These forums are CLOSED. Please visit the new forums HERE
A serious question for the Democrats. |
|
|
Chance Abattoir
Future Rockin' Resmod
Join date: 3 Apr 2004
Posts: 3,898
|
12-19-2005 15:20
This question set-up appears to me to be Billy just trying to goad Democrats into saying that they would sacrifice any number of innocent victims if only it would get rid of old W. This is no way to have a discussion, forcing people to either not participate or agree to the ridiculous choices. It's called turning on the lights without screwing in the bulbs. _____________________
"The mob requires regular doses of scandal, paranoia and dilemma to alleviate the boredom of a meaningless existence."
-Insane Ramblings, Anton LaVey |
|
Billy Grace
Land Market Facilitator
Join date: 8 Mar 2004
Posts: 2,307
|
12-19-2005 15:23
This question set-up appears to me to be Billy just trying to goad Democrats into saying that they would sacrifice any number of innocent victims if only it would get rid of old W. This is no way to have a discussion, forcing people to either not participate or agree to the ridiculous choices. Oh but you are soooooo wrong. This is Billy posing a serious question that I have. Looking at the actions and words of Democratic leaders such as Howard Dean it is my belief that some in your party would actually choose #2 and the power over #1 and a political defeat simply because they hate President Bush and lust for power. Personally I think that this persistence on the "I hate Bush and so should you" mantra is going to kill the Democratic Party in the next election already because for the Democratic Party to be right and regain power Iraq has to blow up and President Bush disgraced. The question really is would you accept a total political defeat and admit that President Bush had it right all along if it meant a smashing success in the Middle East or do you hate President Bush so much that you would sacrifice victory in Iraq to see him humiliated and regain the power that the Democrats have lost? I painted the question and I did to remove any doubt where your priorities lie given your answer to my question. Sorry if you don’t like the question but I would without hesitation choose #1 if the political roles were reversed. Would you swallow your pride and do so too? btw, in my opinion there is at least a chance that #1 could actually happen as well as most of #2 with the exception that President Bush would never be put to death. The question is valid whether if you want to give an honest answer or not. _____________________
I find it rather easy to portray a businessman. Being bland, rather cruel and incompetent comes naturally to me.
John Cleese, 1939 - |
|
Billy Grace
Land Market Facilitator
Join date: 8 Mar 2004
Posts: 2,307
|
12-19-2005 15:25
This question set-up appears to me to be Billy just trying to goad Democrats into saying that they would sacrifice any number of innocent victims if only it would get rid of old W. This is no way to have a discussion, forcing people to either not participate or agree to the ridiculous choices. Oh, and given how you take the question... why cant you just choose #1? Is it THAT hard? _____________________
I find it rather easy to portray a businessman. Being bland, rather cruel and incompetent comes naturally to me.
John Cleese, 1939 - |
|
Billy Grace
Land Market Facilitator
Join date: 8 Mar 2004
Posts: 2,307
|
12-19-2005 15:25
oops
_____________________
I find it rather easy to portray a businessman. Being bland, rather cruel and incompetent comes naturally to me.
John Cleese, 1939 - |
|
Billy Grace
Land Market Facilitator
Join date: 8 Mar 2004
Posts: 2,307
|
12-19-2005 15:26
This question set-up appears to me to be Billy just trying to goad Democrats into saying that they would sacrifice any number of innocent victims if only it would get rid of old W. This is no way to have a discussion, forcing people to either not participate or agree to the ridiculous choices. I am certainly not forcing anyone to choose #2. _____________________
I find it rather easy to portray a businessman. Being bland, rather cruel and incompetent comes naturally to me.
John Cleese, 1939 - |
|
Kazuo Murakami
Sofa King
Join date: 31 Aug 2005
Posts: 359
|
12-19-2005 15:26
"Yer either fer it or agin' it!"
