Dem's New Direction???

[Lyndis]

Here's an interesting e-mail that I got from my grandmother.
----------------
A little political cheer as we prepare for Pelosi/Reid and Company.
The Democrats now promise, "A New Direction for America"

The stock market is at a new all-time high and America's 401K's are back.
A new direction from there means, what?

Unemployment is at 25 year lows.
A new direction from there means, what?

Oil prices are plummeting.
A new direction from there means what?

Taxes are at 20 year lows.
A new direction from there means, what?

Federal tax revenues are at all-time highs.
A new direction from there means, what?

The Federal deficit is down almost 50%, just as predicted over last year.
A new direction from there means, what?

Home valuations are up 30+% over the past 3 years.
A new direction from there means, what?

Inflation is in check, hovering at 20 year lows.
A new direction from there means, what?

Not a single terrorist attack on US soil since 9/11/01.
A new direction from there means, what?

Osama bin Laden is living under a rock in a dark cave, having not surfaced in years, if he's alive at all, while 95% of Al Qaeda's top dogs are either dead or in custody, cooperating with US Intel.
A new direction from there means, what?

Several major terrorist attacks already thwarted by US and British Intel, including the recent planned attack involving 10 Jumbo Jets being exploded in mid-air over major US cities in order to celebrate the anniversary of the 9/11/01 attacks.
A new direction from there means, what?

Just as President Bush foretold us on a number of occasions, Iraq was to be made "ground zero" for the war on terrorism -- and just as President Bush said they would, terrorist cells from all over the region are arriving from the shadows of their hiding places and flooding into Iraq in order to get their faces blown off by US Marines rather than boarding planes and heading to the United States to wage war on us here.
A new direction from there means, what?

Now is this right? We can expect:

The economy to go South
Illegals to go North
Taxes to go Up
Employment to go Down
Terrorism to come In.

Tax breaks to go Out
Social Security to go away
Health Care to go the same way gas prices have gone

But what the heck!

We gain comfort by knowing that Nancy P, Hillary C, John K, Edward K, Howard D, Harry R and Obama have worked hard to create a Comprehensive National Security Plan, Health Care Plan, Immigration Reform Plan, Gay Rights Plan, Same Sex Marriage Plan, Abortion On Demand Plan, Tolerance of Everyone and Everything Plan, How to Return all Troops to the U.S. in The Next Six Months Plan, A Get Tough Plan, adapted from the French Plan by the same name and a How Everyone Can Become as Wealthy as We Are Plan. Don’t forget the No More Katrina Storm Plan.
We are going to be able to sleep so much better at night knowing these dedicated politicians are thinking of us and our welfare.

Freedom isn't free - Never has been - Never will be!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Angelyne]

Well this was one of the more racist things I've read in awhile.

[japanat]

Talk about tunnel vision! This entire letter is twisting facts into earthworms in love.

America's 401Ks are back
** because Social Security is being stripped.

Unemployment is at 25-yr lows
** but minimum-wage adults and employment w/o insurance is at all-time highs.

Deficit down 50% from last year
** last year was the highest deficit ever recorded, and the Democrats didn't create it.

Home valuations are up 30+% over the past 3 years.
** and that bubble ought to be popping any time now. Indeed, many areas are showing declining property rates and huge foreclosure rates.

Not a single terrorist attack on US soil since 9/11/01.
** And only one non-domestic one before that.

Osama bin Laden
** true

Several major terrorist attacks already thwarted by US and British Intel
** and hundreds thwarted before then, too.

Just as President Bush foretold us on a number of occasions, Iraq was to be made "ground zero" for the war on terrorism -- and just as President Bush said they would, terrorist cells from all over the region are arriving from the shadows of their hiding places and flooding into Iraq
** That's funny. I remember analysts and the intelligence agencies saying these things... and using these arguments as reasons not to go to war. Bush never said that stuff about the cells coming into Iraq; he said we could close the borders and prevent them from entering Iraq and expanding the war.

I'm not saying that things will necessarily be better, or even different, under Democratic majority -- But this method of taking factual information and spinning it to give the exact opposite impression of reality REALLY bothers me!!!!! It's dishonest as hell.

[Mechs]

Well this was one of the more racist things I've read in awhile.

