RICK TELLS PL TO GET HIS HEAD IN THE GAME/PL RESPONDS: LOL!!!

Here's Rick:

Easy now O great one. Are you proclaiming to know "what's really going on in the halls of power in our country"? Or are you saying only those opposing the democrats don't know? Or are you suggesting only those supporting the democrats "really know".

You stated to being on the political sidelines for over 30 years until a candidate, who resembled (Class is in session -I'm using a default phrase commonly used on this blog to baselessly reject an otherwise sound argument. Class dismissed.) idealized adults from your childhood, emerged. Or are you just pissed off that you realized other idealized adults let you down so that gives you motivation to demonize, ridicule and hate anyone who may resemble those people?

Your commentary on certain issues clearly demonstrates the need to be in the game a bit more openly to fully comprehend how similar the Dems + the Repubs really are.

Surprising as this is, dadloff stating he would not vote for any incumbent, and coupling Rush Limbaugh with "similar" hard lined opinionated democratic talking heads, gives us insight into this.

3 of the 5 current reps who currently hold the TOP leadership positions in the House, plus Speaker Pelosi's right hand man, Van Hollen, all supported the war in Iraq.
4 of the 5 current senators who currently hold the TOP leadership positions in the Senate did the same.

29 Dems for and 21 against in the Senate including power brokers Hilary Clinton + John Kerry
81 Dems for and 126 against in the House.

http://usliberals.about.com/od/liberalleadership/a/IraqNayVote.htm

"...these mortified and mortifying hypocrites now claim they were betrayed by the Fake Cowboy and Darth Vadar ...."

I'm seeking clarity. Are you intellectually honest enough to accuse the dems who supported the war as hypocrites too?
If so, these "hypocrites" actually patrol those very halls of power of which you claim to have insight. Why would people, democrats or republicans believe those in power? "I voted for it before I voted against it". Remember that? You can't have it both ways.

Yeah. That's the ticket!

Based on the information we all had, yes weapons of mass destructions were in Iraq (See 13 UN resolutions that call for Iraq to give these up starting in the early 90's) why not?. The people who supported the war wisely believed this to be true. Why wouldn't they? The proof was there. However, Obama, who promised to have the troops phased out was against it all the time. Whichl proved to be a major factor in getting the nomination. I would have voted against it too. Not because I am against all of the solid reasons to go into war or not because I am in favor of all of the solid reasons to avert war, or to gain political speed, but because of history.

If you look at the regions of the middle east and Iraq particularly, the thousands of years of old struggles between different tribes, clans, peoples, religions + states prove that even total + complete victory by the US would not make for lasting peace. Unless, of course, only one group was left standing to govern themselves. Like the Mafia of old, eliminate the children of those you killed lest they avenge those deaths + the cycle continues.

Also, look at Vietnam. You don't stick your big toe in the water and call it swimming. If the US is not prepared to use every bit of its power + military to quickly and absolutely destroy the enemy, why bother? It was clear the US wouldn't do that in Iraq. Vietnam was about a 20 year war beginning with Eisenhower, amped up by Kennedy, recklessly fought by LBJ, Nixon and Congress at the time. Politically correct? Pacify certain groups? No torture? Play political paddy-cake with other countries? That is ridiculous. You either go in or you don't. Look at it this way, if you have to get into a fight and there's no way of getting out of it, regardless of who is right or wrong, wouldn't you rather end it with one punch and minimize the damage to both parties?

Knowing the US wouldn't enter the war absolutely, it was guaranteed of unnecessarily high casualties, huge expenses + eventually resentment.

Stay tuned for the health care "war" all in or just a big toe?
All we are saying......is give reason a chance!

PL:

Well, Rick, if I've said it once, I've said it twenty times, if you're going to comment on my postings, you should actually read them!

Do a search for the word Democrats on this blog and you will not only not find one post of mine praising them, you will find some seriously criticizing them, even calling them "two-faced wimps" HERE, and here's one of several praising a real Republican.

Some are desperate to make this an "us or them/me versus you/my opinion or party versus yours" schoolyard throw-down, but that's not what I'm about on this blog. This blog is about seeking out the truth, however inconvenient it might be at times for whatever group is making the most inane noise, and as I've said before to the chagrin of some, there aren't two sides to the truth of a situation.

Oh, wait, what? I have to be "in the game" to realize how politicians are all the same? LOL! I've been saying that since before you were old enough to vote, Rick! I didn't vote for a president for 28 years consciously, because I was paying attention. Close attention.

People who think that because I supported and voted for Barack Obama that I must be liberal or a Democrat don't understand that leadership isn't a game, and I'm not so easily pigeon-holed into being a "team member" as if it were. This isn't a sport; this is a fight for the evolution of the consciousness of our society, and there is a very retrogressive, resistant force that right now has found a home in the right wing of the Republican Party, which seems to be all that's left of the GOP. So, I hit them hard because they're being the more blatant assholes right now, not because I support the Democratic Party. I'll reiterate again, I voted for Obama because he is an adult, albeit a politician, but nonetheless, he is an emotionally mature, rational, practical leader, and we haven't had one of those either since you've been old enough to vote!

And Dadloff's sudden "libertarian" conversion is as laughable as the people receiving Medicare, Medicaid, disability, veteran's benefits or social security saying they want the government to be hands off when it comes to health insurance! HELLO?! They're just humiliated now, and singing a new, false tune because their good 'ole boys turned out to be hall of fame crooks and liars.

I'll finish with an anecdote, a true story. I was on the subway one day, during the height of the Bush-Cheney years, and I heard two guys talking about President Bush. This is a beauty! Really. Stay with me. One guy says to the other of President Bush: "He lies. He's a liar. That's all. He's just a liar. But... ninety-five percent of the time, he's a good president!"

Enough said about people in the game?

1 comment:

loff56 said...

Pete,
I understand what you're getting at in the idea of being fair in your criticism of both sides, but again, and I believe Rick is beating around the bush with this point, a certain argumentative decorum is lacking in your blog. And, as a matter of course, you do refer to the GOP or Republicans in the general sense in a way and a frequency that you don't with liberals or democrats. It's fair to go after both sides, but when you group one and not the other, then that comes off as partisan. Why don't you come up with a unique name for all the leaders, Democrats and Republicans (no matter what the ratio) who fit into the dishonest character structure that you abhor. This way you won't run the risk of offending people on one side or the other who may have legitimate policy arguments. Or just say what you mean... "These people who happen to be Republicans are...," not "Republicans are..."

Obama IS an adult, emotionally mature, and rational as you point out. And that makes him a great leader. He's also an incredible debater with an uncanny ability to get you to see things his way. And with that in mind, I would challenge you to find a speech given by him that uses the following words to describe his political and ideological opponents.

"...retrogressive, racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, greedy, needy, prescription drug-filled, numbskull Deliverance hypocrites..."

What I'm saying is - you catch more flies with honey.

 

blogger templates 3 columns | Make Money Online