It didn't make sense when Bush said it, and neither does your moronically phrased "question." |
|
Billy Grace
Land Market Facilitator
Join date: 8 Mar 2004
Posts: 2,307
|
12-19-2005 15:28
"Yer either fer it or agin' it!" It didn't make sense when Bush said it, and neither does your moronically phrased "question." Is it really THAT hard to choose #1?  _____________________
I find it rather easy to portray a businessman. Being bland, rather cruel and incompetent comes naturally to me.
John Cleese, 1939 - |
|
Chance Abattoir
Future Rockin' Resmod
Join date: 3 Apr 2004
Posts: 3,898
|
12-19-2005 15:36
"Yer either fer it or agin' it!" It didn't make sense when Bush said it, and neither does your moronically phrased "question." Bubba: The lights are either on or off. Guy: Dude, you didn't put the bulbs in. Bubba: That's irrlevant. They can only be on or off! Guy: But-- Bubba: ON OR OFF!!! Guy: Alright, psycho. _____________________
"The mob requires regular doses of scandal, paranoia and dilemma to alleviate the boredom of a meaningless existence."
-Insane Ramblings, Anton LaVey |
|
Gus Plisskin
Registered User
Join date: 8 Feb 2005
Posts: 84
|
12-19-2005 15:39
Personally I think that this persistence on the "I hate Bush and so should you" mantra is going to kill the Democratic Party in the next election already because for the Democratic Party to be right and regain power Iraq has to blow up and President Bush disgraced. The question really is would you accept a total political defeat and admit that President Bush had it right all along if it meant a smashing success in the Middle East or do you hate President Bush so much that you would sacrifice victory in Iraq to see him humiliated and regain the power that the Democrats have lost? |
|
Billy Grace
Land Market Facilitator
Join date: 8 Mar 2004
Posts: 2,307
|
12-19-2005 15:42
Bubba: The lights are either on or off. Guy: Dude, you didn't put the bulbs in. Bubba: That's irrlevant. They can only be on or off! Guy: But-- Bubba: ON OR OFF!!! Guy: Alright, psycho. Shall I put you down for #2 Chance? _____________________
I find it rather easy to portray a businessman. Being bland, rather cruel and incompetent comes naturally to me.
John Cleese, 1939 - |
|
Billy Grace
Land Market Facilitator
Join date: 8 Mar 2004
Posts: 2,307
|
12-19-2005 15:43
Gosh you're a great guy. It's really good of you to care about the political fortunes of the Democratic Party. Freedom of speech is more important than the illusion of unity. I could care less about the Democratic or Republican party if it were in the best interest of the country. How bout you? _____________________
I find it rather easy to portray a businessman. Being bland, rather cruel and incompetent comes naturally to me.
John Cleese, 1939 - |
|
Chance Abattoir
Future Rockin' Resmod
Join date: 3 Apr 2004
Posts: 3,898
|
12-19-2005 15:45
I could care less about the Democratic or Republican party if it were in the best interest of the country. How bout you? "I couldn't care less." If you could care less, then you hate America. Maybe it was a freudian slip and you meant what you said, hm? _____________________
"The mob requires regular doses of scandal, paranoia and dilemma to alleviate the boredom of a meaningless existence."
-Insane Ramblings, Anton LaVey |
|
Billy Grace
Land Market Facilitator
Join date: 8 Mar 2004
Posts: 2,307
|
12-19-2005 15:47
"I couldn't care less." If you could care less, then you hate America. Maybe it was a freudian slip and you meant what you said, hm? Afraid to answer my question Chance? _____________________
I find it rather easy to portray a businessman. Being bland, rather cruel and incompetent comes naturally to me.
John Cleese, 1939 - |
|
Ordinal Malaprop
really very ordinary
Join date: 9 Sep 2005
Posts: 4,607
|
12-19-2005 15:48
I'm not a Democrat, or even a US citizen, but this is either (a) an utterly pointless hypothetical which can't be used in any meaningful sense to extrapolate, or (b) if non-hypothetical, demonstrating a basically insane view of the world, where only two things can happen, both partisan stereotypes. Not quite sure which. I suppose it could be a combination of both.
|
|
Chance Abattoir
Future Rockin' Resmod
Join date: 3 Apr 2004
Posts: 3,898
|
12-19-2005 15:50
Shall I put you down for #2 Chance? I have no party affiliations; add me to your little white book of sanitized hate in any ludicrous category you please.  _____________________
"The mob requires regular doses of scandal, paranoia and dilemma to alleviate the boredom of a meaningless existence."
