Point 1:

Would anyone deny that LBJ dragged us into a totally useless, and absurd war, killing far more Americans than GW???

So, on the basis of Iraq, when I read GW is the worst President in even the recent past, I find that absurd.

LBJ was nothing less than one of our greatest war criminals responsible for the senseless deaths of tens of thousands of our Troops, and were he alive today, would fully deserve to be sharing a cell with Saddam.

Point 2:
Is GW destroying the economy? Sure. As fast as possible. However, let's look back a bit, and ask what President brought us PAST the point of all reason.

That would be Mr. Clinton.

In case, no one has figured out why our job markets are saturated with legal immigrants, and our businesses were encouraged to leave the U.S., and did so.
It was under Mr. Clinton's watch, and a year before his last term ended, his idea of taking advantage of a cheap labor market came to a complete end.

It was under Clinton's watch that the first year of unemployment of large numbers of Americans began. That bout of unemployment began the layoffs of the Middle-Class, and ultimately the logical progression towards the destruction of the standard of living of the Middle Class, apparant today.


Point 3:
It would be a wise thing not to forget the events of the past. Forgetting what is inconvenient because it happens to belong to a legacy of the Democrats might win an argument here and there in one's own mind. However, it is far from the truth to ignore how a recent Democratic President had a policy for a war in which far many more troops died, and think GW is far worse.

Moreover, at the time at which there was a clear need to regulate own businesses Globalizing, during Clinton's entire term, and certainly after our economy began to crash when layoffs began in earnest because of the globalization of our businesses.

We lay such stuff at GW's doorstep, when it the Democrats have a legacy and have put us where we were, before GW was even in the White House, by 11 months.

If one were to be watching C-SPAN right now, they would be hearing the Democrats congratulating Clinton for his Globalizing of our businesses, and claiming Clinton's strategy was "sound", "promoted long-tern fiscal growth", and a whole bunch of horse shit that makes me want to vomit.

Sure, GW's a moron, and leading his merry band of Repugs towards a fate they are blind to, but GW didn't destroy the economy, Clinton did that, and GW inherited it, and like a typical Repug used it to destroy the standard of living of the middle class. However, had Clinton not sent our businesses overseas, and imported foreign labor into middle class jobs, and instituted regulations over business, rather than acting like Reagan's Deregulation of businesses was what we needed more of, THEN GW would have had a VERY long road to travel before the economy would have crashed.

I'm glad to see that you are perceptive enough to think Bush is a moron, but Clinton has been out of office for how many years, and you are still blaming him for shit? Get real, Dude. I'm not a friend of the Democrats, but I recognize someone who has been brainwashed by the Republican spin machine, and that, my friend, is you.

How many years will you go on blaming Democrats for what the Republicans in power are doing and have done since they took power over 5 years ago? How can you still be thinking of Clinton when Bush and the Republicans are doing what they are doing now? Time for a "reality" check.

Treat.

You my friend, are an antagonist!
You seek an argument, and this will get that for you.
If other members of this forum, people who are much more informed and have the
information ready at hand wish once again to go though these issues, this time with you,
then that's their decision.


As I read this, most of which I have heard before, I feel a sence for Rovian politics.
I feel "Wedge Issue" in full force!

I am not a member of an organized political party,
I'm a democrat!




OK, so lets assume you feel all these things you have said to be gospel truths!
You don't like either the Republicans or the Democrats.

Then what DO you propose?
What is your solution,
and do you feel it has a ghost of a chance to be successful?

Or is your intention simply to create further fracturing of the Liberal party?
Would that prevent the fracturing happening today within the Republican party?

These are rather interesting if not completely misguided conclusions.

So, anyone criticizing any Dem, logically speaking, must be a fan of FOX, in your estimation, eh?

Hmmmm.. I see that NAFTA and 8 years of pushing Globalization is pretty irrelevant as far as you're concerned.

That's a rather insipid view of how we got to where we are today.

Shall I assume that in your mind, GW is the anti-Christ, and is responsible for everything you envision as a problem in this Country?

