well MM, polotics is nothing but a game. A game that has been played by differing political parties for years and years..........and it aint gonna change. Case in point, I give you last nights theme for the convention: Kerry Is A Great Commander-in- Chief (or he will be). I have never heard the Democrats preach about the military the way they did last night. Well, Gore got up and bitched about his loss four years ago, but mostly every other speaker preached about Kerry's military leadership. It was a good call by the Democrats, but here is the kicker. It just proves that the Demo's want to win so bad because they can't stand having a Republican President and a Republican Congress. I don't fault them for there motives because they are trying to win the election. Which brings us to your point of it being one big game.

MM, your vote does count because you will have voiced your opinion about how you feel. Everytime a candidate promises stuff I don't buy into everything because I know that there is no way in hell that they can deliver on all of there promises. Yet, I still vote because I want my say as to who I feel should run our country. If I don't vote, then I have no say. I understand you reasoning and all, but I still feel that for you, and everyone else, your vote does matter.

[Mac Daddy]

Chazz, pal, I mean this in the nicest way, but you're full of ****.


Ya know, when Hillary came out last night, the first thing the wife said was that Hillary had some work done. I almost pissed my pants because I was thinking that she looked like the little robot girl off of "Small Wonder". I know you youngsters out there won't remember that show, but Hillary always acts like a damn robot. Bill comes out and all I could think of was Monica underneath the podium giving him head, because he kept this sheepish smile on his face the entire time he spoke.

You want to talk about idiotic smiling? Let's talk about George W. Bush. I'd rather have a head-receiving man who actually cares about the people over a lying idiot any day of the week. You want to talk about robots, huh? Let's talk about **** Cheney. Yeah, I see it know, George Bush and **** Cheney ... are the tin man and scarecrow.


Tin Man - **** Cheney: If only I had a heart.

Scarecrow - George W. Bush: If I only I had a brain.



Well MM, polotics is nothing but a game. A game that has been played by differing political parties for years and years..........and it aint gonna change. Case in point, I give you last nights theme for the convention: Kerry Is A Great Commander-in- Chief (or he will be). I have never heard the Democrats preach about the military the way they did last night. Well, Gore got up and bitched about his loss four years ago, but mostly every other speaker preached about Kerry's military leadership. It was a good call by the Democrats, but here is the kicker. It just proves that the Demo's want to win so bad because they can't stand having a Republican President and a Republican Congress. I don't fault them for there motives because they are trying to win the election. Which brings us to your point of it being one big game.


The election was stolen from Al Gore, thanks to a lot of factors including your honorable Govenor Jeb Bush, whom you despise so much, Chazz.


You want to talk about intolerance of the other people having power? Man
, let's go back to the 90s when Clinton was president. I know you're getting up in age, but you aren't that senile. Your memory hasn't failed you that bad. When Bill was elected the Republicans were furious because Clinton broke the order. See, Republicans (I guess Roy Cohn could be a example. He believed that after Reagan, Republicans would have the Congress and WH locked until 2000, or beyond) thought that after 1968, there would be never be another Democratic president (I guess you can say Jimmy Carter didn't count because he was a colossal failure and he got elected because of Watergate). Clinton came and broke that order and the Republicans declared war. They had a vehement hatred for Clinton and after 1996 when Clinton actually beat a Republican, they decided they decided they would get back the White House in 2000 ... by hook or crook. You need to open your eyes, Chazz.


MM, your vote does count because you will have voiced your opinion about how you feel. Everytime a candidate promises stuff I don't buy into everything because I know that there is no way in hell that they can deliver on all of there promises. Yet, I still vote because I want my say as to who I feel should run our country. If I don't vote, then I have no say. I understand you reasoning and all, but I still feel that for you, and everyone else, your vote does matter.


I agree. I always look at this way:

You say your one vote doesn't count, but when you make that decision, that's one more person added to a large group that won't vote because they think they're votes won't count. That group turns out to be millions of people, who could very well decide an election. Your vote counts when looking at the grand scheme of things.

[Chazz]

Well.........Mac Daddy...........I mean this in the nicest way possible.........your a ****in numbnuts for believeing all the Democratic BS! :D That wasn't too harsh was it?

Oh, so Clinton was an angel and never lied? Jeez...............maybe you have had your head up your ass for awhile and forgot that Clinton was nothing but a ****ing liar! :winkok:

[Mac Daddy]

Well.........Mac Daddy...........I mean this in the nicest way possible.........your a ****in numbnuts for believeing all the Democratic BS! :D That wasn't too harsh was it?

Oh, so Clinton was an angel and never lied? Jeez...............maybe you have had your head up your ass for awhile and forgot that Clinton was nothing but a ****ing liar! :winkok:


No, it wasn't that harsh, Chazz. I've weathered much worse ... like three years of George W. Bush. I can stand anything, buddy.

Chazz, you don't closely read anything I ****ing say -- NOT A DAMN WORD! When have I said that Bill Clinton was an angel? When have I once claimed that all Democrats are angels? When I have I ever doubted that Clinton was a liar?! Presidents lie, Chazz. It's a simple fact of life. Unfortunately, they really have no choice in our cynical society. But it's what they lie about. I am really, really tired of comparing Bill Clinton's lying about getting his **** sucked, as opposed to George Bush lying for war and getting 900 troops killed. You don't listen.

[Chazz]

No, it wasn't that harsh, Chazz. I've weathered much worse ... like three years of George W. Bush. I can stand anything, buddy.

Chazz, you don't closely read anything I ****ing say -- NOT A DAMN WORD! When have I said that Bill Clinton was an angel? When have I once claimed that all Democrats are angels? When I have I ever doubted that Clinton was a liar?! Presidents lie, Chazz. It's a simple fact of life. Unfortunately, they really have no choice in our cynical society. But it's what they lie about. I am really, really tired of comparing Bill Clinton's lying about getting his **** sucked, as opposed to George Bush lying for war and getting 900 troops killed. You don't listen.


I read every word you write. Let me restate my comment. You imply that Clinton was an angel. Better? :D

Hot damn..............Mac and I finally agree on something. Yes, President's do lie. Sad........but true.

[Mac Daddy]

I read every word you write. Let me restate my comment. You imply that Clinton was an angel. Better? :D

No I didn't and you damn well know it.


Hot damn..............Mac and I finally agree on something. Yes, President's do lie. Sad........but true.

Yeah, you've done nothing thus far to relieve my feelings. I still believe you don't closely read what I have to say and your memory is terribly short. In our very first debate I stated I believe all presidents lie.

[The Kid]

I have a different view than most of you but I lean more towards Mac Daddy. Plain and simple I don't like Conservitive views. I respect the people's right to have one but I will never agree with it. However, I think that even Democratic Presidents don't really work for the people but rather are there to help their rich friends. The last President that was seemingly for the people was assassinated.( IMO by his own government but I don't have proof so..)

I think that America and even Canada but to a lesser extent needs a leader who doesn't go to war but rather tries to solve things without using violence. In my opinion all war is wrong. I know there will be Conservitives who hate me saying that but I feel that the only people who lose in a war are the populations of those countries. War is basically legalized murder which I really don't understand. Another thing is why is it only a tragedy when American soldiers die? What about the Men, Women and Children killed by those soldiers? Why aren't they important?

One last thing ties into politicians essentially looking out for their friends. Why is it that there a two tiered system in the USA? Why can the people who are rich get better health care? Better schools? Better everything?

I think that you Americans deserve a President who cares for everyone and does things for the people. That means no more drastic differences in classes and no more legalized murders while using war as an excuse. Basically Communism is the perfect system in a perfect world but there is too much greed for that to work. So maybe a mixture. A more socialized system where Health Care is available for everybody and everyone is entitled to an equal education.

[Mac Daddy]

The last President that was seemingly for the people was assassinated.( IMO by his own government but I don't have proof so..)

Oh, boy, the Kennedy references. Ya can’t discuss politics without discussing him. I am a hardline Democrat, but allow me to ruin Kennedy a little bit for you.


I will say that I do believe he shot dead as a result of a conspiracy and there’s much proof to that. Chazz might think otherwise. I’m just guessing though.


I’m recently come to realize that John F. Kennedy is highly overrated (oh, don’t think I’ve been brainwashed by Mr. Ronald Reagan’s death. I have NO respect for Ronald Reagan and to be brutally honest, I couldn’t care less than he finally took his leave). I have only main problem with John Kennedy and that’s his response to Civil Rights. Unlike his successor, Kennedy lacked any real political backbone on CR. He stalled on Civil Rights and even had his people check Martin Luther King’s 1963 speech to make sure it wasn’t overly critical of the Kennedy administration, even though King would have been justified in his criticism of Kennedy's WH.


Now I know you’re asking yourself I recently referred to Kennedy as a great in some way. Well, that’s because John Kennedy did inspire this nation to better itself. John Kennedy, for some reason, liked people and genuinely wanted to make this country a better place. He was beloved all over the world because he represented the good, idealistic, and just face of America.


That’s not to say Kennedy rises to the level of FDR, Lincoln, or Jefferson. He comes fairly close to TR, IMO, and there are some strange similarities between the two that goes unreported. I believed Kennedy would have became a great commander-in-chief had he lived and been given the chance. But the fact remains he wasn’t, we have to deal with it and not let Kennedy’s shortcomings pass. We hasn’t mustn’t kid ourselves about his accomplishments. The only thing I can about that is Kennedy’s 1000 days are very pale beside FDR’s first 100 days. But still, JFK was a great leader … and far better than ****ty old Ronald Reagan.



