Can we have a new politcal forum.....

[Useruser666]

...where either extreme of the political spectrum is not allowed to post. This is getting ridiculous.

[Spam]

Then it wouldn't be a political forum.

I like it just the way it is.......The Extreme!!!!!

[Vashner]

If you can't handle the heat get out of the kitchen....

What do you want your typical 1 sided Bush bashing forum or one where the other side fights back?

Sorry San Antonio is not 100% lefty's as much as some would like it to be.

[hussker]

Dead Thread...like most of the poli threads here. very little subsatnce but tons of rhetoric and emotion. Emotions are liars.

[Useruser666]

If you can't handle the heat get out of the kitchen....

What do you want your typical 1 sided Bush bashing forum or one where the other side fights back?

Sorry San Antonio is not 100% lefty's as much as some would like it to be.

It's not hot in here, but the food tastes like shit. I'd like to improve the menu.

[hussker]

Dead Thread...like most of the poli threads here. very little substance but tons of rhetoric and emotion. Emotions are liars

[Nbadan]

UserUser is finally right. I can't remember when this forum was created by Kori, but by my best guestimate it was about a year and a half ago. At times, the partisanship in here just completely massacres any chance of debating issues that I think people seriously want to talk about, and yes, I know I am just as guilty of this as Hookdem sometimes. I think there ought to be threads that are completely for some partisan mud-slinging, otherwise this wouldn't be a 'true' political forum. Sometimes perfectly good threads just get insanely out of control though.

This forum seems to grow by leaps and bounds every day with fresh opinions and even the return of some old ones. However, I think we all can all begin to respect each others threads more, and leave the more serious topics for more in-depth debate for posters who want to do that. Opinions are great, but try to add something to the thread.

There is room for everyone in this forum: Democrats, Republicans, Moderates, and yes, the politically apathetic

[Clandestino]

dan, you have NEVER, NEVER brought anything to this forum that didn't bash the government.

[Cant_Be_Faded]

he posted about them not allowing to show dead bodies didn't he?

[boutons]

" ... that didn't bash the government."

That's a perfectly valid position. On blind percentages alone, much more likely to be correct than vs. the persuasion of "... only praises the government" .

Much more intelligent, reflective, nuanced that the blind, knee-jerking dumbfucks' "my country, right or wrong", esp when the shrub/Repugs have done fuck all for anybody in the USA in 5 years except stuff the pockets of the rich and corps.

[Clandestino]

boutons, you are just nuts! :lmao

[Nbadan]

dan, you have NEVER, NEVER brought anything to this forum that didn't bash the government.

Go ahead and call me a Bush-basher, call be a partisan, I don't care, but just a warning that your gonna look like a complete ass if Hillary manages to win the 08 Presidential election.

[Clandestino]

i don't consider you affiliated with any party... no matter party they are you will bash them bc it is the us government.

i voted for bill, so why would i look like an ass if hillary won? i vote on the candidate. and there was no way in hell i would have voted for kerry.

[Jelly]

I'll bet no one in this forum recognizes themselves as extremists. It's always the other guy. The fact that most of you think you're moderates (like moi) has me :lmao :lmao :lmao

[Clandestino]

haha!

[j-6]

i don't consider you affiliated with any party... no matter party they are you will bash them bc it is the us government.

i voted for bill, so why would i look like an ass if hillary won? i vote on the candidate. and there was no way in hell i would have voted for kerry.


A big thing that disturbs me about a Hillary win in '08 is the same two families running the country since 1992. Kinda creepy.

[Clandestino]

A big thing that disturbs me about a Hillary win in '08 is the same two families running the country since 1992. Kinda creepy.

cue nbadan!

[Nbadan]

A big thing that disturbs me about a Hillary win in '08 is the same two families running the country since 1992. Kinda creepy.

Same family alright, NeoLibs and NeoCons.

[Johnny_Blaze_47]

The funny part of this thread is figuring out who would be banned from that forum. :lol

[Clandestino]

there would be no forum!