-Insane Ramblings, Anton LaVey |
|
Billy Grace
Land Market Facilitator
Join date: 8 Mar 2004
Posts: 2,307
|
12-19-2005 15:53
I'm not a Democrat, or even a US citizen, but this is either (a) an utterly pointless hypothetical which can't be used in any meaningful sense to extrapolate, or (b) if non-hypothetical, demonstrating a basically insane view of the world, where only two things can happen, both partisan stereotypes. Not quite sure which. I suppose it could be a combination of both. Nobody said that there weren’t other possibilities Ordinal. The question was given the two choices which would you choose? It is obvious that the question is hypothetical. Which would you choose? _____________________
I find it rather easy to portray a businessman. Being bland, rather cruel and incompetent comes naturally to me.
John Cleese, 1939 - |
|
Chance Abattoir
Future Rockin' Resmod
Join date: 3 Apr 2004
Posts: 3,898
|
12-19-2005 15:53
Afraid to answer my question Chance? I'll see your 3rd grade and raise you a "your mom." _____________________
"The mob requires regular doses of scandal, paranoia and dilemma to alleviate the boredom of a meaningless existence."
-Insane Ramblings, Anton LaVey |
|
Billy Grace
Land Market Facilitator
Join date: 8 Mar 2004
Posts: 2,307
|
12-19-2005 15:54
I have no party affiliations; add me to your little white book of sanitized hate in any ludicrous category you please. I'll give you a pass on not being a Democrat Chance... cause I like you so much. Which would you choose given the parameters of the question? _____________________
I find it rather easy to portray a businessman. Being bland, rather cruel and incompetent comes naturally to me.
John Cleese, 1939 - |
|
Ulrika Zugzwang
Magnanimous in Victory
Join date: 10 Jun 2004
Posts: 6,382
|
12-19-2005 15:56
I just want a government that responds to the needs of its citizens (Katrina), protects civil liberties at home (NSA spying), doesn't wage war based on lies (Iraq), doesn't detain "enemy combatants" without trial, doesn't actively support torture, and respects the division of power between church and state as well as the executive and other branches. If I could have that along with option number one, I'd take it.
In the end the final outcome will have some elements of both the proposed scenarios. As an aside we'll soon be to the dreaded 3000 casualty level, where one can say that Bush has killed as many citizens as Osama has. (Although he bested Osama's death count by 97,000, if one takes into account Iraqi dead.) ~Ulrika~ _____________________
Chik-chik-chika-ahh
|
|
Chance Abattoir
Future Rockin' Resmod
Join date: 3 Apr 2004
Posts: 3,898
|
12-19-2005 15:58
As an aside we'll soon be to the dreaded 3000 casualty level, where one can say that Bush has killed as many citizens as Osama has. (Although he bested Osama's death count by 97,000, if one takes into account Iraqi dead.) But... But... Osama isn't in Iraq.  _____________________
"The mob requires regular doses of scandal, paranoia and dilemma to alleviate the boredom of a meaningless existence."
-Insane Ramblings, Anton LaVey |
|
Billy Grace
Land Market Facilitator
Join date: 8 Mar 2004
Posts: 2,307
|
12-19-2005 15:58
I just want a government that responds to the needs of its citizens (Katrina), protects civil liberties at home (NSA spying), doesn't wage war based on lies (Iraq), doesn't detain "enemy combatants" without trial, doesn't actively support torture, and respects the division of power between church and state as well as the executive and other branches. If I could have that along with option number one, I'd take it. In the end the final outcome will have some elements of both the proposed scenarios. As an aside we'll soon be to the dreaded 3000 casualty level, where one can say that Bush has killed as many citizens as Osama has. (Although he bested Osama's death count by 97,000, if one takes into account Iraqi dead.) ~Ulrika~ Interesting yet irrelavent to this thread. Please answer the question. Surely you have enough guts to give a straight answer if anyone does.  _____________________
I find it rather easy to portray a businessman. Being bland, rather cruel and incompetent comes naturally to me.