It strikes me as rather peculiar that your rather limitted understanding of Globalization is restricted to GW, and somehow envisions Clinton's 8 years and NAFTA are totally irrelevant, as per your "get real" comment.

My suggestion for you is the same. "Get real", and realize that Clinton played a huge role in the advance and advocacy of Globalization.

In fact, if you actually knew much about Clinton, I'd say you are watching C-SPAN like I am right now, and watching all his Dem friends talk about how great his Globalization has been for this Country! LMAO! It's a REAL PISSER!

Bravo AFW.

Hey treat, we don't like your kind 'round here. Now please, go way.

Hold on there Jack,
this here pissing contest ain't over yet!

Not by "a long shot?"

A simple question before we move onto something relevant.

Would it be true to say that you find criticism of Dems as antagonistic???

I only ask, because as a free-thinker, I've never considered the idea of actual Liberals whom can't tolerate a dose of reality without absurd protestations and accusations.

It's really the sort of behavior I'd anticipate from the Repugs, whom can't stand anything but a straight line.

If you imagine the Dems to be REMOTELY liberal, you must be one happy liberal!
lmmfao!!!

Hey suse, I told the NAZI that runs DU why he's a NAZI. Do I need to explain to you why bullshit like that post is unworthy of a liberal, and akin to GW's kind of buggers!?

Ok, lets beat on him a bit and then get him banned later.


Dickhole! Your move Treat.

You sir, think too much of yourself.


I will restate myself for those with closed eyes.

The American Political system today
consists of THREE main parties, NOT TWO!


1 - REPUBLICANS
2 - CONSERVATIVE DEMOCRATS
3 - PROGRESSIVE DEMOCRATS


what does this mean?

It means that when you refer to "Democrats" you are INFACT talking about
TWO SEPERATE ASPECTS of the Democratic party.


The Republicans have, are and will continue to make the most of this fact.

WEDGE ISSUE POLITICS




You my friend Treat, seem to wish that this will continues.
You seem to depend on the wedge issue(s) for your "debates".

One thing the Republicans know better than anyone else,
is that they ARE THE MINORITY PARTY.

However, they GAIN MAJORITY WHEN THEY DIVIDE THE LIBERALS!





How much longer are you going to continue to help them?

LOL! Now you're making me fall off my chair!
Yeah. Imagine the balls of that guy. Saying something bad about LBJ and Clinton!
Friggin Repug!
GEEZ!
Dick killed more than LBJ! Don't that count for somethin, ya dumb bastard!

lol!!

Hey folks,

I'm all for debating, but do ya just wanna compare whos dick is bigger, or discuss something a bit more interesting, like why the hell would ANY liberals defend NAFTA and LBJ!

I've never heard of anything so fucking moronic, and all dismissed by simply saying: "AHH! You're an undercover Repug!" or "You're an egotist!"

What crap!

Unless your memory is as short as your dick, you should recall that the economy went south in February of Clinton's last year. A full year before GW. And that GW was not doing a damn thing but watch those unemployment numbers he inherited, from Clinton's superb Globalized economy continue to rise to one big hard-on.

Friggin GW was probably sittin around with his thumb up his ass for a few months, obssessing about Saddam, or some shit like that. But, one thing's for sure... GW didn't start this ball rolling, and Globalize the shit outta the economy until the later part of his 1st term, when all's he ACTUALLY was doing was talking the most idiotic shit I've ever heard on the air. Even so, the guy was occupied with the war, not with constructing another NAFTA Plan. That shit was totally Bill's devising.

That's all yer doing Treat.
It's a dick test!


"Unless your memory is as short as your dick"



Sure looks like a challenge to me!

Obviously, you enjoy crayons and shit. Very nice.

Did you ever happen to add up the percentage of voters in the Dem Primary that could be considered as votes for a Liberal Candidate???

We're not talking about higher mathematics here. We're talking about less than
7% of the Democratic Party!

BTW. You seem to conclude that anyone criticizing any Dem is not a Liberal.
You also seem to have no clue as to what percentage of the Dems voted for Liberal candidates in the Dem Primary.