I think that America and even Canada but to a lesser extent needs a leader who doesn't go to war but rather tries to solve things without using violence. In my opinion all war is wrong. I know there will be Conservitives who hate me saying that but I feel that the only people who lose in a war are the populations of those countries. War is basically legalized murder which I really don't understand. Another thing is why is it only a tragedy when American soldiers die? What about the Men, Women and Children killed by those soldiers? Why aren't they important?

A lot of what you said is true. But all war isn’t evil and bad, Kid. Remember WWI and II? Well, you and I aren’t that old (--another poke at Chazz’s age), but I’m sure you remember reading about it. Remember the American Revolution? Those were just wars. See in the age of Vietnam (before you open your mouth, Chazz, I know JFK and LBJ started it) and Operation Iraqi Freedom, I think most people have forgotten that war is means to eventually bring peace, and people have rightfully forgotten that with the examples I’ve named. World Wars I, II, and the A.R. were noble causes, and I could name more. But we live in a world today of short, meaningless profitable wars.

[CLIT]

MainMan, I used to feel the same way. I'm 26 and I have never voted and now I am ashamed of that. I have never voted until now. I have never voted until I realized that George W. Bush is the worst President in all of history.

His using religion to run this country is insane.

His hunger to be rich over the safety of the citizens of the US is insane.

His need to please his father over us is insane.

His stances on stem cell research, abortion and gay marriage are insane.

His taking away our rights by using censorship and spitting on the First Amendment is insane.

I'm not a Republican. I am not a Democrat. I used to think that if one politician doesn't **** you the next one will. Well I'm sick of being ****ed by George W. Bush. John Kerry, here's the condom. You're up buddy. Let's see what you can do.

Me being ****ed some more by George W. Bush would be insane.

I'm done.

[Chazz]

Hot damn we got Clit involved! :D

[CLIT]

You bet your sweet Republican ass. :D

[TheMainMan25]

Now, I understand what everyone's saying about my vote making a difference. But I think that you misunderstood my point, or maybe I didn't state it very clearly. My vote MAY make a difference but who do I have to choice from? On one hand there's a two-faced scumbag who I wouldn't want petting my dog. On the other hand there's a different scumbag with a different agenda, but no less of a scumbag than the first one.

Question: If you take two pieces of **** and spray each with a different perfume, will you not still have two pieces of ****? That's how I feel about our candidate system. If you don't get that, then I'll dumb it down for you, but you have to ask first.

I'm just sick of the top 1% of our country's tax bracket being responsible for making laws that have an effect on the rest of us.

[Mac Daddy]

Now, I understand what everyone's saying about my vote making a difference. But I think that you misunderstood my point, or maybe I didn't state it very clearly. My vote MAY make a difference but who do I have to choice from? On one hand there's a two-faced scumbag who I wouldn't want petting my dog. On the other hand there's a different scumbag with a different agenda, but no less of a scumbag than the first one.

Question: If you take two pieces of **** and spray each with a different perfume, will you not still have two pieces of ****? That's how I feel about our candidate system. If you don't get that, then I'll dumb it down for you, but you have to ask first.

I'm just sick of the top 1% of our country's tax bracket being responsible for making laws that have an effect on the rest of us.



I certainly understand you feelings. I don't feel as strongly, but I understand.


But the fact is, until you start getting proactive and try to make a difference, this is what you're stuck with - the two evils.


John Kerry may not be a saint, and he's definitely no second coming of JFK (Jesus Christ, that's gettin' on my nerve. I support Kerry and all, but after the fourth night of the convention, it's clear to me that this guy has been scheming to put himself over at the next JFK. The similiarities are daunting), but he's the lesser of two evils. And the peace and better times we had under Clinton is what we're going to experience under Kerry.


But lemme tell you, MM: Sitting around and refusing to vote isn't going to do a damn thing. You have to make up in your mind that you're going to do something other than moping and complaining.

[MmmCake]

Kerry is a douchebag. Hell, I'm a Democrat, and I even voted for Gore in 2000, but I'm sure as hell not voting for Kerry in 2004. You see, a good president is not afraid to go to war. If another country is gonna mess with us, a president like Bush will nuke those bastards to hell. A president like Kerry will just mention what he did in Vientnam. There is one that piss me off over my head about Kerry. He always answers a question by saying "I wouldn't do what Bush did!". Ok, then what the hell will you do? "Sen. Kerry, how will the economy change if your president" "Well, I wouldn't do what Bush did because I was in Vientnam and I'm a homosexual". "Mr. Kerry, what would be the first thing you do if your elected?" "Well, I won't do what Bush did".

[Gravedigger]

Kerry acts that way so he can find out what people want him to say and then he'll say that's what he meant. Then when that decision becomes unpopular, he jumps sides again.

If you're going to make a decision, you need to be able to stick with it. That's why the next four years after the election will suck when Kerry is the President of the United States.

[Weaf]

The cut a long story short, satan himself would be the good guy going against Bush. America is in a pretty crappy situation, they're both weak. The sad fact is that there's no other option, voting for someone else will only waste your vote. I'm sick to death of seeing Bush's gormless, charisma free face in my newspapers and on my TV screen so I'd vote for Kerry.

[Mac Daddy]

YankeeFan2and13:


With all due respect, you're an ignorant ****wad.



You see, a good president is not afraid to go to war. If another country is gonna mess with us, a president like Bush will nuke those bastards to hell. A president like Kerry will just mention what he did in Vientnam.


Jesus, what kind of moron are you? Excuse my wimpy self for a minute, but it seems to me that it makes more sense to go to war on true, solid premises. You see, the soldiers that fight for us are human beings just like you and I. These brave men and women are willing to put their life on the line for war, but the only thing they ask, is that we don't send them out of anything but necessity.


Instead, Mr. Bush gave faulty reasons for going to war and he rushed after he was given authorization by the Congress. Probably because he couldn't afford to wait around and let the weapons inspectors indefinitely decide that they were no weapons, which there aren't.


And I applaud Mr. Kerry for touting his military experience, and he has every right to do so. I think the people appreciate that since the current president, vice president, and several other (sarcacism mode) *Strong* conservatives all escaped real service during Vietnam and Kerry could have done the same. Instead he put his life on the line and led his crew like he had a sack. Wish I could say the same for George W. Bush, who escaped duty, and then sat like a friggin' lump on a log for 7 minutes after he was told the country was under attack. Some strong military leader he is.




[QUOTE]There is one that piss me off over my head about Kerry. He always answers a question by saying "I wouldn't do what Bush did!". Ok, then what the hell will you do? "Sen. Kerry, how will the economy change if your president" "Well, I wouldn't do what Bush did because I was in Vientnam and I'm a homosexual". "Mr. Kerry, what would be the first thing you do if your elected?" "Well, I won't do what Bush did".


Again you're showing your ignorance. See, people like you sit back and let the Republican smeer machine define who their opponents are. If you were aware of the issues and actually made an attempt to find out who Kerry is like by the DN Convention or going to JohnKerry.com, you wouldn't be saying the idiotic stuff you are now.


I guess I feel some regret to say it this, but you're a Grade A retard.



Gravedigger:


Kerry acts that way so he can find out what people want him to say and then he'll say that's what he meant. Then when that decision becomes unpopular, he jumps sides again.

If you're going to make a decision, you need to be able to stick with it. That's why the next four years after the election will suck when Kerry is the President of the United States.


You know Diggs, it doesn't make sense to use little innuendos to praise Bush and then claim you're against him. I mean, I understand there's a lot of that going on because who John Kerry is, but you're really going over the top lately.


I assume you mean the war in Iraq. John Kerry voted to give President Bush the authorization, but now he's against it. WHY?


Because it turns out George W. Bush's reasons for going to war were wrong and they had been told this many times, but they still pushed it. And it's also known through Bob Woodward and **** Clarke that the Bushies were planning a war the first week they got in office, before the 9/11 attacks. Not to mention, like I said before, Bush rushed to war in fear that the inspectors would indefinitely conclude that they were no weapons.


People like you, Diggs, praise George Bush for having clarity. But what's the use of clarity when you're wrong? Then when you've been proving wrong, after continually repeating it, you fail to admit your mistake.


And please cut yourself loose from the Republican propaganda, Diggs. George Bush has his own flip flops ... everyone does. That's what thinking people do, they change their minds sometimes.

[Chazz]

Mac, you need to get away from the "Democat propaganda" machine, and stop believeing every ****ing thing they tell you. You sure are one to defend Kerry and everything that he does, but you are quick to jump on the Republicans and us "believeing" the lies that they are feeding us. I have some news for you: The Democrats are also full of ****!

Take the DNC for example. Kerry came out and did something that hurt him. He simply came out and for one solid hour, wove a web of nothing but bull**** to win this election. I will give Kerry and the Democrat's credit. They are trying to appeal to the American voters by showing a side of them that we have never really seen. That side is the military. Yeah, typically and historically the Republican's have been more in favor for the military. What I am saying here is that the Democrat's are not anti-military. But when it comes to supporting the military with tax cuts, pay raises, and other economic issues, the Democrat's have usually been against those kinds of things. Now, Kerry (who is a Vietnam vet) wants to appeal to the military because he feels that Bush and his administration used 9/11 to settle a personal vendetta. Good move by the Demo's, but will the nation actually buy into this bs?

Mac, I think that you calling YankeeFan2and13 what you did was uncalled for. The guy is just stating how he feels. No matter how you may view that, it is still his opinion. I respect you and your feelings and opinions, but I feel you were wrong in calling him what you did because he stated his feelings.

