RE: Matt Taibbi: How the Dems screwed the peace movement

Collarspace Discussion Forums

Home Login Search

RE: Matt Taibbi: How the Dems screwed the peace movement

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: Matt Taibbi: How the Dems screwed the peace movement

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Matt Taibbi: How the Dems screwed the peace movement - 2/18/2008 10:19:54 AM

Alumbrado

Posts: 5560
Status: offline

And with your logic, we'd still be persecuting gays in the military, killing people around the world in various wars, making rich politicians richer, and doing nothing to promote liberal causes.... Oh wait a minute...that's right, I almost forgot, your perfect world is the status quo.

(in reply to Owner59)

Profile

Post #: 21

RE: Matt Taibbi: How the Dems screwed the peace movement - 2/18/2008 10:35:09 AM

Owner59

Posts: 17033
Joined: 3/14/2006
From: Dirty Jersey
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydog1

Alumbrado, but Clintons mandate was 38% of the voting population---18% of the general---and less than 1 in 5 isns't much of a mandate. owner has been adamant that Pelosi and Reid would have to force the dems to go along, likening it to Tom Delay. The fact is the Dem majority barley beat the traditional boost that the non presidential party gets in non presidential years (basically the minority base gets more fired up and a higher turnout). There was no mandate to end the war. The vast majority of people do not like the war, and current world situation. But very few people take the hard left peace movement, seriously. If Pelosi tried to force a hard stop to the war, a bloc of Conservative Dems would bolt and she would be the minority leader the next day. And she knows it. But they desperatly need that left wing vote to have a chance in 08, quite a quandry.

Come election time, its not a matter of how many people hate Bush. Its a matter of how many people vote Democrat.

You`re just attempting to shift blame for the biggest foreign policy disaster sense Viet Nam ,from the coward neo-cons who got us into it,on to those who are trying to get us out.

Hey,give it your best shot and we`ll see.Folks will decide who the good faith players are and who the bad faith players are.

< Message edited by Owner59 -- 2/18/2008 10:40:21 AM >

(in reply to luckydog1)

Profile

Post #: 22

RE: Matt Taibbi: How the Dems screwed the peace movement - 2/18/2008 10:40:18 AM

Alumbrado

Posts: 5560
Status: offline

You are just supporting the party of rich bigoted warmongers...which is the Demopublicans.

Pointing out the failures of those bragging falsely isn't supporting the other side... none so blind as those who can't see that.

(in reply to Owner59)

Profile

Post #: 23

RE: Matt Taibbi: How the Dems screwed the peace movement - 2/18/2008 10:42:29 AM

Owner59

Posts: 17033
Joined: 3/14/2006
From: Dirty Jersey
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alumbrado

You are just supporting the party of rich bigoted warmongers...which is the Demopublicans.

Pointing out the failures of those bragging falsely isn't supporting the other side... none so blind as those who can't see that.

I`ll reply to you when you stay on topic,make sense or grow up.Which ever comes 1st.

< Message edited by Owner59 -- 2/18/2008 10:43:51 AM >

(in reply to Alumbrado)

Profile

Post #: 24

RE: Matt Taibbi: How the Dems screwed the peace movement - 2/18/2008 10:43:11 AM

Alumbrado

Posts: 5560
Status: offline

Running away in a flurry of insults so soon?

That's OK I think people will understand why you don't want to discuss the facts about both parties selling out progressive causes in the name of supporting the status quo.

< Message edited by Alumbrado -- 2/18/2008 10:44:32 AM >

(in reply to Owner59)

Profile

Post #: 25

RE: Matt Taibbi: How the Dems screwed the peace movement - 2/18/2008 11:10:30 AM

Alumbrado

Posts: 5560
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydog1

Alumbrado, but Clintons mandate was 38% of the voting population---18% of the general---and less than 1 in 5 isns't much of a mandate. owner has been adamant that Pelosi and Reid would have to force the dems to go along, likening it to Tom Delay. The fact is the Dem majority barley beat the traditional boost that the non presidential party gets in non presidential years (basically the minority base gets more fired up and a higher turnout). There was no mandate to end the war. The vast majority of people do not like the war, and current world situation. But very few people take the hard left peace movement, seriously. If Pelosi tried to force a hard stop to the war, a bloc of Conservative Dems would bolt and she would be the minority leader the next day. And she knows it. But they desperatly need that left wing vote to have a chance in 08, quite a quandry.

Come election time, its not a matter of how many people hate Bush. Its a matter of how many people vote Democrat.

How soon we forget... Clinton claimed a landslide victory and a mandate from the people based on his 43% of the popular vote (45 million) to Bush Sr's 37% (39 million), as well as 370 electoral votes to Bush's 168, and on the holding of majority in Congress.

And just as in every other case, including the 'great leap forward' of the 70s when 'progressive' Democrats swept into office all over the country, it remained business as usual...war, prejudice, corruption and above all profiteering, didn't miss a lick.

So the perpetuation of the status quo, where one side points fingers at the other and acts in exactly the same self interested manner when power comes their way, should surprise no one.
I would be happy for someone new to come along and prove me wrong, but history so far, has not.

There are no good guys in politics.

(in reply to luckydog1)

Profile

Post #: 26