I don't get it. How is race involved with this:?

[Roxie]

That "cheer" made no sense.
It's full of half truths, a sprinkle of out-right wrong, and confusion.

[Fermented Yeast Paste]

That thing is a joke. Please don't pay attention to political emails.

[Cherub Rock]

Are you implying that Barack Obama or Hilary Clinton wouldn't be a better President than Bush, Lyndis? Because right now his approval rating is 41% (It was 35% less than a week ago) despite all of these good things you list. It may seem odd, but perhaps people actually remember all the bad stuff he is done and that is affecting their decisions.

[Sock Full of Boiled Dimes]

Sounds like a huge load of propaganda to drive those staunch conservatives to believe whatever they want to believe. *Tsk Tsk* When will people learn that propaganda is a BAD thing.

[Angelyne]

I don't get it. How is race involved with this:?

We gain comfort by knowing that Nancy P, Hillary C, John K, Edward K, Howard D, Harry R and Obama have worked hard to create a Comprehensive National Security Plan, Health Care Plan, Immigration Reform Plan, Gay Rights Plan, Same Sex Marriage Plan, Abortion On Demand Plan, Tolerance of Everyone and Everything Plan, How to Return all Troops to the U.S. in The Next Six Months Plan, A Get Tough Plan, adapted from the French Plan by the same name and a How Everyone Can Become as Wealthy as We Are Plan. Don’t forget the No More Katrina Storm Plan.
We are going to be able to sleep so much better at night knowing these dedicated politicians are thinking of us and our welfare.

OMG DEMS SUPPORT TEH GHEYZ AND MEXICANZ

Ok, being anti-gay isn't the same as being racist but they share a similar sentiment. The hateful tone this person takes towards certain groups is just unnecessary. If the author actually had a point above this paragraph, it would have been lost after reading this paranoid rant.

Also highlighted "Abortion on Demand", because that's just ridiculous stereotyping of pro-choice supporters. I don't know a single pro-choice individual or organization who believes that everyone should run out and get an abortion.

That thing is a joke. Please don't pay attention to political emails.

Sadly, I've met people who think like this. I'm not entirely sure it isn't a joke.

[Fermented Yeast Paste]

Point noted, so have I; but I meant 'joke' in more of a 'load of crap' context in this case.

It's unsettling how easily people go for stuff like this.

[Jetsetlemming]

I've seen far more of these things leaning the other way, and they get plenty of attention. :O This is in the same class of commentary as "no war for oil" or "bush lied".

[MNJetter]

Now the question, does Lyndis believe all this, or is she posting her grandmother's email because she noticed how slanted it was?

[setrict]

I've seen far more of these things leaning the other way, and they get plenty of attention. :O This is in the same class of commentary as "no war for oil" or "bush lied".

Agreed. It's just propaganda. If they spin it in your direction, you are more accepting. Facts and objectivity have pretty much JACK to do with it. People on both sides of the fence are too busy expressing their opinion on other people's opinions to truly educate themselves and make an informed judgement. My big complaint is that with all the spinning, it's REALLY hard to sort facts from opinion.

The honest truth is that very few people are well enough informed to make a reasonable judgement on issues, but are more than willing to reiterate someone elses opinion as their own.

[Sock Full of Boiled Dimes]

I've seen far more of these things leaning the other way, and they get plenty of attention. :O This is in the same class of commentary as "no war for oil" or "bush lied".

I love the idea and notion that everyone seems to think that we are in this war for the oil or that the president is a liar.

No kidding he's a liar, try not to meet a politician that isn't.

And this war wasn't for oil, get that out of the head right now.

[Fermented Yeast Paste]

I love the idea and notion that everyone seems to think that we are in this war for the oil or that the president is a liar.

No kidding he's a liar, try not to meet a politician that isn't.

And this war wasn't for oil, get that out of the head right now.
How can you tell when a politician is lying?

His lips are moving.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v218/Ph4t3/Emot/emot-v.gif

[Plekto]

Ack! NO feeding the trolls!

[japanat]

I just reread it, and started laughing when I saw the comment on Katrina. Wasn't the FEMA head that caught all the blame after sending all the emails a Bush-appointee?

