the vanilla forum
the playing the wall forum
the word Independent sounds so cool forum
You just gotta be able to filter through the . 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.
About 1 out of 10 of your posts is more than just ranting. Try and improve upon that.
yeah like when extra stout said liberals hate vacations
that was valid
1 in 11
i love to rant
dam bush taking away my rights
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.
1/12
You can't listen with your ears closed and your mouth open.
i guess unlike Rush Limbaugh i speak in sound-bytes
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!"
Some people here are just like robots. Not you Joe!
I want to discuss such things. I don't want robo-spam-hate-spew.
civil liberties-
pissed on.
You are joking, right, because I think Joe has a lot of robot in him.Some people here are just like robots. Not you Joe!
wouldn't that be since '88?
bush clinton clinton bush bush (possibly clinton)
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...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
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.
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.
"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!
Bill was skinny???
How fat are you?
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.
Your mind is already made up so why ask for someone elses opinion?
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..
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 en led, "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 in bent Democratic Senators have been defeated in the two elections of the Bush era, and Republicans have replaced five retiring red state Democrats.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