Do you have a denial thing going on (AS THE PURPOSE OF THIS THREAD IS POINTING OUT), or do you have a problem with simple addition???

Ok, Treat, your dick is bigger than mine; way bigger, in fact! Feel better?



So, what's your point? Yes, Clinton was repsonsible for NAFTA, and yes, many if not most liberals, myself certainly, think it was a mistake.

Clinton was not perfect by any stretch. As a Washington insider I also believe he engaged in or turned a blind eye to corrupt activity as well as enacting the staggeringly bad idea that is NAFTA. Am I ok with this? Not at all. Are most people ok with it? I doubt it. What most of we liberals who get our backs up when the "Clinton was bad" argument is envoked want to know is, what is the point of bringing up the activities of a president no longer in office? If his bad policies are being perpetuated and amplified by the current administration then it is the current administration that needs to be addressed. Talking about the previous administration is non-productive and does not address the problem.

So, what do you want, Treat, other than to create tension amond this group? What is your point?

Once again you have chosen to not see what I said.
Did I ever say, "You seem to conclude that anyone criticizing any Dem is not a Liberal."
Nope, I never did.
What I did say, using many brightly colored crayons for those with bad eyesight,
was that when you criticize the Democratic party, you seem to DELIBERATELY delete the fact that the Democratic party IS NOT ONE VOICE!

You refer to "The Democratic Party" PERIOD!
Over and over you do, even after all the effort with the pretty crayons!



You my friend, are not what you say you are!
You are in fact, the reason one must not ever completely trust anyone on line.

Furthermore, I predict that as long as you remain on this forum,
you will continue to be a wedge.
I don't believe you do this for political reasons though.
I think you do it and the reactions you get charge your battery!
You get to (falsely) continue feeling superior.

Now please, insult that a bit while I go wonder why since WW2 the taxed percentage of American income stayed at a level 12%.
But when Reagan took offive that jumped to 25% of American income.
And with GW in office, that number is once again on the rise, and yet, he's giving the richest among us a TAX BREAK!

You my dear friend Treat, are of little consequence to me.
You are however, most important to yourself.

Never argue with a fool, Sky, for he will drag you down to his level, then beat you with experience.

Let him rant, but don't give him a more visible platform for his self-agrandizing by responding.

Thank you VT.

My only intention was to make sure the Neon Light was lit for all to see.
Including myself.

It seems this stuff really is difficult for you to discuss without resorting to nothing less than paranoid BS. I've no idea why you're babbling about Reagan, nor why you are tauting the "Republican Line", which is of course, always about how a tax break is the solution to our economic problems.

Obviously, much like the Repugs, the idea of free-thought is highly disturbing to you.

Strike that. The idea that the Dems could be criticized for anything is more than you can handle. It's unfortunate, as you might have a better understanding of why our economy is in the shitter, but that would be an admisssion of something Clinton did wrong, and as this thread indicates, even discussing that is entirely out of the question for you. Rather, paranoid delusions of Repug spying would seem to be a more appealing prospect.

Have you taken your Meds today?

Obviously, the idea of even having a rational discussion is totally beyond your ability to tolerate, when it involves any possible wrong committed by a Dem.

What's more, you set a horrendous example of a free-thinking Liberal for your obviously younger peanut gallery.

As the thread says, "Blame it all on the Repugs!" Bollocks!

With VERY FEW EXCEPTIONS the Dems are as full of shit as the Repugs.

One need only simply recall a few of the major issues voted on during GW's 1st term to remember how the spineless Dems gave GW their approval to do as he pleased, yet it somehow only seems acceptable and suitable for you to dismiss ANY responsibility that the Dems have for this Country being knee-deep in shit, just as you dismiss the reality that Globalization is at the root of our economic problems, not that horse shit about how we need a tax cut!

How much more Repug can you get than saying our economy is in the shit because we don't have a tax cut! And you point to Reagan as a jerk!?

Christ! Your touting Reaganomics! LMMFAO!!!!

Is the flame pit still here?