[Gravedigger]

You know Diggs, it doesn't make sense to use little innuendos to praise Bush and then claim you're against him. I mean, I understand there's a lot of that going on because who John Kerry is, but you're really going over the top lately.
What are you talking about??? I didn't mention Bush in there any and I didn't praise him any. If there was an innuendo in there, I sure didn't know it because I don't like either guy. The Al-Qaeda wants Kerry in office because they know he'd be less likely to go kick their ass than Bush would. Something is going to happen before the elections involving Al-Qaeda that will sway majority of the voters out there to vote for Kerry so I'm not really going to argue all this. I'm voting for Bush because I really have no good feelings about Kerry at all. And plus the guy creeps me out.

[Mac Daddy]

Chazz:



Mac, you need to get away from the "Democat propaganda" machine, and stop believeing every ****ing thing they tell you. You sure are one to defend Kerry and everything that he does, but you are quick to jump on the Republicans and us "believeing" the lies that they are feeding us. I have some news for you: The Democrats are also full of ****!

Chazz, buddy, you're so goddamned senile it's not even funny. Since when did I start believing everything the DNC puts out? Do you remember when I said I am aware of the shortcomings of my party? You probably don't, but I said it less than a week ago. Your memory is shot. You might wanna get that checked out.



Mac, I think that you calling YankeeFan2and13 what you did was uncalled for. The guy is just stating how he feels. No matter how you may view that, it is still his opinion. I respect you and your feelings and opinions, but I feel you were wrong in calling him what you did because he stated his feelings.


Sorry, but I didn't think it was uncalled for. The guy just pisses me off because he's a jackass. I think he tried this bull, you know jumping into a serious debate, but not being serious, twice already. I just finally had enough of it, and Lord knows, I'm not the one to jump on people like him. But he pushed me.


Diggs:


What are you talking about??? I didn't mention Bush in there any and I didn't praise him any. If there was an innuendo in there, I sure didn't know it because I don't like either guy. The Al-Qaeda wants Kerry in office because they know he'd be less likely to go kick their ass than Bush would. Something is going to happen before the elections involving Al-Qaeda that will sway majority of the voters out there to vote for Kerry so I'm not really going to argue all this. I'm voting for Bush because I really have no good feelings about Kerry at all. And plus the guy creeps me out.


Maybe some of Chazz's senility is rubbing off on me, but I could sworn you were voting for Kerry. I could have sworn. I'm going to check that out.


And yes, Diggs, you use little innuendos to praise Bush all of the time. But that takes on a different, less-effective meaning now since you've said you're for Bush.


Um, if there were to be a terrorist attack tomorrow, Diggs, Bush would surely win. Why? Because if you looked on TV now, warnings of the attack are all over the news. So if we were attacked, it would seem that Bush did all he could to prevent them and then it'd be time to rally around the leader.


George W. Bush's foreign policies are more destructive and harmful than any WMDs. That's why we -- who cares about Al-Qaida -- needs someone in the White House who will realize that guns and missiles will not win the war on terror. We need someone who will realize that we need to take a different approach to terrorism. I'm not saying John Kerry will solve that problem in his eight years, but by electing a Democrat, we set the stage for eventually moving in the right direction. By that I mean future Democratic presidents like Barack Obama, may take a bigger step in solving the terrorism problem. But electing Bush will only set the stage for going down the wrong path. By that I mean, if Bush wins, we're likely to see little Jeb take over in 2008.


Plain and simply, if we elect Bush, we're sending the nation down a path of destruction.

[Mac Daddy]

Actually, everyone, Gravedigger never said he supported Kerry. I searched through the Fahrenheit 9/11 thread and he said he supported Bush, because he believed Al-Qaida wanted Kerry in office (which is laughable BTW).


I was wrong. My bad, Diggs.

[Gravedigger]

Diggs:
And yes, Diggs, you use little innuendos to praise Bush all of the time. But that takes on a different, less-effective meaning now since you've said you're for Bush.
If I am using them, it's a complete accident, and if you don't want to believe me and want to think of me as a liar then I could care less. Because just because I'm voting for someone doesn't mean I'm for what they believe in. I know you're so deep in all the politics involved in the world that you think anyone who says they like a candidate is knee-deep in what they say, has a secret sanctuary of them in their closet and prays to the gods that their candidate will win it all, but I'm not one of those people.

When I turned 18 and registered to vote, I didn't care which group I signed myself up as (meaning demo or repub). I think I asked my parents which one they were just to sign up because I don't care to vote for a particular party, I'd rather vote for who I think is best.


Um, if there were to be a terrorist attack tomorrow, Diggs, Bush would surely win. Why? Because if you looked on TV now, warnings of the attack are all over the news. So if we were attacked, it would seem that Bush did all he could to prevent them and then it'd be time to rally around the leader.
I didn't say they'd attack tomorrow, but I see your point. But people, especially us Americans, are easily swayed for the most part. How do you know that tomorrow, there could be an attack and it could be done a certain way to make Bush seem like the bad guy and make everyone call for his impeachment? With how stupid everyone claims Bush to be, I don't think it would be very hard for people to make everyone think he's the enemy.

What I've said was from the mouths of people in the military that I know and have known for years. No, it wasn't political propaganda that the Republicans or Democrats made up and told these people just so they'd tell people like me so I'd vote for them :whatevera . These people are ones I trust and people who are out there and know what's going on because they're in the know or whatever you call it.

I don't care if you don't believe me and I don't care what you have to say on it, so don't sit there and tell me what I'm doing when I just told you that's not it. I DO NOT CARE ABOUT PARTIES. I DO NOT CARE ABOUT EITHER CANDIDATE. I HAVE MY OWN REASONS TO VOTE FOR BUSH THAT HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THE REASONS OTHER PEOPLE MIGHT BE VOTING FOR HIM.

Is that clear enough for you? Or should I increase the font and add ellipses between each letter in the words so that it seems as though it's being said slower? ;)

[Mac Daddy]

If I am using them, it's a complete accident, and if you don't want to believe me and want to think of me as a liar then I could care less. Because just because I'm voting for someone doesn't mean I'm for what they believe in. I know you're so deep in all the politics involved in the world that you think anyone who says they like a candidate is knee-deep in what they say, has a secret sanctuary of them in their closet and prays to the gods that their candidate will win it all, but I'm not one of those people.


No, I don't believe that's the case. You've been praising Bush and bashing Kerry in little sly ways for the longest now. It may not be because you're strongly for Republicans, but simply because you plan to vote for Bush.




When I turned 18 and registered to vote, I didn't care which group I signed myself up as (meaning demo or repub). I think I asked my parents which one they were just to sign up because I don't care to vote for a particular party, I'd rather vote for who I think is best.


Where did this come from? I don't remember ever implying that you pleaded allegiance to either party like Chazz or myself.



I didn't say they'd attack tomorrow, but I see your point. But people, especially us Americans, are easily swayed for the most part. How do you know that tomorrow, there could be an attack and it could be done a certain way to make Bush seem like the bad guy and make everyone call for his impeachment? With how stupid everyone claims Bush to be, I don't think it would be very hard for people to make everyone think he's the enemy.


Oh, so they're going to attack and leave a suicide note explaining why it was Bush's fault? Please. Why do you think the administration is shoving the terror threat down our throats now? So it can't be said that if there was an attack, they didn't act.

Its really not about Bush. Bush doesn't shape his administration's policy. He doesn't run the show. Bush is just the idiotic, charming face of it all. So his own personal stupidity is irrelevent.



What I've said was from the mouths of people in the military that I know and have known for years. No, it wasn't political propaganda that the Republicans or Democrats made up and told these people just so they'd tell people like me so I'd vote for them :whatevera . These people are ones I trust and people who are out there and know what's going on because they're in the know or whatever you call it.


Oh, so these are military commanders? Lemme tell ya, Diggs, your cousin who just came home from Iraq doesn't surely know the things that you're talking about. They're over there fighting, and God bless 'em for doing so, but if what you're saying is comin' from a plain soldier, then I'm a bit skeptical.

I take the remark for the sarcastic smily as a shot to me. Well, I can only say that I'm not completely closed-minded, if thats what you're saying. I just don't pay attention to the Democratic "propaganda". I watch Bill O'Reilly and lightly skim Hannity & Colmes every once and while for COL. I mean, how conservative does that get?


I don't care if you don't believe me and I don't care what you have to say on it, so don't sit there and tell me what I'm doing when I just told you that's not it. I DO NOT CARE ABOUT PARTIES. I DO NOT CARE ABOUT EITHER CANDIDATE. I HAVE MY OWN REASONS TO VOTE FOR BUSH THAT HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THE REASONS OTHER PEOPLE MIGHT BE VOTING FOR HIM.


Well, unfotunately Diggs, I can't see you. We're not talking face-to-face and I can only go on what you post. I may be wrong, but those are the conclusions that I drew from what you posted. So there's really no need for you to puff all up.



Is that clear enough for you? Or should I increase the font and add ellipses between each letter in the words so that it seems as though it's being said slower? ;)


God I feel the sarcasm and wit dripping all over me. Look, if you're going to get that upset or offensive about it, then you shouldn't debate politics. Its very strong and touchy sometimes. You just have to deal with it. I admitted my wrong, so what more can I do?

[Gravedigger]

No, I don't believe that's the case. You've been praising Bush and bashing Kerry in little sly ways for the longest now. It may not be because you're strongly for Republicans, but simply because you plan to vote for Bush.
Once again it's a complete accident. I have no agenda here as I said I'm not as into the politics as some of you guys are.