I also looked at it as tongue-in-cheek, and found that much of it does register that way as well.

[Jetsetlemming]

I love the idea and notion that everyone seems to think that we are in this war for the oil or that the president is a liar.

No kidding he's a liar, try not to meet a politician that isn't.

And this war wasn't for oil, get that out of the head right now.
The Bush Lied line is typically referring to one thing- WMD's. Apparently taking bad advice is a form of lying now. :duh:

[RandomPasserby]

The Bush Lied line is typically referring to one thing- WMD's. Apparently taking bad advice is a form of lying now. :duh:
Afaik he was told there was no wmds, so yes, he was lying as far as I know on that point.

[Jetsetlemming]

In order for something to be a lie, you have to know it's not true and say it anyway. If a little kid says "Santa Claus is real!" is he lying? There's absolutely no evidence that Bush and co. did not 100% believe Saddam had WMD's. They were wrong, not lying. There's a big difference.

[tweek.3867]

In order for something to be a lie, you have to know it's not true and say it anyway. If a little kid says "Santa Claus is real!" is he lying? There's absolutely no evidence that Bush and co. did not 100% believe Saddam had WMD's. They were wrong, not lying. There's a big difference.
Quite true. However, just because he was wrong rather than lying doesn't mean what he did wasn't a hugely bad thing. Because he was so grossly wrong, it's not really any better than had he lied given the effects of his actions. Some of the actions Bush took shouldn't be done if you aren't sure, ne?

[edit]grammatical mistakes go!

[Roxie]

Quite true. However, just because he was wrong and lying doesn't mean what he did was a hugely bad thing. Because he was so grossly wrong, it's not really any better than had he lied given the effects of his actions. Some of the actions Bush took shouldn't be done if you aren't sure, ne?
What?! :knockout:

I knew he was wrong. So many ppl told him he was wrong and pigheaded through them. He asked ppl to trust him..I think it was a lie. Whether I can prove it or not.

But it was most definently bullshit.
See: On Bullshit. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%22On_Bullshit%22)


























































Ok, so I just wanted to mention the book.

[Jetsetlemming]

Quite true. However, just because he was wrong rather than lying doesn't mean what he did was a hugely bad thing. Because he was so grossly wrong, it's not really any better than had he lied given the effects of his actions. Some of the actions Bush took shouldn't be done if you aren't sure, ne?

[edit]grammatical mistakes go!
You'll get no arguments from me. :P I was just saying how it, in fact, wasn't an actual "lie", but rather an unintentional fuck-up. "Bush fucked up!" is a slightler weaker, and less polarizing chant, than "Bush lied!". Hey, "Bush fucked up" might even make you sympathetic; none of us can claim to be perfect. :P

[Roxie]

I may have been correct in my earlier assesment.

In the essay, Frankfurt sketches a theory of bullshit, defining the concept and analyzing its applications. In particular, Frankfurt contrasts bullshitting and lying. Where the liar makes deliberately false claims, the bullshitter is simply uninterested in the truth. Rather, bullshitters aim primarily to impress their audiences. Whereas the liar needs to know the truth the better to conceal it, the bullshitter, interested solely in pretense, has no use for the truth. By virtue of this, Frankfurt claims, "bullshit is a greater enemy of the truth than lies are."

[kilreli]

man, that email was booty.
too bad PLF left...he would lay the smack down...
though... the last part reminded me of team america's freedom isnt free song. cant remember the lyrics though...:(

[Roxie]

Song: Freedom Isn't Free Lyrics
What would you do
If you were asked to give up your dreams for freedom
What would you do
If asked to make the ultimate sacrifice

Would you think about all them people
Who gave up everything they had.
Would you think about all them War Vets
And would you start to feel bad

Freedom isn't free
It costs folks like you and me
And if we don't all chip in
We'll never pay that bill
Freedom isn't free
No, there's a hefty fuckin' fee.
And if you don't throw in your buck 'o five
Who will?

What would you do
If someone told you to fight for freedom.
Would you answer the call
Or run away like a little pussy
'Cause the only reason that you're here.
Is 'cause folks died for you in the past
So maybe now it's your turn
To die kicking some ass

Freedom isn't free
It costs folks like you and me
And if we don't all chip in
We'll never pay that bill
Freedom isn't free
Now there's a have to hook'in fee
And if you don't throw in your buck 'o five
Who will?