Shall we discuss Point 1??? (or would talking more shit be preferable)

Point 1 stated:

"Would anyone deny that LBJ dragged us into a totally useless, and absurd war, killing far more Americans than GW???"


This is of course a comparison of equally idiotic wars.

The essential difference is that LBJ killed 10's of thousands of our troops, while GW still has a ways to go. Not to say that GW's an angel, but one might say an angel compared to LBJ.


In any case, the essential problem that is present throughout the responses is the inability to answer this question, as it poses a "Liberal" Dem, whom was most certainly amongst our 2 greatest war criminals, during my lifetime.

Unfortunate, but true. Care to comment???

As "Liberals", what EXACTLY within text above does not represent your views?

Treat, if you're done talking about how smart you are and how big your dick is, why don't you go save the world single-handed? If you think we're so stupid, why are you arguing with idiots?

I don't think LBJ is that relevant today. Why don't you discuss something topical, or at least connect your history lessons to current events more directly.

Nobody here is blindly defending Bill Clinton, and if you read what we're actually saying, you'd know that.

You seem to think that the 93% of people politically to the right of Kucinich are all fascists. You can believe that if you like, but insulting those 93% isn't a strategy for winning.

When reading posts written by morons who claim they want to debate, you can be certain that the post will begin with a bunch of spam, followed by more spam, not worth your time reading, but certainly worthy of pointing out that responders wishing to post something intelligent will do so, while others whom have no idea of how to debate, will always begin a response with garbage and in doing so, ensure that garbage in gets garbage in return.

Ok, treat2, I'll humor you.

[quote=treat2,Tuesday, 27 December 2005, 4:47 pm]
Point 1:

Would anyone deny that LBJ dragged us into a totally useless, and absurd war, killing far more Americans than GW???[/quote]
No.

[quote]So, on the basis of Iraq, when I read GW is the worst President in even the recent past, I find that absurd.[/quote]

Bush has been dead wrong on every issue though. Not just five or six.

[quote]LBJ was nothing less than one of our greatest war criminals responsible for the senseless deaths of tens of thousands of our Troops, and were he alive today, would fully deserve to be sharing a cell with Saddam.[/quote]

Now is the point where I would normally try to rebut your point, but I seem to have lost track of what it is. I'm supposed to say something about LBJ? I wasn't even alive then. Sorry.

[quote]Point 2:
Is GW destroying the economy? Sure. As fast as possible. However, let's look back a bit, and ask what President brought us PAST the point of all reason.

That would be Mr. Clinton.

In case, no one has figured out why our job markets are saturated with legal immigrants, and our businesses were encouraged to leave the U.S., and did so.
It was under Mr. Clinton's watch, and a year before his last term ended, his idea of taking advantage of a cheap labor market came to a complete end.[/quote]

You're perhaps overstating slightly, but I won't contest.

[quote]It was under Clinton's watch that the first year of unemployment of large numbers of Americans began. That bout of unemployment began the layoffs of the Middle-Class, and ultimately the logical progression towards the destruction of the standard of living of the Middle Class, apparant today.[/quote]

And the victims of these policies are starting to get pissed off. They know they got screwed. There is possibility if the next generation of Democrats will pay attention to actual human beings.

[quote]Point 3:
It would be a wise thing not to forget the events of the past. Forgetting what is inconvenient because it happens to belong to a legacy of the Democrats might win an argument here and there in one's own mind. However, it is far from the truth to ignore how a recent Democratic President had a policy for a war in which far many more troops died, and think GW is far worse.[/quote]

This seems to be a repeat of Point 1 so far. LBJ bad. Got it.

[quote]Moreover, at the time at which there was a clear need to regulate own businesses Globalizing, during Clinton's entire term, and certainly after our economy began to crash when layoffs began in earnest because of the globalization of our businesses.[/quote]

Yes. This seems to be a repeat of Point 2. Clinton bad. Got it.

[quote]We lay such stuff at GW's doorstep, when it the Democrats have a legacy and have put us where we were, before GW was even in the White House, by 11 months.[/quote]

What are you alluding to here? What happened 11 months before Bush took office?

