[Kruger]

Originally Posted by Mulletsoldier

The "your" you keep referring to as it pertains to Democrats, is not mine. I live in Canada, and so am not subjected to a two party rule and have an ACTUAL reference point to Social Democracy and liberalism.

I never said prove, how can you prove beyond a doubt the existence of an ideology? I simply asked you to provide some evidence to back up your assertion, I have for mine, and the only thing you have countered with is the predicted election of the Democratic party. Which, as I have stated, is NOT LIBERAL in the historical, or even contemporary construction of the word.

Some of the largest individual, and corporate sponsors of the Republican Party are right-wing evangelicals, and you mean to tell me that the amalgemation of these two rights which took place after Sep.11 has now magically regressed because people who follows basically the same ideologies are now going to take office???

I think it is you, who is kidding me.

Unbelievable. Then maybe you needed to say something two pages back when you were telling me what our Democratic party was or was not influence by but since you aren't even familiar with the term "liberal" as its applied here in America you aren't really in the position to debate this are you?

Oh so you want to associate the merging of parties by the number of contributions? Well then, I didn't hear anyone say the religious right doesnt influence the Republican party did I? I said they weren't one and the same as is evidence in David Kuo's book but you haven't read that right? He was the Deputy Director of the Faith Based Initiative (which Bush created) which said the Bush administration was using the religious right for votes and often referred to them as "the nuts". Maybe you should pick that book up and just see how merged they are. The Foley scandal didnt help much either.

So the Republicans are getting swept out of power mainly because the lack of support form the religious right, you have a book that was just released documenting the split between traditional conservatives and the religious right and you have people voting for the Democratic party in which everyone knows that a die hard liberal will be the Speaker. I'd say that's good evidence that your "movement" is a bit overblown and the trends seen here in the last 8 years are going the other way.

Now if that isn't evidence enough, maybe you need to come down and talk to the people.

[Kruger]

Originally Posted by Mulletsoldier

Not the Administration, but you are/were implying the Repub. party as a whole does.

No I wasn't since I was replying to your statement of:

"And if we want to get on the topic of 'traditional conservatism' than I could argue, quite rightfully, that this current administration"

Even Congress has not acted in traditions conservative values as they increased government spending, something the Democratic Party is known for, especially liberals.

[Big Matt]

People people! Stop with all the Big Brother Doom and Gloom stuff!

Just remember that the people that this is meant for are people whose religious faith condones & encourages them to kill every last one of us!

They don't fight under the banner of any nation (which means they don't qualify for protection under the Geneva Convention), they are not U.S. citizens, (which means they are not entitled to the same rights as you or I)......

....why am I explaining all of this when it is common sense? I swear..sometimes I wake up and feel like I'm living on Bizzaro World!

If you feel that the government has become a tyrannical police state that has taken your rights from you...then do what Ben Franklin and our founding fathers did....take up arms and start a revolution!

[Jayhawkk]

I already have my bunker and supply of weaponry! I dunno how far muskets will take me though.

[Mulletsoldier]

[quote=Bobo]Unbelievable. Then maybe you needed to say something two pages back when you were telling me what our Democratic party was or was not influence by but since you aren't even familiar with the term "liberal" as its applied here in America you aren't really in the position to debate this are you?
[quote]

I am perfectly familiar with the term liberal in general, and its contemporary application in American politics. It is you, who are not familiar with the concept, demonstrated by you constantly referring to the Dem. party as liberal

And because I live in a different country that precludes being from being knowledgeable enough on current events to engage in meaningful debate on US politics? Give me a break, you argue in the sports section ad nasuem and correct me if I am wrong you have never played on a professional sports team?My location does not negate my powers of observation.

But, I think this is irregardless of the topic a fruitless endeavour. You are cleary a "my country right or wrong" type of guy.

[Kruger]

Originally Posted by Mulletsoldier

I am perfectly familiar with the term liberal in general, and its contemporary application in American politics. It is you, who are not familiar with the concept, demonstrated by you constantly referring to the Dem. party as liberal

And because I live in a different country that precludes being from being knowledgeable enough on current events to engage in meaningful debate on US politics? Give me a break, you argue in the sports section ad nasuem and correct me if I am wrong you have never played on a professional sports team?My location does not negate my powers of observation.

But, I think this is irregardless of the topic a fruitless endeavour. You are cleary a "my country right or wrong" type of guy.

Obvisouly you don't know.

And now its funny that you are putting words into my mouth simply because you don't know what you are tlaking about. On 2 occasions I have stated that both parties are 3 seperate entities but I guess you skipped that part yet I do not understand the concept? You made a statemnet yet haven't backed up one shred of it.

The Democratic party is influence liberals whether you want to believe it or not. You obviously don't know who Nancy Pelosi is or her San Fran values but its die hard liberal. Hillary Clinton is considered liberal and she is going to be the Democratic candidate for President. Sorry, there is great influence and I've just shown you 2 very large examples.