You don't throw in your buck 'o five. Who will?
Oooh buck 'o five
Freedom costs a buck 'o five

[kilreli]

Thank you :D

[Psychochink]

too bad PLF left...he would lay the smack down...


Wait - PLF left? When? Whyfor?

[kilreli]

Wait - PLF left? When? Whyfor?
i heard he got banned for a few days and just never came back. :(
im sure you could find a thread on it if you did a search. poor PLF....no....poor us...

[Psychochink]

Well...crap. That sucks hardcore.

OT: I pay only the slightest attention to Americal politics, but I remember a snippet from the news the other night. So the Democrats' two main presidential candidates are Hilary C and some black guy, right?

[Fermented Yeast Paste]

Well...crap. That sucks hardcore.

OT: I pay only the slightest attention to Americal politics, but I remember a snippet from the news the other night. So the Democrats' two main presidential candidates are Hilary C and some black guy, right?
Barack Obama; it seemed Mark Warner was also a front runner until he announced he wouldn't be running. There are, of course, others as well. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election%2C_2008)

[Angelyne]

Sorry for the threadjack, but I don't understand at all the Dems are hyping the hell out of Obama. The only thing he is really known for is some speech he made in 2004.

[Psychochink]

But from what I understand, those two are the ones who are supposed to have a real shot?

So the question becomes, is America ready for a female or black president? And if so, which one is an easier transition?

[kilreli]

honestly, i doubt either will win even if they are good candidates just becuase of what you just listed

[Angelyne]

But from what I understand, those two are the ones who are supposed to have a real shot?

They're getting the most publicity, but it's too early to tell at this point. Bill Richardson just announced this weekend that he will run, and he might get a lot of support from the Hispanic community. We'll also have to see what John Edwards does between now and 2008.

So the question becomes, is America ready for a female or black president?

Not Hilary or Obama runs against a strong Republican candidate like McCain or Guliani. I think seeing either one as Vice President is more realistic.

[MNJetter]

Obama didn't just make a speech. The keynote address in question is the thing that let people know he might be running for president, but it's certainly not the only reason why he's well known. He's young enough not to have had the idealism beaten out of him yet, so he actually tries to accomplish stuff that he believes in instead of waffling around every single issue in an effort to make peace with all his voters. During his time as an Illinois state senator, he wrote a few laws and worked pretty hard to support the bills he wanted to pass. He also doesn't try to hide less-than-shining moments in his past, which at least makes him look more honest than most.

It doesn't matter what a presidential candidate is known for. That just gives them celebrity status, and doesn't mean a thing for how well he'll do in office. The reason the democrats are hyping him up is because of what he actually accomplishes. Ideally, it should be that way for all candidates, but it doesn't always work that way.

[Angelyne]

Obama didn't just make a speech. The keynote address in question is the thing that let people know he might be running for president, but it's certainly not the only reason why he's well known. He's young enough not to have had the idealism beaten out of him yet, so he actually tries to accomplish stuff that he believes in instead of waffling around every single issue in an effort to make peace with all his voters. During his time as an Illinois state senator, he wrote a few laws and worked pretty hard to support the bills he wanted to pass. He also doesn't try to hide less-than-shining moments in his past, which at least makes him look more honest than most.

It doesn't matter what a presidential candidate is known for. That just gives them celebrity status, and doesn't mean a thing for how well he'll do in office. The reason the democrats are hyping him up is because of what he actually accomplishes. Ideally, it should be that way for all candidates, but it doesn't always work that way.

I actually see this as something working against him--lack of experience. Being idealistic is not always a good thing. And having a short Congressional voting record and writing a few laws for the state Senate is hardly an indication of where he would take this country over a four-year term. Again, his political career is so unremarkable, that the general public only knows him because of one speech he made in 2004. A leader of our country should have more stature.

I can see him as a strong candidate in 2012, but definitely not in 2008 against some very strong, well-known opponents.