Where did this come from? I don't remember ever implying that you pleaded allegiance to either party like Chazz or myself.
well, you're already talking about how I'm for Bush, I figured the next logical step for you would have been to accuse me of being a Democrat or a Republican


Oh, so they're going to attack and leave a suicide note explaining why it was Bush's fault? Please. Why do you think the administration is shoving the terror threat down our throats now? So it can't be said that if there was an attack, they didn't act.

Its really not about Bush. Bush doesn't shape his administration's policy. He doesn't run the show. Bush is just the idiotic, charming face of it all. So his own personal stupidity is irrelevent.

Do you think Americans can't be easily swayed? I believe they can. Not everyone is stupid but there's a really big sized amount of people out there that are stupid in some areas of life and smart in others. Politics might be where a lot of people fall under the stupid category and they'd be easily swayed.


Oh, so these are military commanders? Lemme tell ya, Diggs, your cousin who just came home from Iraq doesn't surely know the things that you're talking about. They're over there fighting, and God bless 'em for doing so, but if what you're saying is comin' from a plain soldier, then I'm a bit skeptical.
One of the group of people I know was one of the first marines to enter Iraq, Baghdad, and his group was the one who ALMOST caught Saddam when they first entered Iraq. The rest are people who are decently high up and one is a Colnel. People who aren't in Iraq but are all over the world and know things (except for the Marine who was in Iraq but now in Kuwait).


I take the remark for the sarcastic smily as a shot to me. Well, I can only say that I'm not completely closed-minded, if thats what you're saying. I just don't pay attention to the Democratic "propaganda". I watch Bill O'Reilly and lightly skim Hannity & Colmes every once and while for COL. I mean, how conservative does that get?
You sure seem close-minded when it comes to arguing with people about politics.


So there's really no need for you to puff all up.
When you sit there and keep telling me what I'm doing when I say I'm not, basically calling me a liar, I have reason to puff up. Mac, I AM NOT LYING to you. I have no reason to. I have no agenda that would give me a reason to lie.


God I feel the sarcasm and wit dripping all over me. Look, if you're going to get that upset or offensive about it, then you shouldn't debate politics.
So when I keep telling someone that I wasn't doing something and he keeps calling me a liar and I get upset over it, that means I should stop debating? No, when someone tells you they're not lying over and over, then you either take their word for it or drop it. I don't think I have a history around here for being a liar, so you have no reason to sit there and act like I am one.

[TheMainMan25]

Ahem...is it possible for any American (besides Chazz) to discuss politics without getting into some kind of argument.

Chazz actually made my point when he said: "The Democrats are full of **** too." That's exactly what I'm saying! Why should we have to pick from the lesser of two evils? I know what you're going to say. You're going to say "Because that's how politics are and you just have to deal with it and stop complaining." Unfortunately, I'm the type of person who can't except that because I KNOW on a purely intellectual level that if America put their heads together, we could come up with a better way to elect the President. We just don't want to. That is why I won't vote, not simply because I think that my vote doesn't count, but because I think that I'm being lead by the nose.

You guys can argue the so-called "issues" all you want. Every single one is fueled by propaganda-Fox News, Sean Hannity, and Rush Limbaugh on one hand, the "Liberal Biased Media" on the other. I've listened to both, and decided that both are bull****.

P.S. And before you say "Vote for an Independent," I suggest you actually go and listen to Ralph Nader this time out. I did and he sounded like a cook. I can't remember what he said so don't ask, I just remember thinking that this guy took a hit from a very large bong one too many times.

[Mac Daddy]

Sorry, Diggs, but from my point, you were praising Bush in little inneundos. Now whether it was intentional or not, which I can't understand for the life of me, that's what I believe you were doing.




Do you think Americans can't be easily swayed? I believe they can. Not everyone is stupid but there's a really big sized amount of people out there that are stupid in some areas of life and smart in others. Politics might be where a lot of people fall under the stupid category and they'd be easily swayed.


Of, course the American people can easily be swayed. Thats exactly why Bush would surely win the election if you were attacked.



One of the group of people I know was one of the first marines to enter Iraq, Baghdad, and his group was the one who ALMOST caught Saddam when they first entered Iraq. The rest are people who are decently high up and one is a Colnel. People who aren't in Iraq but are all over the world and know things (except for the Marine who was in Iraq but now in Kuwait).


The claim that Al-Qaida is for Kerry getting into office is still laughable. Its not like Kerry would give these terrorists amnesty or anything.

And Jesus Christ, I'm so sick of people claiming that Bush was uniquely noble in his handling of the post-9/11 situation. Allow me to make this clear: ANYONE would have gone to Afghanistan and honestly tried to root out Al-Qaida (which we didn't. we allowed Usama and several other terrorists to escape) terrorists. ANY FREAKIN' ONE!

Now whether they would have went to Iraq, which didn't at all have anything to do with 9/11 is questionable. But isn't that where your vote for Bush also lies, Diggs?



You sure seem close-minded when it comes to arguing with people about politics.


But I'm not when it comes to, shaping my view. But political debates are LARGELY about, debating views.

When I'm debating Chazz, I'm facing the same conservative views that I've already heard, and disagreed with when it came to time to shaping my views. But in a debate, you're then to, for the most part, argue your point and try to see who has the best POV.

So my seemingly close-mindness when debating is not a problem. Its when people shape their views that they need to be open-minded.



When you sit there and keep telling me what I'm doing when I say I'm not, basically calling me a liar, I have reason to puff up. Mac, I AM NOT LYING to you. I have no reason to. I have no agenda that would give me a reason to lie.

No, you don't have to puff up. And the reason you don't is because you know full well I'm not trying to anger you, but instead I'm just stating what I believe to be ... right or wrong.



So when I keep telling someone that I wasn't doing something and he keeps calling me a liar and I get upset over it, that means I should stop debating? No, when someone tells you they're not lying over and over, then you either take their word for it or drop it. I don't think I have a history around here for being a liar, so you have no reason to sit there and act like I am one.


Then I'll take your advice ... and drop it.

[Mac Daddy]

Main Man


Chazz actually made my point when he said: "The Democrats are full of **** too." That's exactly what I'm saying! Why should we have to pick from the lesser of two evils? I know what you're going to say. You're going to say "Because that's how politics are and you just have to deal with it and stop complaining." Unfortunately, I'm the type of person who can't except that because I KNOW on a purely intellectual level that if America put their heads together, we could come up with a better way to elect the President. We just don't want to. That is why I won't vote, not simply because I think that my vote doesn't count, but because I think that I'm being lead by the nose.

Why should we have to pick from the lesser of two evils? Because until you yourself decide to do something about it, that's what you have.

Dude, that isn't right. I certainly don't see any evidence that would support my saying that. What I would say is that you have to be proactive and do something about it.

But hey, if you want to sit on your behind and complain about how everything sooooo corrupt, then you go ahead and do that. But there are some people in this world, who see the current situation and decide that one day they are going to do something about it. You can be one of those people.



You guys can argue the so-called "issues" all you want. Every single one is fueled by propaganda-Fox News, Sean Hannity, and Rush Limbaugh on one hand, the "Liberal Biased Media" on the other. I've listened to both, and decided that both are bull****.

So where do you stand? Like I said before, just sitting back and wiping your hands counts for nothing.



P.S. And before you say "Vote for an Independent," I suggest you actually go and listen to Ralph Nader this time out. I did and he sounded like a cook. I can't remember what he said so don't ask, I just remember thinking that this guy took a hit from a very large bong one too many times.


You think I would have advised you to vote for Nader? After all I've said against Bush and in support for Kerry, you actually think I would have said that?

You're sadly mistaken.

[TheMainMan25]

Where do I stand? Well, ask me a question and I'll tell you. Oh and the Ralph Nader line wasn't directed at you specifically Mac. It was to anyone reading this thread.

[Mac Daddy]

Where do I stand? Well, ask me a question and I'll tell you. Oh and the Ralph Nader line wasn't directed at you specifically Mac. It was to anyone reading this thread.


Well you know the top issues: the war in Iraq, the war on terror, the terrorist threats, the election, the economy, abortion, same-sex marriage. The usual.


More may come, but those are the ones that come to mind now.

[TheMainMan25]

Ok, no prob. We'll start with the biggies.

1. The War on Terror & The War in Iraq:
While I can understand the Bush Administration's stand that the War on Terror and the War in Iraq are one and the same, I simply don't agree. I seem to remember when the countries' biggest priority was the capture of Osama Bin Laden and the rest of Al Qaida's top leaders. Last time I checked, those ****-suckers were somewhere around the Pakistan-Afghanistan border. All of a sudden, we're invading Iraq because Saddam supposedly had WMD's and the Administration was afraid that Al Qaida was trying to aquire some of them. That makes perfect sense to me. Unfortunately, Saddam didn't have WMD's and now we've made a huge mess out of Iraq, while Afghanistan runs amok. I honestly don't think that we are any safer than we were on 9/11. And the funniest thing is, back when the war in Iraq started, the Bush Administration put out an ultimatum to their so-called European "allies": Either you're with us or against us. Our "Allies" didn't think that the war in Iraq was a good idea so we went in alone. Now, Bush is trying to make a Coalition-exactly what he should've made when he went into Iraq in the first place. But to be fair, I haven't heard a damn thing about what John Kerry would do differently.

