financeguy said:
See, the difference is that the Democrats haven't allowed themselves to be taken over by a far-right conspiracy to manipulate 'evidence' to their benefit, tear up the Constitution, kow-tow to religious nuts, and ride roughshod over international law.
redsox04 said:Its naive to think the Republican party is the only part to be hijacked by special interests. Sure, I don't feel comfortable with the Christian Coalition speaking for me, but far-left organizations (like the ACLU) have manipulated the Democrats to at least an equal degree.
Regarding "manipulating evidence to their benefit", recall that even France and Germany in 2002 were not disputing the presence of WMDs in Iraq. The dispute was whether or not military force was the best means to address the issue. We know now that Saddam was playing "chicken" with the world, never flinching. But this was an intelligence failure on a GLOBAL scale, not some manipulation by Republicans.
Regarding "tearing up the Constitution", the Patriot Act was passed overwhemingly by bipartison support (I think there was only ONE dissenter in Congress). Hardly a Republican vs. Democrat issue.
You say Republicans "kow-tow to religious nuts", can't completely disagree, but Democrats are not immunce from their own "kow-towing" by extreme left social orgranizations. (The ACLU not supporting a parent's right to know if their 15 year old daughter is having an abortion --- come on, now.)
And "running rough shod over international law", Resolution 1441 and umpteen resolutions were passed by an international Security Council. Recall that Clinton, a Democrat, did not bother to do that in the Baltics. I fail to see how all of these issues are strictly "Republican" issues.
Do you even know what you're saying, or is it just some memorized reply to all "criticism" you see?lancerla said:
You really don't get it. You don't know any Republicans, you have a myopic vision of the world, and you don't even want to find some common ground to make this place any better.
Is it fair to criticize them? Sure. But you're just hating without trying to understand the other side in any meaningful way. And, sadly, loving it. Sounds a lot like those pesky Republicans who don't understand Islam.
If your whole basis for this definition was the war, so be it.
bathiu said:
Do you even know what you're saying, or is it just some memorized reply to all "criticism" you see?
This definition is nothing more than a "copy&paste" from a dictionary (if you mean the "tolerance" part).
It has nothing to do with war, republicans, democrats... just a "copy&paste".
bathiu said:
Hate? Where's hate in that post? If posting a scientific definition of a word is "hating without trying to understand the other side in any meaningful way"... then ...
On the other hand that's exactly how I see you (republicans), making a word out of one letter, making a sentence out of one word, turning everything into "if you're not with me, you're against me"... so If you wanted to change my opinion, than you've failed... in fact with posts like that you (and most - please notice "most", not "all" - people, as I understand, from you side) are posting, you only confirm that I'm right.
Yes , I didn't expect from you to notice that it's "the other side" that is flaming and using much stronger words...lancerla said:I was speaking to you and to all of the other people flaming.
Really? I'm in a bubble? Wow, that's cool. Good to see that you know who I am and where I am after only 3 posts, posts that, I should add, were very freely interpreted by you. You're literaly puting words in my mouth and then you're building an opinion about me based on this, I'm impressed.If people don't want a broader understanding of things, they don't have to search it out, but I think it's sad to put yourself in a bubble. And, Bathiu, I think you're in a bubble. But it's your choice.
Yes, I can see that. And no, lancerla, that's a general comment. Not one directed at you.One thing that's for sure. People can be assholes no matter where they sit on the political spectrum. And no, Bathiu, that's a general comment. Not one directed at you.
norsehorse23 said:wow, this is pretty heated... i think the question of the thread was did they do the same thing in the US... they didn't boo bush or any other politician. but at the same time, i think we are seeing how different the US and europe are in their political and social beliefs... shame how the two parts of the world that can make the most difference in the fight against poverty and aids can't take a joke at a u2 concert without starting to bicker about politics... somewhere osama bin laden and all the other terrorists are laughing at us.
knox said:
What a ridiculously petty thing to judge a man by...find faults with his policies all you want (Lord knows they're there), but not with his discomfort in front of cameras. The fact that he's the President despite this says a lot about who he is.
popshopper said:
Also the improper use of language is generally an indicator of a lack of education or intelligence.
In fact having heard the man attempted to speak about his proposals for Social Security reform, I ...
bathiu said:
Really? I'm in a bubble? Wow, that's cool. Good to see that you know who I am and where I am after only 3 posts, posts that, I should add, were very freely interpreted by you. You're literaly puting words in my mouth and then you're building an opinion about me based on this, I'm impressed.
You're still proving that I'm right, you know.
lancerla said:
Here's one of your quotes: "BTW, great posts everyone, especialy those from american republicans (that have no idea why they're listening to U2 because it's everything they are against for) gave me some laugh... "
ohh? how cool, I didn't know that,... oh wait you're still putting words in my mouth, that's why I didn't notice it...lancerla said:
You think I'm judging you without knowing you? You're judging half the U.S. based on one man.
bathiu said:
ohh? how cool, I didn't know that,... oh wait you're still putting words in my mouth, that's why I didn't notice it...