John Cleese, 1939 - |
|
Billy Grace
Land Market Facilitator
Join date: 8 Mar 2004
Posts: 2,307
|
12-19-2005 15:59
But... But... Osama isn't in Iraq. #2 for you Chance? _____________________
I find it rather easy to portray a businessman. Being bland, rather cruel and incompetent comes naturally to me.
John Cleese, 1939 - |
|
Dianne Mechanique
Back from the Dead
Join date: 28 Mar 2005
Posts: 2,648
|
12-19-2005 16:02
I am certainly not forcing anyone to choose #2. These questions are juvenile. You always seem to hint at some veiled deep thought behind these questions but then never reveal what that is. I pick number 3 (a slightly more likely scenario) 3. President Bush is completely wrong. The Iraq government never really suceeds but never really fails either. It's not Sadam Hussein any more, but it aint a democracy either. In the US, a Democrat is elected with a popular mandate to "bring the troops home." She does this as her first duty of office and is hailed as a great leader. Before the four years are up however, the media has construed her as being at fault for all the problems the US is suffering because of losing the war and the associated destruction of the economy, the environment etc. even though this was actually caused by the many years of Republican rule. The Vets that were cheering the decision to come home now hate her for "losing" the war. She is hounded out of office on some made up scandal or technicality and Jeb Bush (now weighing over 300 pounds), is elected in a landslide victory based on questionable electronic voting and some drinking buddies on the Supreme Court. 20 more years of Republican shenanigans ensue... _____________________
.
black art furniture & classic clothing =================== Black in Neufreistadt Black @ ONE Black @ www.SLBoutique.com . |
|
Ordinal Malaprop
really very ordinary
Join date: 9 Sep 2005
Posts: 4,607
|
12-19-2005 16:05
Nobody said that there weren’t other possibilities Ordinal. The question was given the two choices which would you choose? It is obvious that the question is hypothetical. Which would you choose? Given that said hypothetical is designed to make the answerer choose between a fantasy victory for TruthAnDemocracy, and one where bin Laden rules the Middle East (you left out the four horsemen) I choose not to answer at all and simply laugh. Like this. HAHAHAHAHAHAHA *cough* *cough* sorry, the lung capacity's not what it once was. |
|
Joy Honey
Not just another dumass
Join date: 17 Jun 2005
Posts: 3,751
|
12-19-2005 16:07
They are both ridiculous scenarios that would never happen and rest on idiotic assumptions. I think Kendra hit it on the head when she referrred to your choice of lunchbox. These questions are juvenile. You always seem to hint at some veiled deep thought behind these questions but then never reveal what that is. I pick number 3 (a slightly more likely scenario) 3. President Bush is completely wrong. The Iraq government never really suceeds but never really fails either. It's not Sadam Hussein any more, but it aint a democracy either. In the US, a Democrat is elected with a popular mandate to "bring the troops home." She does this as her first duty of office and is hailed as a great leader. Before the four years are up however, the media has construed her as being at fault for all the problems the US is suffering because of losing the war and the associated destruction of the economy, the environment etc. even though this was actually caused by the many years of Republican rule. The Vets that were cheering the decision to come home now hate her for "losing" the war. She is hounded out of office on some made up scandal or technicality and a Jeb Bush (now weighing over 300 pounds), is elected in a landslide victory based on questionable electronic voting and some drinking buddies on the Supreme Court. 20 more years of Republican shenanigans ensue... Can I pick this choice? I like it the best It's also a much more realistic scenario than the ones provided. _____________________
Reality continues to ruin my life. - Calvin
You have delighted us long enough. - Jane Austen Sometimes I need what only you can provide: your absence. - Ashleigh Brilliant |