[quote]If one were to be watching C-SPAN right now, they would be hearing the Democrats congratulating Clinton for his Globalizing of our businesses, and claiming Clinton's strategy was "sound", "promoted long-tern fiscal growth", and a whole bunch of horse shit that makes me want to vomit.[/quote]

I will assume that you are telling the truth. But 14 Senate Democrats voting for CAFTA does not prove that all is lost.

[quote]Sure, GW's a moron, [/quote]
No, he's smart and evil. He knows precisely what he's doing.
[quote]and leading his merry band of Repugs towards a fate they are blind to,[/quote]
No, they know that economic collapse doesn't hurt the obscenely rich. Tsunamis don't wipe out Beacon Hill.
[quote]but GW didn't destroy the economy, Clinton did that, and GW inherited it, and like a typical Repug used it to destroy the standard of living of the middle class.[/quote]
Clinton did not destroy the economy. It was in better shape when he left than when he inherited it or (obviously) now. That doesn't excuse NAFTA, of course, but it's true.

[quote]However, had Clinton not sent our businesses overseas, and imported foreign labor into middle class jobs, and instituted regulations over business, rather than acting like Reagan's Deregulation of businesses was what we needed more of, THEN GW would have had a VERY long road to travel before the economy would have crashed.[/quote]

I disagree. Although I'm sure we can both come up with pages and pages of statistics to cite... but we agree at least that globalization is BAD. Good enough?

[quote]*
As "Liberals", what EXACTLY within text above does not represent your views?
[right][snapback]38105[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
The implied induction, that these facts prove that improvement is impossible. That does not represent my view.

Wow, Treat, you really let me down.


1)

LBJ was a liberal. LBJ was a corrupt liberal. LBJ gave us things like the civil rights act, the voting rights act, and the freedom of information act. He cut the level of poverty in the nation in half with his "war on poverty". He broke the laws to empower the powerless and move power out of the hands of the elite and into the hands of the individual. But he still broke the law. He was a Texas politician. That's how the Texas political machine works. If you are going to take any politician from Texas, you better be expecting a whole ass load of corruption.

If it wasn't for Bell Helicopter carrying him (literally) through his campaigning, he would never of had won his elections. He paid Bell back by awarding the defense contracts and creating a need for those defense contracts.

Does any of this sound familiar?
Yet somehow, you think this vindicates Bush? All it proves is that a corrupt Texas liberal is ten times better for the country than a corrupt Texas republican.


2)


Earth to treat, Clinton was far from a liberal. Clinton was a centrist and his economic and trade policies were examples of conservative globalism at their finest.

Let's see, what does a conservative stand for...

smaller gov't (Clinton was the first pres. since Carter to actually shrink the size of the federal gov't

nat'l security: Clinton actually caught and incarcerated the people who attacked the WTC on his watch.

fiscal responsibility: balanced the budget and created a surplus

tough on crime: Clinton fulfilled his pledge to put 100,000 more cops on the street and by doing so, ended the crack cocaine boom that was created by the Republican Iran-Contra dealings.

free trade: Nafta.

You can see where I'm goping here. Your griping about his trade policies would be better directed at a conservative political forum, since those were conservative policies and few if any of the people here who you are trying to annoy supported those policies.

You continue to go on and on about the "democrats" as if they are the "liberal" party. The democratic party hasn't followed the republican template and forced all of its members to fall in lockstep with a strict code or be forced out. While the republican party has purged itself of the liberals and maintained a few manageable centrists, the democratic party is still a party that tries to represent all people and therefore has both conservative and liberal members.

Finally, I think most people here would agree with you that Clinton's trade policies hurt us. His telecommunications act on 1996 paved the way for the right wing media machine, too. He did a lot of things that were conservative in nature and hurt the U.S.

Funny thing. I made this graphic some time ago at a readers request:


and I can't tell you how much hate mail I got over that one. I get a fair share of right wingers sending me hate mail every day but that pales in comparison to the number of liberals who sent me outraged emails about that graphic. You would be amazed. So please correct yourself of the mistaken idea that Clinton was a liberal or a hero of the liberals.