2. The Economy
I know a little about economics. Enough to know at least that the President has very little to do with the U.S. economy and there is only so much he can do to fix it. My problem comes when Unemployment is very high (coming down, but still high) and companies get tax-breaks when the outsource jobs overseas. I also heard about 2 months ago that the Oil companies have had record sales this year, while I can barely afford to keep gas in my van (Yeah, I have a van-I said it).

3. Abortion/Same sex marriages
I honestly don't agree with abortions because I believe that life starts in the womb. But people have their own minds and can make their own decisions. I don't care who gets married to who and the fact that the President wants to amend to Constitution in order not to allow people to do so scares the hell out of me.

4. One that you didn't mention-Free Speech Issue
I find it funny that you can't show a breast on TV, but I can turn on CSI and see people murdered in the most vicious fashion imaginable. And don't get me wrong, I love CSI. I find some of the things that our government is doing as regards to free speech simply "Police State Like". I can understand being conservative, but some of the laws the Government is trying to pass is simply insane.

[Mac Daddy]

Well, Main Man since you're about as independent as they come, let me get your thoughts on the following issue:


On September 11, 2001, President George W. Bush was in a Florida school. While the children of a class were reading to him "My Pet Goat", Mr. Bush was informed by an aide that "the country is under attack". George Bush didn't get up, or even budge ... he sat there was seven minutes after being told the country was under attack.

The explanation for this was: He didn't want to panic the children.


Your thoughts?

[Chazz]

Well, Main Man since you're about as independent as they come, let me get your thoughts on the following issue:


On September 11, 2001, President George W. Bush was in a Florida school. While the children of a class were reading to him "My Pet Goat", Mr. Bush was informed by an aide that "the country is under attack". George Bush didn't get up, or even budge ... he sat there was seven minutes after being told the country was under attack.

The explanation for this was: He didn't want to panic the children.


Your thoughts?


I'll give you mine. :D Look, you harp on this issue and I really don't see why. The guy decided to not panic anyone and now all you Bush haters feel that this was a sign of weakness or something. Thing is, if he had got up and left, you guys would say how insensitive he was. But, he did what he did and you guys still harp on this thing more than gay rights.

My view? I think Bush did the wrong thing but I can also see why he did do what he did. I would have calmly left, excusing myself.

[Mac Daddy]

I'll give you mine. :D Look, you harp on this issue and I really don't see why. The guy decided to not panic anyone and now all you Bush haters feel that this was a sign of weakness or something. Thing is, if he had got up and left, you guys would say how insensitive he was. But, he did what he did and you guys still harp on this thing more than gay rights.

My view? I think Bush did the wrong thing but I can also see why he did do what he did. I would have calmly left, excusing myself.


Oh, you're damn right we harp on it. The commander-in-chief was told that the nation was under attack and he sat there.

He decided not to panic anyone? Please. What a weak argument, Chazz.

So it would have paniced the children to take less tha 15 seconds and say: "Listen, kids, I enjoyed your reading. You all are great, but as your president, I have business to take care of you. Goodbye and God bless."

Oh, yes, I see it know. Those little rascals would have been jumping on the walls after that.

Its simply common sense.


Now I've previously said that Bush is intellectually challenged and not running the show, but I like to throw that in the face of people who say George W. Bush is a great military leader. He choked on Sept. 11, 2001 and didn't know what to do. That surprises me since Bush doesn't read, I figured his watched a lot of movies and would have reacted better.

[Chazz]

Oh, you're damn right we harp on it. The commander-in-chief was told that the nation was under attack and he sat there.

He decided not to panic anyone? Please. What a weak argument, Chazz.

So it would have paniced the children to take less tha 15 seconds and say: "Listen, kids, I enjoyed your reading. You all are great, but as your president, I have business to take care of you. Goodbye and God bless."

Oh, yes, I see it know. Those little rascals would have been jumping on the walls after that.

Its simply common sense.


Now I've previously said that Bush is intellectually challenged and not running the show, but I like to throw that in the face of people who say George W. Bush is a great military leader. He choked on Sept. 11, 2001 and didn't know what to do. That surprises me since Bush doesn't read, I figured his watched a lot of movies and would have reacted better.


Ummmmmmmmm.............did you see the part where I said that I felt he did the wrong thing? :D

[MmmCake]

Sorry, but I didn't think it was uncalled for. The guy just pisses me off because he's a jackass. I think he tried this bull, you know jumping into a serious debate, but not being serious, twice already. I just finally had enough of it, and Lord knows, I'm not the one to jump on people like him. But he pushed me.

Oh, because I support Bush and post the way I feel in this and the Farenheit 9/11 post makes me a jackass. Or is it because when I was Cake and Whitey I never rped in your sim. Or is it because I'm a Yankee fan and your an Atlanta Brave fan and we wooped your ass twice in the World Series?

[TheMainMan25]

Mac, here's my response to what you asked me. I think that in all fairness, that the President was caught in one of those "damned if ya do, damned if ya don't" positions. If he had gotten up right away and ran out of the building, then his opponents would've taken that and ran with it. They would be saying "Here's a guy that gets rattled and he's supposed to be the Leader of the Free World. How's he gonna fight a war?" I simply think that Bush's opponents are grasping at straws with this particular argument.

I do agree that 7 minutes can make a world of difference when a country's under attack and the solution that you gave would've been the best way to go. But think of it this way, you're the Leader of the most powerful nation in the history of the world and you've just been attacked worse than you have ever been attacked before. Can you honestly say that you wouldn't have sat there for at least a few minutes composing yourself and knowing that the media, who had been hounding you from day one, will be watching your every move?

[Chazz]

Well, funny thing is MM is that The Republicans and The Democrat's are both grasping at straws. Hell, they do it all the time. I agree with what you said. In fact, I said the same thing. I also said that I didn't agree with his decision, but I am not going to try to crucify the guy for what he did.

Mac, get over this because this is a dead issue. You tell me all the time to get over Clinton and how he lied to the American people about his affair. So, in all fairness, you need to get over this.

[Mac Daddy]

Ummmmmmmmm.............did you see the part where I said that I felt he did the wrong thing? :D

Oh, yes, you put in such clear terms: You disagreed, but at the same time justified it. That was reason enough for me to criticize your point.


Main Man:


Mac, here's my response to what you asked me. I think that in all fairness, that the President was caught in one of those "damned if ya do, damned if ya don't" positions. If he had gotten up right away and ran out of the building, then his opponents would've taken that and ran with it. They would be saying "Here's a guy that gets rattled and he's supposed to be the Leader of the Free World. How's he gonna fight a war?" I simply think that Bush's opponents are grasping at straws with this particular argument.

I seriously doubt that. I don't know I just do. But whether the Dems would have criticized Bush for immediately getting up, it wouldn't have mattered to me. I know I wouldn't have had a problem with it.



I do agree that 7 minutes can make a world of difference when a country's under attack and the solution that you gave would've been the best way to go. But think of it this way, you're the Leader of the most powerful nation in the history of the world and you've just been attacked worse than you have ever been attacked before. Can you honestly say that you wouldn't have sat there for at least a few minutes composing yourself and knowing that the media, who had been hounding you from day one, will be watching your every move?

Hell, no. You know what President Smith would have done?:


"Look, kids, I think you're reading is wonderful and you all are wonderful. But unfortunately, I have some 'President' work to handle. Thank you for having me and have a nice day."


Then President Smith would have went on the outside of the class room and gathered some information and confided with my staff.


Bush sat there, not knowing what to do because no one was telling him what to do. Thats what it boils down to.


Yankee Doodle:

Not reading your post, don't care about you


Chazz:


Mac, get over this because this is a dead issue. You tell me all the time to get over Clinton and how he lied to the American people about his affair. So, in all fairness, you need to get over this.


I won't get over it, Chazz. See there's a big difference between Bush's lie and Clinton's lie. On one hand, and I promise to God, this is the last time I say this, Clinton lied about his sexual indiscretions and on the other hand, Bush lied to get us into war.


Not to mention, Bill Clinton is not the sitting President, but Bush is.

[Chazz]

Mac, one lie is not worse than the other. A lie is a lie. There is no small lie....medium lie.............or big lie...................there is just a lie.

[Mac Daddy]

Mac, one lie is not worse than the other. A lie is a lie. There is no small lie....medium lie.............or big lie...................there is just a lie.


Man, that comments sucks, Chazz. I'd like to see tell that to one of the parents whose child died in Iraq. That seemed really inconsiderate.



EDIT


And I wonder if you think the Republicans would have felt the same, Chazz, if Bush and Clinton switched shoes. Yeah ... right.

[Chazz]

Man, that comments sucks, Chazz. I'd like to see tell that to one of the parents whose child died in Iraq. That seemed really inconsiderate.



EDIT


And I wonder if you think the Republicans would have felt the same, Chazz, if Bush and Clinton switched shoes. Yeah ... right.


Now you are taking this to the extreme. You know damn well that I did not say that or implied anything like that. My point is that a lie is alie, and that there is no difference between what Clinton did and what you say Bush is doing. I support the hell out of our troops (and the troops of our allies who are helping us). For you to say that about me is inconsiderate.

[Mac Daddy]

Now you are taking this to the extreme. You know damn well that I did not say that or implied anything like that. My point is that a lie is alie, and that there is no difference between what Clinton did and what you say Bush is doing. I support the hell out of our troops (and the troops of our allies who are helping us). For you to say that about me is inconsiderate.


Like I said, you ask a parent whose child died in Iraq do they see any comparison between Clinton lying about his sexual affairs and Bush lying to get us into war, and as a result, 900 troops have died.