[Nbadan]

The funny part of this thread is figuring out who would be banned from that forum. :lol

The only people who get banned are people who shit all over other people's threads. Otherwise, the political landscape is wide open.

[jochhejaam]

Go ahead and call me a Bush-basher, call be a partisan, I don't care, but just a warning that your gonna look like a complete ass if Hillary manages to win the 08 Presidential election.

I think that new show on CBS where Gina Davis plays the President is an effort to desensitize the American Public to the thought of having a female as President. Helping to pave the way for Hillary...possibly.

[Useruser666]

The funny part of this thread is figuring out who would be banned from that forum. :lol

Oh I could name names! :lol

[Dan Rather]

It's not hot in here, but the food tastes like shit.


Then go hungry bitch! :lmao

[Victor Newman]

http://www.boomspeed.com/woaimouse/mouse-in-san-antonio.jpg

[mookie2001]

the vanilla forum
the playing the wall forum
the word Independent sounds so cool forum

[MannyIsGod]

You just gotta be able to filter through the shit. There are a handful of posters who I take seriously and think they bring well thought out opinions even if I disagree with them. Scott, Travis, FWDT, Spurminator, and Extra Stout just to name a few.

You just have to ignore the NBADan's, Boutons, TRO, and others.

[Useruser666]

the vanilla forum
the playing the wall forum
the word Independent sounds so cool forum

About 1 out of 10 of your posts is more than just ranting. Try and improve upon that.

[mookie2001]

yeah like when extra stout said liberals hate vacations
that was valid

[Useruser666]

1 in 11

[mookie2001]

i love to rant
dam bush taking away my rights

[2centsworth]

Political Forums don't work. They're stricly used to distribute propaganda and manipulate a few minds. Some of us hold out hope that something postive could come from this board, but we're delusional at best.

[Useruser666]

i love to rant
dam bush taking away my rights

1/12

You can't listen with your ears closed and your mouth open.

[mookie2001]

i guess unlike Rush Limbaugh i speak in sound-bytes

[JoeChalupa]

I try to respect everyone's opinion even if I don't agree with it.
I enjoy this forum and wouldn't change it.
There are extreme views in the other forums as well.

I say to those with opposing views in the words of President Bush..."Bring it On!"

[Useruser666]

Some people here are just like robots. Not you Joe! :lol

[Useruser666]

I want a political forum where we can discuss bush's policies on education, the economy, the environment, and social welfare programs.

I want to discuss such things. I don't want robo-spam-hate-spew.

[mookie2001]

civil liberties-
pissed on.

[cecil collins]

Some people here are just like robots. Not you Joe! :lol

You are joking, right, because I think Joe has a lot of robot in him.

[ObiwanGinobili]

A big thing that disturbs me about a Hillary win in '08 is the same two families running the country since 1992. Kinda creepy.


wouldn't that be since '88?
bush clinton clinton bush bush (possibly clinton)

[cecil collins]

I'll bet no one in this forum recognizes themselves as extremists. It's always the other guy. The fact that most of you think you're moderates (like moi) has me :lmao :lmao :lmao

That is very funny, and I have also noticed it. I however realize I am an extremist. I don't think I should be, but in this country...


The funny part of this thread is figuring out who would be banned from that forum.


If it were up to User User to decide, I think I'd be gone, but I really wouldn't want a lot of things up to him.


The only people who get banned are people who shit all over other people's threads. Otherwise, the political landscape is wide open.

If this is rule, I think I'm fairly safe. I don't agree with it, although at times some of these attacking posters can get annoying, I don't feel that it should be filtered out.

[j-6]

wouldn't that be since '88?
bush clinton clinton bush bush (possibly clinton)

Yeah, you're correct. '88 it was.

[ObiwanGinobili]

Yeah, you're correct. '88 it was.

ok.
but as far as having the same 2 families in charge for 2 decades.. well, doesn;t bother me much if you look at it form the viewpoint that all of our presidents have been from the same one family.
the family of rich white dudes. :lol

[Hook Dem]

"At times, the partisanship in here just completely massacres any chance of debating issues that I think people seriously want to talk about, and yes, I know I am just as guilty of this as Hookdem sometimes."...............Thank you for admitting that Dan! I am impressed that you felt the need to single me out. My sense of fairness must bother you! . Politics aside, I have no hate for you!