[Roxie]

I actually see this as something working against him--lack of experience.
My political communications professor, who ran quite a few successfull campaigns himself, would disagree with you on that point. B/c of his lack of experience, you can't really try and attack his voting records or political decisions very well. And if all you've got is "I've been doing it longer", it'll get stale real quick. Also, b/c of his newbiness, he's going to have to be back and get support from more experienced, well known politicos, which i'm sure he'll do. This'll work for him.
He's got alot of support among young Americans as well--and Oprah.

[japanat]

Didn't Obama say the keynote address at the Republican convention? He is liked and respected on both sides of the aisle, he's not polarizing; which makes him a serious contender, inexperience or not.

[Trump]

I am registered as Democrat but I'm not sure I would vote for Hillary. I do not believe the country is ready for a woman as president, though that would have nothing to do with how I vote. I just believe there are enough people who still care about that sort of thing... just enough.

Also, for forwarding a chain email and furthermore posting it on a forum, you are now damned and will go to hell.

[Plekto]

The reality is that other than a few rogue elements like Obama, the two parties are basically different sides of the same corrupt and self-serving coin.

Under the surface, nothing is really that different. Just their means to achieve the same goals. The "differences" that we see on television are manufactured and almost always the same "issues". They serve as a smokescreen and nothing else.

For instance, Abortion. It's always going to be contested(never solveable, not really) and isn't even a political issue to be honest - but by bringing it up, they can sway public opinion one way or the other - or at least suck in a percentage of the population and keep them from asking the serous questions.

Yet behind the media - it's business as usual. Oil, money, and influence are all that matters - and also depowering the peolpe so that they cannot fight back no matter what the leaders actually do.

Our only recourse as a public is to change the leaders as often as possible and basically enforce a one-term limit on all higher offices. As for Obama, he is the likely choice, because he is another Carter. He'll be mediocre as President(at least they hope - they'll have left him an unwinnable situation in Iraq to deal with in any case) and after that, it'll be another decade or so of Republican control.

[Fermented Yeast Paste]

I am registered as Democrat but I'm not sure I would vote for Hillary. I do not believe the country is ready for a woman as president, though that would have nothing to do with how I vote. I just believe there are enough people who still care about that sort of thing... just enough.

Also, for forwarding a chain email and furthermore posting it on a forum, you are now damned and will go to hell.
This country is ready for a president that can actually be an effective leader that can actually make good decisions and know what the hell is going on, whether it's a man, woman, black, white or orange.

The kind of people that wouldn't vote for a black or woman Democrat simply because of skin color or sex are the ones that probably wouldn't vote outside of their own party anyway.

[Jetsetlemming]

So you view people who vote based purely on party, including those who won't vote for anyone non-democratic in the next election, in the same category as those that wouldn't vote for a black or female candidate, eh?

[Fermented Yeast Paste]

If all skizzles are wizzles, are all wizzles skizzles?

I think you missed my point. In a sense, sure, I do think of them as the same; at least, both kinds of people are idiots who won't put any actual thought into who they vote for. However, I'm not saying that all people who vote purely on party lines are racists or misogynists; rather, for example, that if you're a woman running for president and think that X group of people won't vote for you because you're a woman, you shouldn't worry too much, because those people are probably not going to be open-minded enough to vote outside of their own political party (whatever it may be) anyway, even if you were a WASP male candidate.

Is that entirely true? No, I can't generalize like that; I'm sure there are plenty of Democrats that wouldn't vote for Hillary because she's a woman and "omg lol that time of the month!". My main point that I'm trying to get across is that people need stop this "America isn't ready for a/an X president" bullshit and just get someone that's a good candidate. Othewrise it'll never happen.

[MNJetter]

I agree with Roxie. I think Obama's lack of political experience will work for him, rather than against him.

With your average joe off the street, yeah, it would be bad. But Obama seems to be a very intelligent and strong-willed person, able to make peace with all sides while still keeping his own opinions and beliefs. And that's exactly what we need right now. He might not accomplish squat in terms of domestic laws and bylaws and complicated little things that should be left to Congress in the first place. He's not supposed to, and that's what a lot of people have been mistaken about with the role of the president for a while now. Congress makes laws, the president enforces them, and the court system makes sure it's all being done correctly and constitutionally. I know that's a very simplified and idealized explanation, but it's still, in theory, the basic structure of our government, and it's something that everybody seems to have forgotten.