I stand by my initial view, your comment seems inconsiderate.

[Duff]

sorry to interupt, but is any of this on topic?

[Chazz]

Like I said, you ask a parent whose child died in Iraq do they see any comparison between Clinton lying about his sexual affairs and Bush lying to get us into war, and as a result, 900 troops have died.


I stand by my initial view, your comment seems inconsiderate.


See, this is typical Democratic horse****! You guys will put a spin on just about anything won't you? Ahh, but you will say the same thing about me and the Republican's. If I sound pissed........it is because I am. Justify how you wnat to Mac, but the truth is a lie is a lie. And the truth is, a lie is never any good.





sorry to interupt, but is any of this on topic?


No........it's not. But, Mac and I are used to doing this when it comes to polotics.

[Mac Daddy]

sorry to interupt, but is any of this on topic?


Yeah, it's pretty much on-topic. I think Main Man meant for this to be a spirited debate.


Onto Chazz. Chazz, buddy, you can be as outraged as you want, because you should ... as a result of your foolish comment.

Its clear to anyone that your comment was inconsiderate. You compared Bill Clinton's lying about a personal affair with George W. Bush's lying about a war, which human beings are dying in. My question to you remains: would you be willing to make that comparison in the face of one of the dead soldier's parents? How do you think these people feel about it?

You can call it Democratic horse **** or spins all you want, but that's how I feel about it. There's absolutely no comparison between Clinton and Bush's lies, besides the fact there were lies. But obviously, one was horribly worse than the other. I don't see how you don't agree.



No........it's not. But, Mac and I are used to doing this when it comes to polotics.


Tell me about it. We did this to a thread in the Laugh Factory. :chuckles:

[Duff]

Yes, politics is hilarious, isnt it

[Gravedigger]

Its clear to anyone that your comment was inconsiderate. You compared Bill Clinton's lying about a personal affair with George W. Bush's lying about a war, which human beings are dying in. My question to you remains: would you be willing to make that comparison in the face of one of the dead soldier's parents? How do you think these people feel about it?

Ok, I just want to say ahead of time that this will likely come out wrong and make me look stupid or evil or inconsiderate or whatever because sometimes I word things the wrong way and end up chewing on my pinky toe.

With that said, I agree with you both on this whole lies thing. While I do agree that a lie is a lie, I also believe that some lies ARE bigger lies than others. That probably doesn't make sense, but that's not what I was really wanting to say anyway.

Mac, that's an unfair thing to say about talking to a dead guy's parents and making that comparison that a lie is a lie. That's taking it to the extreme. Whenever you take things to the extreme, there's bound to be hell to deal with in any kind of comparison. If you're gonna ask Chazz if he'd do that, take this situation for an example (warning: the rest of the post will probably come out wrong so bear with me):

Say you have this woman named...Sally. Say Sally is a woman who is divorced. Say this woman had one of the worst possible break-ups and divorces out there because her husband was having an affair. Let's make it worse and say it was with her best friend in the whole world. Let's say this has completely destroyed this woman's world because she was madly in love with her husband, and she was madly in love with her best friend, but not in a lesbian way. Let's make her situation basically end of the world type, like you've made the soldier situation.

Then we have you walk up to her and tell her that what Clinton did wasn't bad when compared to Bush sending those troops out there. You don't know until you ask this woman, but she might end up disagreeing with you. If that situation comes out right when I was describing it, you might not think that's a fair way to look at the whole "big lie, little lie" thing you and Chazz are discussing.

If you're going to sit there and give him a situation and ask him if he'd talk to the parents, you don't need to go to the extreme, even though that could happen (but then again so could the divorce/affair situation). You could have given an example where the soldier was still alive and the family was worried.

And in case anyone jumps in proclaiming me inconsiderate or devil spawn, I said ahead that it might come out wrong. I don't mean to be inconsiderate if what I have said in this post sounded like that. I was trying to get Mac to see that he went a little far to make his point and that the same thing could be switched around on him, with some people thinking that Clinton's situation was bigger. So in a way, people like Sally could make Chazz's argument seem to make more sense.

[Mac Daddy]

Ok, I just want to say ahead of time that this will likely come out wrong and make me look stupid or evil or inconsiderate or whatever because sometimes I word things the wrong way and end up chewing on my pinky toe.

With that said, I agree with you both on this whole lies thing. While I do agree that a lie is a lie, I also believe that some lies ARE bigger lies than others. That probably doesn't make sense, but that's not what I was really wanting to say anyway.

Mac, that's an unfair thing to say about talking to a dead guy's parents and making that comparison that a lie is a lie. That's taking it to the extreme. Whenever you take things to the extreme, there's bound to be hell to deal with in any kind of comparison. If you're gonna ask Chazz if he'd do that, take this situation for an example (warning: the rest of the post will probably come out wrong so bear with me):

Say you have this woman named...Sally. Say Sally is a woman who is divorced. Say this woman had one of the worst possible break-ups and divorces out there because her husband was having an affair. Let's make it worse and say it was with her best friend in the whole world. Let's say this has completely destroyed this woman's world because she was madly in love with her husband, and she was madly in love with her best friend, but not in a lesbian way. Let's make her situation basically end of the world type, like you've made the soldier situation.

Then we have you walk up to her and tell her that what Clinton did wasn't bad when compared to Bush sending those troops out there. You don't know until you ask this woman, but she might end up disagreeing with you. If that situation comes out right when I was describing it, you might not think that's a fair way to look at the whole "big lie, little lie" thing you and Chazz are discussing.

If you're going to sit there and give him a situation and ask him if he'd talk to the parents, you don't need to go to the extreme, even though that could happen (but then again so could the divorce/affair situation). You could have given an example where the soldier was still alive and the family was worried.

And in case anyone jumps in proclaiming me inconsiderate or devil spawn, I said ahead that it might come out wrong. I don't mean to be inconsiderate if what I have said in this post sounded like that. I was trying to get Mac to see that he went a little far to make his point and that the same thing could be switched around on him, with some people thinking that Clinton's situation was bigger. So in a way, people like Sally could make Chazz's argument seem to make more sense.


That was sly, Diggs. Very sly and intelligent.


But, nope, you failed to convince me.


Look, this Sally woman may have seen her husband run off with her best friend, but do you actually think this woman, even with all her pain, would say that Clinton's lying about his affair is bigger than Bush lying about a war, in which hundreds of people are dying?


C'mon, dude. I don't think Sally would that inconsiderate and superficial.

[Gravedigger]

That was sly, Diggs. Very sly and intelligent.


But, nope, you failed to convince me.


Look, this Sally woman may have seen her husband run off with her best friend, but do you actually think this woman, even with all her pain, would say that Clinton's lying about his affair is bigger than Bush lying about a war, in which hundreds of people are dying?


C'mon, dude. I don't think Sally would that inconsiderate and superficial.
Sly? Dude, I hope we don't have to go through this again, because I wasn't trying to come off wrong. I was genuinely trying to make a point without stepping on toes or coming off wrong. I don't lie, even to people I've never met.

As for Sally, you don't know what she'd do. Just like with the parents of the dead soldier. For all you know they could be a family with a huge military background who have had people die before and are proud of serving their country. For all you know they might agree with Chazz. Unlikely as it may seem, it could happen. Sorry if you don't agree, but you don't know what someone would do until it happens to them. I don't think the comparison you made was fair just like you don't think Chazz's was fair either.

[MmmCake]

Yankee Doodle:

Not reading your post, don't care about you

Look, I don't mean to come off as a jackass and sound like I don't respect your or Sen Kerry's views on the US.
I just belive in MHO that I think Bush would do a better job as a president then Kerry.

Just to say, both Kerry and you make good points.
But again, I like Bush more.

Clintion:
The president who did it between the Bushes.

Hehe, I saw that on a bumper sticker today.

[Chazz]

Mac, I'm just gonna have to call a truce on this one because you feel one way and I feel another. I don't feel what I said to be in the least bit inconsiderate at all. You are the one who is taking this to extremes. In fact, most of the time, you take stuff I say to extremes. Now, I am partly to blame because I am not..........am not.............politically correct and I never will. I say my peace on things and I stand by what I say. I know that I did not say anything inconsiderate and I won't apologize for it either.

[Mac Daddy]

Sly? Dude, I hope we don't have to go through this again, because I wasn't trying to come off wrong. I was genuinely trying to make a point without stepping on toes or coming off wrong. I don't lie, even to people I've never met.

Well, sorry, I didn't mean to imply that you were lying. Maybe I used the wrong word. I meant to say what you did was ... I can't think of a word, but it was a smart move.



As for Sally, you don't know what she'd do. Just like with the parents of the dead soldier. For all you know they could be a family with a huge military background who have had people die before and are proud of serving their country. For all you know they might agree with Chazz. Unlikely as it may seem, it could happen. Sorry if you don't agree, but you don't know what someone would do until it happens to them. I don't think the comparison you made was fair just like you don't think Chazz's was fair either.


That is a possibility. There's always going to be a small minority, so yes one set of parents could agree with Chazz. But looking at the grand scheme of things, I think most of the military parents would agree with me.



Mac, I'm just gonna have to call a truce on this one because you feel one way and I feel another. I don't feel what I said to be in the least bit inconsiderate at all. You are the one who is taking this to extremes. In fact, most of the time, you take stuff I say to extremes. Now, I am partly to blame because I am not..........am not.............politically correct and I never will. I say my peace on things and I stand by what I say. I know that I did not say anything inconsiderate and I won't apologize for it either.