[Hook Dem]

haha
really though

can someone fill me in on Bush's OTHER 'policies' besides that he's against terror, gay marriage, and abortion?

for real

send me links or something

because i really don't know what he's been doing the past 5 years besides declaring war
:lol :lol Well, at least, you admit it!

[SWC Bonfire]

and in the last 75 years or so..

rich white dudes who are skinny and have no facial hair

Bill was skinny???

How fat are you? :lol

[Useruser666]

That is very funny, and I have also noticed it. I however realize I am an extremist. I don't think I should be, but in this country...



If it were up to User User to decide, I think I'd be gone, but I really wouldn't want a lot of things up to him.


If this is rule, I think I'm fairly safe. I don't agree with it, although at times some of these attacking posters can get annoying, I don't feel that it should be filtered out.

See you have a problem reading peoples posts. I didn't say I wanted this forum to change. I said I wanted a NEW forum where people could actually discuss things with well thought out posts and not just spam smears.

It's so funny watching people jump on other people's cases just because they THINK that person supports a certain side. The people in here who can only support one side, no matter how ridiculous or precarious a position it puts them are of those of whom I speak. They're whine drowns out the good parts of debating the issues here.

[2centsworth]

haha
really though

can someone fill me in on Bush's OTHER 'policies' besides that he's against terror, gay marriage, and abortion?

for real

send me links or something

because i really don't know what he's been doing the past 5 years besides declaring war
Your mind is already made up so why ask for someone elses opinion?

[Dos]

but I thought clinton had fixed everything when he was in office...

I believe when he left office we still had homelessness and poverty.
the Kyoto Treaty still wasn't signed.
Bin Laden was still a free terrorist.
social security wasn't fixed.
No universal health care.

honestly what did clinton do..

[Dos]

Thanks to Bill Clinton, you can take a leave from your job to deal with a medical emergency in your family—but you won't get paid; the law only requires employers to give you the time off. Welfare reform has yielded some positive results since its enactment in 1996, though most of the jobs filled by welfare recipients pay low wages, offer few benefits, and are likely to disappear in economic downturns, and the effects on children who had to bring themselves up in the absence of their working mothers has yet to be measured. But it misrepresents the historical context for Clinton, as he did in his speech, to bask in the humanitarian glow of a policy choice motivated more by his reelection campaign against Bob Dole than by his compassion for single mothers caught up in welfare dependency. This is a point made eloquently by Peter Edelman, who resigned in protest over Clinton's embrace of a "hard" Republican version of reform, in an Atlantic Monthly cover story entitled, "The Worst Thing Bill Clinton Has Done." With welfare reform, Clinton did not "put people first," as he claimed Thursday; he put Bill Clinton first. Elected in 1992 with barely 43% of the vote, he governed as if the goal to which he was willing to sacrifice all other goals was his political viability. He spent his promise largely on himself.

Clinton may not have left a substantial legislative legacy, but his political legacy is potent. He and Herbert Hoover may be the only presidents whose enduring bequest was to the opposition party. Richard Nixon's self-destruction in Watergate decimated his party in the congressional elections of 1974, the first post-Watergate contest. But that setback was transient, as the GOP resurgence under Reagan would show. Twenty years later Bill Clinton led his party to a more consequential defeat—the loss of the House of Representatives, the center of Democratic power since the New Deal. Clinton failed ordinary Americans, and wounded his party, by not bringing Health Care Reform—his one bid for a major achievement—to a vote, even though the Democrats controlled both branches of Congress. With each election cycle, it becomes clearer and clearer that 1994 was the worst defeat in the history of the world's oldest political party. Unlike the GOP in 1974, the Democrats may never recover from 1994—not today, when congressmen pick the voters through computer-directed gerrymandering, not when Congressional districts are becoming ideological affinity groups, the red districts attracting republicans, the blue districts democrats. So long as right-wing cultural populism is in the ascendant, it is hard to see any red state Congressmen losing their seats to Democrats, especially in the South. As for the Senate—also lost in 1994, regained in 2000, and lost again in 2002—three red-state incumbent Democratic Senators have been defeated in the two elections of the Bush era, and Republicans have replaced five retiring red state Democrats.