[japanat]

The reality is that other than a few rogue elements like Obama, the two parties are basically different sides of the same corrupt and self-serving coin.

Under the surface, nothing is really that different. Just their means to achieve the same goals. The "differences" that we see on television are manufactured and almost always the same "issues". They serve as a smokescreen and nothing else.

For instance, Abortion. It's always going to be contested(never solveable, not really) and isn't even a political issue to be honest - but by bringing it up, they can sway public opinion one way or the other - or at least suck in a percentage of the population and keep them from asking the serous questions.

Yet behind the media - it's business as usual. Oil, money, and influence are all that matters - and also depowering the peolpe so that they cannot fight back no matter what the leaders actually do.

Our only recourse as a public is to change the leaders as often as possible and basically enforce a one-term limit on all higher offices. As for Obama, he is the likely choice, because he is another Carter. He'll be mediocre as President(at least they hope - they'll have left him an unwinnable situation in Iraq to deal with in any case) and after that, it'll be another decade or so of Republican control.Do you really believe this blather? Do you know that abortion was illegal until the Supreme Court deemed it unconstitutional on account of privacy issues in 1973, following years of agitation and numerous deaths from illegal abortion?

"Depowering the people?" Only the people can de-power the people, by being apathetic and unwilling to attempt change. Hell, even the Watts and Detroit riots forced change, as did Flower Power, Black Power, Wounded Knee, and more. Many people have retaken their neighborhoods from the drug elements that were overrunning so many in the '80s and '90s (obviously not all, but many).

I agree that whoever becomes President will have a real quagmire to deal with: Iraq, a congress that worries so much about party issues that they don't think about the issues, voters that are apathetic and uncaring.

I don't think everything will magically disappear if you vote, or that any particular candidate will wave a wand and fix all that ails us. But I really could do with less of the fatalistic claptrap that seems to fill American politics nowadays.

(Plekto, this isn't meant as a personal attack on you, just a vehement disagreement with the common ideas you've voiced)

[Plekto]

Considering how the media controls most of the population(70% of the U.S. still believes Iraq had sometihng to do with 9/11) - depowering them is quite possible if they choose to remain sheep.

It happened in the U.K. in the last generation and it's historically the goal of any government. Mantain power and marginalize those who threaten your job security and said power.

I mention it because so many people don't see it as wealthy and powerful conservatives vs the rest of us, but as "Democrat"(might as well be called "Republican-Lite") and "Republican" - despite their being so tiny a difference in how they really operate once the campaigns are over.

As for Abortion - my point was that it's smoke and mirrors becaue it will NEVER be solved in a political debate. Race, The Economy, Global Warming.. it's all sound-bytes and smoke and mirrors for most candidates - to hide the real agendas. And to keep the people from asking the really tough questions in the major televised debates.

Now, Obama is a refreshing change because he isn't part of the old-money/good old boys/oil/etc. club. He doesn't have to deal with the soundbytes - but conversely, he is also poison to the core DNC leadership because he could actually crea
te some change from the way things have been historically run. So mark my work - we'll see another attempt at "Dean-i-fying" him in the press unless he's amazingly careful.

[Fermented Yeast Paste]

Just to say, abortion statutes began to appear in the 1830s I believe, and there wasn't any real movement to make it illegal really until the 1860s. Yeah; it's actually disturbing.
Considering how the media controls most of the population(70% of the U.S. still believes Iraq had sometihng to do with 9/11) - depowering them is quite possible if they choose to remain sheep.
I really would love for people to post their sources when they give any form of statistics, otherwise they're worthless. The poll you're referring to was from 2003 and was conducted by the Washington Post. (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-09-06-poll-iraq_x.htm) A similar poll done by Harris Interactive (http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=544) in 2005 came up with roughly 47%.

[Plekto]

Okay, then I stand corrected - only 40%+.

The way they do it is just that simple - get 10% here, 5% there - and soon you have 80% of the voters mired in their own pet project or issue despite the fact that none of it really has to do with voting records and what the person actually does in office.(the hard questions)

It's not just smoke and mirrors - it's a full scale bombardment to provide cover.