Who says Dems play at demagoguery politics?

[4and12to12and4]

This is why I am anti-american, anti-society, anti-territory, anti-republican, anti-democrat, anti-economy, anti-government, anti-humanist, anti-god.

All the shit that has been said in this thread is proof that this whole f'n world is f'd, because humankind thinks that DOMINATING is the only way to a FULFILLED life. No ones life is fulfilled. And I can tell you damn sure, no ones life at Packerrats is fulfilled, or why the hell would we be spending so much time giving a damn about a football team, and allowing our moods and emotions to be embroiled and entangled in its winning and losing. The animals on this planet must all think we are the stupidest creature here. And guess what, we are. Security? Good living? Promising future? Are you f'n kidding me? Read a history book. All mankind has ever done in it's entire history is build up large empires to seemingly take over the planet, just to have something stupid happen and the empire comes crashing down. You think we're impervious to that? Think again. Republican, Democrat, Christian, Athiest, who gives a shit, we all all f'd in the head. The only true peace would be if all peoples would put aside territory, race, etc. and just f'n live IN the world, not overpopulate tiny areas of it, and let 90% of the earth go unfulfilled. Ever watch Legends of The Fall? The character played by Brad Pitt was seemingly the unruly asshole that didn't play by the rules. He was the only person in that movie I could halfway identify with.

[Joemailman]

Lighten up. Francis.

[the_idle_threat]

This is why I am anti-american, anti-society, anti-territory, anti-republican, anti-democrat, anti-economy, anti-government, anti-humanist, anti-god.

All the shit that has been said in this thread is proof that this whole f'n world is f'd, because humankind thinks that DOMINATING is the only way to a FULFILLED life. No ones life is fulfilled. And I can tell you damn sure, no ones life at Packerrats is fulfilled, or why the hell would we be spending so much time giving a damn about a football team, and allowing our moods and emotions to be embroiled and entangled in its winning and losing. The animals on this planet must all think we are the stupidest creature here. And guess what, we are. Security? Good living? Promising future? Are you f'n kidding me? Read a history book. All mankind has ever done in it's entire history is build up large empires to seemingly take over the planet, just to have something stupid happen and the empire comes crashing down. You think we're impervious to that? Think again. Republican, Democrat, Christian, Athiest, who gives a shit, we all all f'd in the head. The only true peace would be if all peoples would put aside territory, race, etc. and just f'n live IN the world, not overpopulate tiny areas of it, and let 90% of the earth go unfulfilled. Ever watch Legends of The Fall? The character played by Brad Pitt was seemingly the unruly asshole that didn't play by the rules. He was the only person in that movie I could halfway identify with.

You just want people to think you look like Brad Pitt.

[SkinBasket]

TEver watch Legends of The Fall?

I tried when I was 18. Ended up making out about 30 minutes in and even after an extended session that included a dry hump, heavy petting, and more making out, the fucking movie was still going. And still with the bwa wa wa. Jesus, what a boring flick. Good if you're young and in love. Bad if you like watching something interesting.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

You are so right about Edwards. He shoulda just used the Repub strategy of not addressing them. Paging Thompson, Rudy, McCain, Romney.

[SkinBasket]

You are so right about Edwards. He shoulda just used the Repub strategy of not addressing them. Paging Thompson, Rudy, McCain, Romney.

Yes, much better to make promises you never intend to keep and pretend your party has done anything for blacks in the last 20 or 30 years that's actually made a difference to the black community, other than reinforcing the stereotype that an African American can't possibly be a republican without being a race traitor or an Uncle Tom. And then tell them that unless they vote for you, they'll all die. Or go to jail. That is a wonderful way to address them.

Maybe treating them like everyone else and not acting like they're the retarded kids at school with special needs is considered not addressing them. I don't know. I'm not black.

[Freak Out]

Not the 100 percent dead or in prison that pretty boy stated but you get his point.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/prisons.htm

FBI crime numbers.

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_04/offenses_reported/violent_crime/murder.html

[Tyrone Bigguns]

You are so right about Edwards. He shoulda just used the Repub strategy of not addressing them. Paging Thompson, Rudy, McCain, Romney.

Yes, much better to make promises you never intend to keep and pretend your party has done anything for blacks in the last 20 or 30 years that's actually made a difference to the black community, other than reinforcing the stereotype that an African American can't possibly be a republican without being a race traitor or an Uncle Tom. And then tell them that unless they vote for you, they'll all die. Or go to jail. That is a wonderful way to address them.

Maybe treating them like everyone else and not acting like they're the retarded kids at school with special needs is considered not addressing them. I don't know. I'm not black.

You have missed the point completely. The repubs won't even show up to take questions from blacks. Republican All-American Presidential Forum was held at Morgan State University in Baltimore, Maryland.