This is going to be a bit controversial, but when I said you were being inconsiderate, I meant it seemed you didn't at all try to place yourself in those parents' shoes. Its easy for you to say a lie is a lie, but my point was, people who have lost their love ones may not feel the same. They may actually agree with me, when I say a lie is a lie, but Bush's lie was bigger than Clinton's ... why? Because Bush's lie is causing people to die. I just don't see how you don't agree.


Yankee Doodle:


The reason I spoke to you unkindly, is because we're here trying to have a serious debate. And then you come along saying something like "he should nuke the place". Its your POV and you have every right to feel that way, but it seemed to me you weren't serious, you just wanted to butt in. Thats why I thought you looked like a jackass.

[Chazz]

Okay, from that perspective, I see your point. I can't even begin to imagine what it would feel like to lose a son or daughter, brother or sister, or any family member to the war. I have two second cousins fighting over in Iraq, and I really am not close to them. So, I don't feel it to be right for me to try and imagine how it would feel.

[Mac Daddy]

Okay, from that perspective, I see your point. I can't even begin to imagine what it would feel like to lose a son or daughter, brother or sister, or any family member to the war. I have two second cousins fighting over in Iraq, and I really am not close to them. So, I don't feel it to be right for me to try and imagine how it would feel.


Are you kidding? You don't feel it would be right for to try and imagine how it would feel? Dude, you're saying that to only save face.


Like I said before, the comment was inconsiderate because you, as you just admitted, didn't even try to place yourself in their shoes. Watch Farhenheit 9/11 and you'll see the mother who lost her son. Thats and example of how the vast majority of parents who lost their children feel ... especially when their children died in a war that's premises were false.

[Gravedigger]

Well, sorry, I didn't mean to imply that you were lying. Maybe I used the wrong word. I meant to say what you did was ... I can't think of a word, but it was a smart move.
Smart move? Ah, I think I get what you meant. You meant it was a smart move to warn people that I might end up saying something stupid or inconsiderate and I wasn't meaning to be that way, so I said that ahead of time so people wouldn't get mad at me? Am I understanding correctly? Because that's what I was trying to do. I have a friend over there that's close to me and a couple of more friends getting ready to go off, too, so I'm obviously not going to try and be inconsiderate.

Just trying to make you see both sides.


That is a possibility. There's always going to be a small minority, so yes one set of parents could agree with Chazz. But looking at the grand scheme of things, I think most of the military parents would agree with me.
Yes, but just because most might agree with you does not mean that your view of lies is correct. The same can be said for Chazz's view of lies. It seems to me as if you've been arguing that your view of lies is the right one when I don't think it's true.

[Mac Daddy]

Smart move? Ah, I think I get what you meant. You meant it was a smart move to warn people that I might end up saying something stupid or inconsiderate and I wasn't meaning to be that way, so I said that ahead of time so people wouldn't get mad at me? Am I understanding correctly? Because that's what I was trying to do. I have a friend over there that's close to me and a couple of more friends getting ready to go off, too, so I'm obviously not going to try and be inconsiderate.

No, you missed it completely. I meant it was a smart move how you flipped the situation with the creation of the Sally factor. That was smart.

[Chazz]

Mac, I am an inconsiderate prick! :chuckles:

Look, I aint trying to save face. I said I see you point of view, and I understand how you feel. But..............you are trying to change the way I look at something and I aint gonna do that either. If anything, you should know that I could give two ****s about what people think of me. All I said was I understood your POV.

And Yes, I can't imagine what it would feel like to lose a loved in the war. But, you stated that you saw this from some woman in Farenheit 9/11, and you put that with being the way every mother/father feels about losing a loved one in the war. I know that not to be true. I know a family that lives here and they lost there son, and they were proud that he died doing what he believed in. Agree with it or not, but that is how they feel.

Mac, you need to quit believeing every ****ing thing Michael Moore tells you to be true, because I know for a fact that most of the **** he put in his film was fabricated and total BS! God............and you have the audacity to say that I am senile and a sheep for following Bush. You follow Moore and The Democrat's like they were Jesus and the Disciples.

[Mac Daddy]

And Yes, I can't imagine what it would feel like to lose a loved in the war. But, you stated that you saw this from some woman in Farenheit 9/11, and you put that with being the way every mother/father feels about losing a loved one in the war. I know that not to be true. I know a family that lives here and they lost there son, and they were proud that he died doing what he believed in. Agree with it or not, but that is how they feel.


I promise to God you need glasses, Chazz. Go back and read my quote ... no I'll save you the trouble:


Mac Daddy's real message:


Watch Farhenheit 9/11 and you'll see the mother who lost her son. Thats and example of how the vast majority of parents who lost their children feel ... especially when their children died in a war that's premises were false.


Did I say every? No, I didn't.


____________



Mac, you need to quit believeing every ****ing thing Michael Moore tells you to be true, because I know for a fact that most of the **** he put in his film was fabricated and total BS! God............and you have the audacity to say that I am senile and a sheep for following Bush. You follow Moore and The Democrat's like they were Jesus and the Disciples.


Chazz, I'm really starting not to like debating you. It seems your memory is that of a victim of Alzheimers. You don't remember anything I post past 10 to 15 minutes.

Go back and search the threads and I'm sure you'll find me saying, at least 3 times, that I know about the shortcomings of my party. In fact, I said it in this thread. I promise to God, the next time you confuse something else, that we've over time and time again, I'm just going to ignore it. It's getting to be very tedious.

[Chazz]

Ahh, come on Mac. You know you would be lost without me here debating you on Polotics and such. :D

[Mac Daddy]

Ahh, come on Mac. You know you would be lost without me here debating you on Polotics and such. :D


Well ... you're right. Its one of my main reasons for livin'. But do me a favor and stop watching so much too damn TV. It's killing your brain cells.

[TheMainMan25]

*Whew* There was a lot of typin goin on here while I was gone.

Mac, in response to what you said to Duff (like 3 pages back), I did want this to become a spirited debate-as long as it leads to something. Sometimes I feel that sometimes all we Americans do is talk, talk, talk....but don't get **** done.

Well, I guess I should be happy that we actually CAN run our mouths. Although I think with the way the Bush Administration feels about free speech (especially speech that doesn't agree with them) we may only be able to complain here on the net if he gets 4 more years.

Before Chazz or anyone else says "What the hell are you talking about," let me explain. I've seen first-hand what Bush and his "friends" have done to anyone disagreeing with them on the public airwaves- i.e. Howard Stern, the Dixie Chicks, Elton John, Michael Moore. And all of this was done with the intent to run for office a second term. What happens if Bush wins a second term and no longer has to worry about voter discontent? The dogs will be off the leash and that's a scary thought.

[Duff]

He personally may not have to worry about another term, but i doubt his party are going to let him just be flippant towards the voters. They would, i am sure, like to win more elections than this one in 2004.

With that being said, having read through this pile of steaming poo that supposedly debates American politics, i'd like to say, "thank God i'll never have to vote in America!" Seven pages of "political debate" and not a single mention of a policy. It seems you would both rather find fault with the opposing party's candidate. What about taxes? What about public spending? What about unemployment? What about crime? Do any of these things interest the electorate in America?, or do they decide who the leader of the free-world is going to be, solely using the factor of whos less of an *******?

[Mac Daddy]

With that being said, having read through this pile of steaming poo that supposedly debates American politics, i'd like to say, "thank God i'll never have to vote in America!" Seven pages of "political debate" and not a single mention of a policy. It seems you would both rather find fault with the opposing party's candidate. What about taxes? What about public spending? What about unemployment? What about crime? Do any of these things interest the electorate in America?, or do they decide who the leader of the free-world is going to be, solely using the factor of whos less of an *******?



What in the blue hell are you talking about? Do you even know what "policy" is?


I remember Chazz, Diggs, and myself debating mostly about the Iraqi War and the War on Terrorism. Those aren't policies.


Unfortunately 9/11 happened and the majority of Americans are more concerned about foreign affairs than domestic policy. Thats what Chazz and I debate most of the time, and sometimes he'll throw in the less important issues like gay marriage and abortion just like the Republicans in Washington.


We may not have been debating taxes, but we were debating policy. With all due respect, I suggest you look policy up before you try to insult a whole nation of people.


God willing, I'll be back tomorrow for more of this.

[Duff]

Excuse me? Maybe most American sthink differently to me. I live in a state that has had to deal with 30 years of terrorist bombings, murders and acts of mindless violence. True, we have some form of peace for this past few years but the majority of political debate still centres around the IRA and other paramilitary organistaions. I am well aware of how politics works in a state where everyone wonders where the next attack is coming from. Next time, i advise you engage that mass between your ears before you jump down someones throat

However, politics over here is still able to focus on what happens at home. i.e domestic policies. Admittedly, i could probably have phrased my comments better by including the ord "domestic" while mentioning policies. Again, you are quite right when you state that foreign affairs is a policy, and i agree that it is quite an important one for America at the moment. However it is not the only policy. The UK is probably as much, if not more, at risk of a terrorist attack than the US. While Tony Blair gets some flak about Iraq, it still does not over-shadow other political matters. In my humble opinion, the Bush administration had always planned on fighting this election on their military achievemnts, even before 9-11 happened. I genuinely believe that if 9-11 hadnt happened, America would still ahve been at war in Iraq. What they didnt rely on was the emergence of Kerry asthe Democrat candidate, someone who has the potential to embarass Bush on military matters.