Who said you can't discuss politics when you are in Canada? I said since you obviosuly don't know how "liberal" is applied down here its quite logical that you can't make an accurate statement that the Democratic party is not influenced by them since you arne't familiar with how the term is used HERE.

But don't let me stop you from once again sticking words in my mouth, then going off on some emotional tangent on something I never stated. It seems to be the pattern when confronted with straight facts about the Democratic Party.

The Dems are influenced by SM's and liberals, the Republicans are influenced by the relligous right and neo-cons. Get over it, its a fact.

[Jayhawkk]

US moderates are influenced by who can provide cheaper gas and legalize prostitution.


The problem with politics, aside from the corruption running the place; is the fact there are too many circles within circles that will not budge if they weren't the authors of anything considered good.

[Kruger]

[quote=Mulletsoldier]

Originally Posted by Bobo

But, I think this is irregardless of the topic a fruitless endeavour. You are cleary a "my country right or wrong" type of guy.

I don't know what your problem is and you definitely have some sort very emotional bone to pick with anyone who objects to your "movement" theory but I am a traditional conservative who doesnt agree with the Bush administration on many ideas, don't agree with the tradition conservatives on many ideas especially immigration (another example of how the republican party is split), is not religious and haven't been to mass in about 10 years, could care less about what the Bible belt thinks and you can sit there and tell me what I am and what my party is?

Not once have I stated what I believe in until now but its just so nice that you boys up in Canada can make such broad assumption (wrong ones I might add) about what is going on down here. Look at the thread because there doesn't seem to many conservatives posting in here and the loudest one that was ultra conservative got banned last week.

Instead of making your broad assumptions and supporting your theory with zero facts and a very distorted view of whats actually going on down here maybe you should read the news from various sources a little more often before you start telling me whats going on down here and what I am.

[Kruger]

Originally Posted by Jayhawkk

US moderates are influenced by who can provide cheaper gas and legalize prostitution.

And the moderates are in the middle of BOTH parties, not on some crazed religious movement.

Lieberman is running as an indepedent and someone is going to tell me that the party isn't influenced by liberals? The Democratic parties supported Ned Lamont over Joe Lieberman, an incumbent that has been in the senate since 1988, because Lamont is anti-war and reflects the more heavily influenced liberal agenda. Lieberman is basically getting booted out of the party after he was the nomination for Vice President in 2000!!!!!

"Hartford -- Critics of Sen. Joe Lieberman's independent run to keep his job attacked on two fronts Monday, with one group asking an elections official to throw him out of the Democratic Party and a former rival calling on state officials to keep his name off the November ballot."

Oh, just another example:

"NEW YORK -- George Soros, one of the world's richest men, has given away nearly $5 billion to promote democracy in the former Soviet bloc, Africa and Asia. Now he has a new project: defeating President Bush.

Soros, who has financed efforts to promote open societies in more than 50 countries around the world, is bringing the fight home, he said. On Monday, he and a partner committed up to $5 million to MoveOn.org, a liberal activist group, bringing to $15.5 million the total of his personal contributions to oust Bush.

Overnight, Soros, 74, has become the major financial player of the left. He has elicited cries of foul play from the right. And with a tight nod, he pledged: "If necessary, I would give more money.

Soros's contributions are filling a gap in Democratic Party finances that opened after the restrictions in the 2002 McCain-Feingold law took effect. In the past, political parties paid a large share of television and get-out-the-vote costs with unregulated "soft money" contributions from corporations, unions and rich individuals. The parties are now barred from accepting such money. But non-party groups in both camps are stepping in, accepting soft money and taking over voter mobilization."

Liberals don't influence the Democrats. Give me a break.

[Kruger]

Originally Posted by Big Matt

They don't fight under the banner of any nation (which means they don't qualify for protection under the Geneva Convention), they are not U.S. citizens, (which means they are not entitled to the same rights as you or I)......

They do now!!!!

We are the ONLY country that has a law stating this but somehow that gets twisted into "we legalized torture". THATS how f'ed up it is.

[Innings Eater]

Originally Posted by Jayhawkk

US moderates are influenced by who can provide cheaper gas and legalize prostitution.

I now wish to announce my intent to officially join the moderates.

[Jayhawkk]

Hey now, he was only banned for a week

And i'm a moderate who finds ties with platforms of both the dem and republican parties. I couldn't care less who is in power or in office or who writes the bills. I vote based off the meat and potatos regardless of those reasons above.

Just using this as a argueing tool. Loop holes are loop holes and just because certain items get more press than others doesn't mean other laws are written in a similar matter. i preach education and information. As long as your decisions are well informed ones then so be it. Who's to say who is right or wrong as long as you're both at least attempting to better the nation or the standards...

As a police officer if I 'want to' I could just about find any reason to pull you over if I was so inclined to. This is directly related to my knowledge and interpretation of the law and of course my moral standing along with my values.

My point? Laws may be there but if they are written vaguely anough, the right people can do a lot more than was originally intended.

Oh and I meant Us moderates not Us as in U.S.