Yet, your top 4 weren't there. What message is that sending my friend.

And, enough with the sanctimonious, ridiculous statements. All pols make promises they don't intend to keep. Welcome to being a grown up.

And, just as there isn't one thought process among blacks, there isn't among dems/libs. Stop with the generalizations. Or, i will be forced to talk about Repubs and racism...oops, that wouldn't good as that wouldn't be a generalization with Jesse Helms, David Duke, etc.

Lastly, if you aren't aware that a disproportionate amount of black men are in prison then you are just plain dumb. And, to not acknowledge the unequal sentencing between black and whites is ridiculous.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Not the 100 percent dead or in prison that pretty boy stated but you get his point.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/prisons.htm

FBI crime numbers.

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_04/offen...me/murder.html

There you go again with your facts and book lernin.

[Freak Out]

Not the 100 percent dead or in prison that pretty boy stated but you get his point.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/prisons.htm

FBI crime numbers.

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_04/offen...me/murder.html

Whites were the victims more often (just barely) and Blacks committed more murders.

As much as I did not want to I did listen to the MTV thing beyond his dead or in prison statement and he has some very good ideas...he just has no chance. Edwards should have stayed in Congress....he did piss off many in his home state during his first term and may not have been reelected though.

[mraynrand]

Obviously, bith sides demagogue. Edwards' comment actually seems fairly mild compared to what Cheney said in 2004:

"If we make the wrong choice, then the danger is that we'll get hit again -- that we'll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States," Cheney said.

A bit over the top, but it was an accurate description of the difference between the parties. Kerry repeatedly stated that terrorism was more along the lines of a law enforcement problem - that we would respond to attacks, whereas Bush made it clear that he was going on the offensive. Cheney and Bush thought that Kerry's strategy would likely get us hit again. It's not an unreasonable position to take, based on Kerry's own position and the position taken by the previous president, who was far more concerned with international reaction to taking Bin Laden out than seeing him as a true threat to the U.S. Many agreed with Kerry and voted for him. Edwards on the other hand, is a charlatan of the highest order, who is so steeped in moral relativism, it's a wonder he can even function.

[mraynrand]

Moral Relativism (Confusion) at it's extreme, from John Edwards:

Responding to a question of whether he would be OK with having a fairy tale read to his second-grader that ends with two men kissing and living happily ever after, Edwards said: "… I don't want to make that decision on behalf of my children. I want my children to be able to make that decision on behalf of themselves, and I want them to be exposed to all the information, even in, what did you say, second grade? Well, second grade might be a little tough, but even in second grade, to be exposed to all those possibilities. Because I don't want to impose my view – nobody made me God – I don't get to decide on behalf of my family and my children. … I don't get to impose on them what it is that I believe is right."

[Harlan Huckleby]

Kerry repeatedly stated that terrorism was more along the lines of a law enforcement problem - that we would respond to attacks, whereas Bush made it clear that he was going on the offensive.

Just because someone says that fighting terrorism is done mostly with law enforcement does not in any way imply a passive, reactive approach. For most people in Europe and the U.S., it is a statement of common sense.

Bush went on the offensive primarily in Iraq. The short term impact on terrorism has been disasterous, with hardened, experienced jihadists spreading throughout the world.
The long term impact? I'm gonna be fair and say uncertain.

[mraynrand]

Kerry repeatedly stated that terrorism was more along the lines of a law enforcement problem - that we would respond to attacks, whereas Bush made it clear that he was going on the offensive.

Just because someone says that fighting terrorism is done mostly with law enforcement does not in any way imply a passive, reactive approach. For most people in Europe and the U.S., it is a statement of common sense.

Bush went on the offensive primarily in Iraq. The short term impact on terrorism has been disasterous, with hardened, experienced jihadists spreading throughout the world.
The long term impact? I'm gonna be fair and say uncertain.

Are you really that stupid? Bush went on the offensive around the globe, first in Afghanistan. Kerry talked about a 'global test" for actingagainst other countries, rather than putting the U.S. first. Cheny's quote was an over the top illustration of the difference in approaches. And you're right, "
Just because someone says that fighting terrorism is done mostly with law enforcement does not in any way imply a passive, reactive approach. " But so what? Kerry identified that he would be more likely to be reactive than proactive. That's the point - Cheney was taking about Kerry, not some abstraction.

[mraynrand]

And, enough with the sanctimonious, ridiculous statements. All pols make promises they don't intend to keep. Welcome to being a grown up.

Ahh, more moral equivalence. Since all pols make empty promises, they must all be the same. It couldn't be possible that some promises are worse than others, or some pols are more notorious for making empty promises, could it?