[Gravedigger]

However, politics over here is still able to focus on what happens at home. i.e domestic policies. Admittedly, i could probably have phrased my comments better by including the ord "domestic" while mentioning policies. Again, you are quite right when you state that foreign affairs is a policy, and i agree that it is quite an important one for America at the moment. However it is not the only policy. The UK is probably as much, if not more, at risk of a terrorist attack than the US. While Tony Blair gets some flak about Iraq, it still does not over-shadow other political matters. In my humble opinion, the Bush administration had always planned on fighting this election on their military achievemnts, even before 9-11 happened. I genuinely believe that if 9-11 hadnt happened, America would still ahve been at war in Iraq. What they didnt rely on was the emergence of Kerry asthe Democrat candidate, someone who has the potential to embarass Bush on military matters.

Well, you know what? All politicians do is say the same damn thing every year about the same policies. Republicans say basically the same thing every voting year about taxes, same with Democrats. Same applies with schools, same applies with anything you can think of that we should be wondering what their position is. I think Independent is the only group that changes their opinion.

I might be wrong on what I said so far in this post, but generally I keep hearing things that are familiar or experience deja vu when listening to a candidate talk about the policies.

I think that's the main reason why Americans discuss more of the 9/11 type issues instead of policies.

I do not know a whole lot about politics so please excuse the stupidity that emanates from this post, if there is any, as I'm just trying to give my take on how and why we discuss the things we do when talking about politics.

[badbilly3d]

The arguments, or discussions, you guys are having are just EXACTLY what the leaders of the two-headed single party we have in America want. If they keep the people polarized against each other, there is no chance of any other party coming in and mounting a challenge to them. They learned their lesson after Ross Perot. Little by little, the US is moving toward a society where the people are losing what little power they still wield because they are afraid of "throwing their vote away" or "exposing themselves to terrorism" by voting for the wrong party. Remember that Lincoln and the Republicans were a "third party" in 1860 when America faced one of its toughest times ever.

Bottom line is, whoever you vote for in Nov., the same people win. Bush and Kerry are both members of many of the same groups like Skull & Bones, Council on Foreign Relations, and others. It doesn't matter which guy you think is lying less because neither one is making the decisions. All the rhetoric is just designed to cause the people to become more polarized. They know that if the politicians ever get exposed on something, they are out of luck.

There will be other attacks here in America no matter which party is in power; and whoever is responsible for them, whether it is a genuine terrorist group or elements within our own government, the aim is still the same: to scare the people into giving up their freedoms on their own without any government coercion. Remember who was responsible for setting up Al Qaeda and helping put Saddam into power? The CIA. Very ironic that so many Americans have had to die in the last three years because of entities created by our own government.

Whether you like Nader or not he is ABSOLUTELY right when he says that the District of Coumbia is "corporate-occupied territory".

[Mac Daddy]

Duff:


Excuse me? Maybe most American sthink differently to me. I live in a state that has had to deal with 30 years of terrorist bombings, murders and acts of mindless violence. True, we have some form of peace for this past few years but the majority of political debate still centres around the IRA and other paramilitary organistaions. I am well aware of how politics works in a state where everyone wonders where the next attack is coming from. Next time, i advise you engage that mass between your ears before you jump down someones throat


Well, next time I suggest your clarify yourself before trying to insult a whole group of people. That was very ignorant on your part.



However, politics over here is still able to focus on what happens at home. i.e domestic policies. Admittedly, i could probably have phrased my comments better by including the ord "domestic" while mentioning policies. Again, you are quite right when you state that foreign affairs is a policy, and i agree that it is quite an important one for America at the moment. However it is not the only policy. The UK is probably as much, if not more, at risk of a terrorist attack than the US. While Tony Blair gets some flak about Iraq, it still does not over-shadow other political matters. In my humble opinion, the Bush administration had always planned on fighting this election on their military achievemnts, even before 9-11 happened. I genuinely believe that if 9-11 hadnt happened, America would still ahve been at war in Iraq. What they didnt rely on was the emergence of Kerry asthe Democrat candidate, someone who has the potential to embarass Bush on military matters.


I've said many times before that the Bushies were planning war from the beginning. However, if 9/11 never happened, but we still went to war, I think the political debate in America wouldn't have been so obsessed with foreign affairs. But 9/11 did happen and that's why foreign affairs is on our minds so much. But still that doesn't mean domestic policies aren't in the focus in America. Chazz and I may not debate domestic policies much, but we're just two individuals.



Gravedigger:



Well, you know what? All politicians do is say the same damn thing every year about the same policies. Republicans say basically the same thing every voting year about taxes, same with Democrats. Same applies with schools, same applies with anything you can think of that we should be wondering what their position is. I think Independent is the only group that changes their opinion.

And where is the problem there, Diggs? The problem I have is when politics turn all dirty and start focusing on guys getting blow jobs or taking their wives to sex clubs. The fact is liberalism and conservatism are the two most dominative ideals in this country and I would love it if everytime the election comes around, the debate would be about who has the better plan for America. For the most part, we see exactly the opposite in public political debates.


Billy:



The arguments, or discussions, you guys are having are just EXACTLY what the leaders of the two-headed single party we have in America want. If they keep the people polarized against each other, there is no chance of any other party coming in and mounting a challenge to them. They learned their lesson after Ross Perot. Little by little, the US is moving toward a society where the people are losing what little power they still wield because they are afraid of "throwing their vote away" or "exposing themselves to terrorism" by voting for the wrong party. Remember that Lincoln and the Republicans were a "third party" in 1860 when America faced one of its toughest times ever.


Dude, you're going waaay too left field. The kind of partisan debate that Chazz and I have has been going on for centuries. The two largest conflicting sides should participate in partisan debates and duke it out to see how has the best vision for running the country. That's healthy.


Look, man, the country is going to get off this atmosphere of polarization down the line. Throughout history, polarization has risen up and gone back down. Thats exactly what's going to happen now whether the party bosses like it or not.



Bottom line is, whoever you vote for in Nov., the same people win. Bush and Kerry are both members of many of the same groups like Skull & Bones, Council on Foreign Relations, and others. It doesn't matter which guy you think is lying less because neither one is making the decisions. All the rhetoric is just designed to cause the people to become more polarized. They know that if the politicians ever get exposed on something, they are out of luck.

Please. You think if John Kerry or Al Gore had been elected in 2000, we'd be at war in Iraq? Absolutely not. But isn't the war in Iraq one of the evil conspiracies, Billy?



There will be other attacks here in America no matter which party is in power; and whoever is responsible for them, whether it is a genuine terrorist group or elements within our own government, the aim is still the same: to scare the people into giving up their freedoms on their own without any government coercion. Remember who was responsible for setting up Al Qaeda and helping put Saddam into power? The CIA. Very ironic that so many Americans have had to die in the last three years because of entities created by our own government.


Oh, yes, you're absolutely right about that. Thats part of the reason why people in the Arab world hate us because we propped up people like Hussein.


Look, you can talk about the evil grand conspiracy all you want, but the fact is, we have two choices and I'll happily go with the lesser of the evils. Why? Because things will be better. There's a grave difference between the 12 years under Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush and the 8 years under Clinton.


But like I said Main Man, if you opt to sit on the sidelines and wipe your hands clean, instead of doing something about it, then what good are you?

[TheMainMan25]

Mac, if you ask me what good am I again then me and you are gonna have problems. :duel:

The reason that I sit on the sidelines is because more often then not, ALL politics are a pile of bull**** that I don't really want to be bothered with. I have enough problems in my life just trying to deal with everyday **** to have to be bombarded with this crap day in and day out, all the while knowing that both sides are full of it.

Just look at this thread. 7 pages of absolute bull**** and not a damn thing accomplished. Politics is a game, but for the life of me, I can't tell why people play along, stupidly arguing instead of using their BRAINS to come up with a better solution.

[Mac Daddy]

Like I said Main Man, if you're going to sit on the sidelines and complain, but not do anything about it, then stay out of it completely. And again I ask, what good are you? Sure you have a life and your own personal problems, but because of that you can't think about the problems and issues of the country, or the world? That seems very selfish, lazy, and superficial, with all due respect.


If you don't want to be bothered, then just leave the whole thing alone.

[Gravedigger]

Like I said Main Man, if you're going to sit on the sidelines and complain, but not do anything about it, then stay out of it completely. And again I ask, what good are you? Sure you have a life and your own personal problems, but because of that you can't think about the problems and issues of the country, or the world? That seems very selfish, lazy, and superficial, with all due respect.


If you don't want to be bothered, then just leave the whole thing alone.
actually, I think you misunderstood him. He never said he doesn't care about those issues, he just doesn't care what the politicians have to say about them because the politicians are full of crap and don't actually care about the issues, only getting elected.

[Mac Daddy]

actually, I think you misunderstood him. He never said he doesn't care about those issues, he just doesn't care what the politicians have to say about them because the politicians are full of crap and don't actually care about the issues, only getting elected.


Well, my mistake. But even still, he should be compelled to do something about it if he feels that strongly about it.

[TheMainMan25]

Mac said that I should do something to make a difference. Like what? Start the Revolution? Heeeellll no!

I wish that I could do something about it. Unfortunately, I was born the wrong color and in the wrong tax bracket to make any changes. A lot of politicians get into politics with the intent of making things better. Then they get eaten alive by the political system that we have set up in this country and they wind up becoming just like the people that they wanted to change. So, complaining is all I can do. And Digger said it perfectly. I care about the issues, which is why I answered your questions Mac. I just don't care about POLITICIAN's!!!!!!!

Hmmmmm.....I just said that in one sentence. I could've saved myself a lot of time.