[Useruser666]

and what is bush's stance on health care reform?

Do you know what it is?

[Dos]

elpimpo.. history will judge this presidency just like it judged clinton and every other presidency.... I will wait for that judgement when it comes...

[Nbadan]

but I thought clinton had fixed everything when he was in office...

I believe when he left office we still had homelessness and poverty.
the Kyoto Treaty still wasn't signed.
Bin Laden was still a free terrorist.
social security wasn't fixed.
No universal health care.

honestly what did clinton do..

Geez, the only adminstration in the last century to run a net surplus not enough for you?

[Dos]

nbadan.. so running a surplus is more important to you than any of the above mentioned polices... ok...

[Useruser666]

Geez, the only adminstration in the last century to run a net surplus not enough for you?

Is that anything like Worldcom's net profit?

[Dos]

elpimpo.. I am sure you can google it...

[Useruser666]

Go to Bush's official web site. Or take a look at some of the past election debate transcripts.

[Spurminator]

and what is bush's stance on health care reform?

http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/medicalliability/

[SpursWoman]

Go to Bush's official web site. Or take a look at some of the past election debate transcripts.


That would be too much trouble. It's much easier to bitch about the obvious and what the MSM & talking heads want you to bitch about. :)

[boutons]

"I thought clinton had fixed everything when he was in office"

unending stupid comment from the right.

"honestly what did clinton do.."

1. even shrub, coming into office, complimented Clinton on buidling up FEMA, then prompty proceeded to destroy it. Behold the recent effects.

2. Clinton/Dems busted their asses against a hostile Congess in 92-94 pushing down the federal deficit ("it's the economy, stupid"), after Reagan/Poppy/Repugs fucked it all up. Clinton's reduction in fed deficit most economists credit as the groundwork for the "greatest, longest peacetime expansion" of the economy throughout the rest of Clinton's term. Compare with the fed defecit under shrub (and Poppy), and compare with the Repugs agitating throughout Reagan's term for a fucking Constitutional amendment to outlaw federal deficits.

3. Clinton attempted to address the disaster called the US national health billl, but was too ambitious, and ran into doctors/HMOs/insurance companies and the politicians they owned, who still suck Americans dry with exorbitant medical costs, while leaving 80 million Americans uninsured.

4. Clinton's environmental policies were extremely popular with the American public, probably his most accessible success. Many of those policies have been gutted by the Repugs.

5. etc.

now, let's hear some positives by shrub/dickhead/Repugs in the last 5 years.

Even if there were any Repug positives, they'd be offset, negated by the huge negatives of the bogus Iraq war.

[Dos]

well elpimpo your not going to get a fair view from the DNC site on bush's stance on the issues... heh...

I guess the 2006 elections will tell alot about how he is doing and how the GOP is doing as well...

[Spurminator]

So his stance on Health Care is basically the status quo... Unless you've got a President who wants to socialize Health Care, you shouldn't be expecting a lot of Presidential adresses on health care reform.

[mouse]

I said I wanted a NEW forum where people could actually discuss things with well thought out posts

Good Luck :lmao

[Useruser666]

Well, it worked with you! :lol

[Hook Dem]

one second i hear how clinton has fucked up health care and That's why it sucks

and then the next second i hear that bush is keeping the "status quo" because he's not socialist and health care is fine
I see your post count is hung up at 3,030. They did that in order to keep the server from crashing. At the rate you post, you must be on here 24/7. It wouldn't take you 2 days to reach 10,000. :lol I can remember when you weren't here and it wasn't that long ago.