POAC, that post had precious little to do with my post, and something to do with some rihgt-wing morons that bug you. There was nothing you stated that was remotely connected to the thread post, or for that matter, to my own political views. As such, and as irrelevent and as absurd as you have no idea it is, there is no reason to debate your response, simply to qualify it, as a non-response, with a lot of unrelated other "stuff", and in no uncertain way, not a response to what is in the Thread post. So, again. Ditto. There's nothing of substance in the response that is worthy of debating, and plenty in it that's so dressed up with nonsense, it is not worthy of discussion. I don't indulge myself in the delusions of others, with regard to any matter, particularly as this response, like the response in the other post was not an attempt to debate on issue, but post plenty of stuff unrelated to the Thread, along with plenty of stuff you've got buggin you, but ain't got dick to do with me, or my own views.

It could be summed up as: Simply another dishonest response, but something tells me that you wouldn't have had a clue as to exactly what that would have referred to. For more clarification, try reading the thread post, and not indulging yourself in unrelated issues, bogus assumptions, and right-wing assholes.

It would be a start.

Thank you Treat for disproving the idea that
being a liberal means yer smart.


The man quoted you!
How much more direct to the point can one get?


You told me in one of your many PM's that you have been banned from
so many forums that if you told me I might think you were a liar.

Scuse me, but I would believe you!
On both counts!

You are smart enough to use a good vocabulary, but not smart enough to be intellectually honest. My post was in direct response to exactly what you said and you know that. Having your point disproven and clarified where it was vague has left you only one choice, to plug your ears and make believe that what I said had nothing to do with your post. You fail. You are banned.

Not only beacuse you are intellectually dishonest but you have mistaken a progressive discussion forum for a political debate forum. You are precisely why debate hungry jack-offs aren't welcome here. Even when proven wrong, you continue as if you are correct. That is tiresome, boring, and not constructive at all.

I hate seeing anyone banned.
Even good ol Constitutionally speaking.

But as with all failed attempts,
there comes a time to end it.

It's not my forum, and good thing.
I'd have a harder time finding that end point.
Not because TJ is to harsh,
but because I am too optomistic about people.


Besides TJ is correct.
The guy was not helping the cause.
I'm not here to make myself feel better, or superior, or emotionally satisfied.

I'm here doing my small, almost insignificant (though not quite) part
to help right the wrong these conservative evangelican neocons have foisted upon us.

I have little patience for dishonest people. I also have little patience for people who come to debate or pontificate yet inadequately frame an argument. I have even less patience for people who can recognize the danger our country is facing and think that the answer is to disrupt progressive discussion forums with their own half baked bullshit.

That's the thing about the POAC. We don't deal in debatables. We deal in facts. We educate.

You keep scaring them off before they have fully baked their bullsh...argument.

Well, for what it's worth, and though I, like most of you, hate censorship, I am relieved to know this clown is gone. There is little doubt that his real interest was in creating tension between participants here as opposed to providing information and supporting a progressive view. He would likely have been very effective at disrupting this online community.

I also found myself embarrassed on his behalf as he really was nowere near so articulate as he thought himself.

Thanks for maintaining the integrity of this site, TJ.

People like Treat are a dime a dozen.
They come through here every few weeks.

If I were to be embarrased for Treat, which I was not,
I'd feel a flush for the fact that he tried so hard,
so hard to convince no one other then himself.

This little side trip thanks to Treat was for no other
than for Treat him (her) self!



It is possible that once insecurities were soothed,
Treat might settle down and be a reasonable human being.

But manipulative liars will always posses that potential,
no matter how trustable they might appear.



Still, he serves a value to the rest of us.
We learn not only how to deal with such things.
We also learn how to be patient and forgiving when required,
and how to be hard line and unyielding, when required.



"The ability to make good decisions comes from experience,
and most experience comes from making bad decisions!"

Edit to add...

By this standard, I outta be close to brilliant by now!

You are very welcome.

if Treat was Asian: