"Repugnants"

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 27 2004 @ 09:25 PM
link   
I just want to know why the left-wing majority of this board feels the need to insult the political beliefs of the other end of the spectrum under this arrogant and derisive term... we have the decency to call you "Democrats"; why is it that we can't ask for the same deference in return?

Your thoughts, please.




posted on Feb, 27 2004 @ 09:58 PM
link   
*Owl hoot*

Well it appears they dont have a response my friend, for all their big talk it looks like they are either
A. To afraid to answer.
B. Pooling their brains to come up with a witty response.



posted on Feb, 27 2004 @ 10:13 PM
link   
Give 'em time.

I'm just wondering if it occured to them that there isn't really a justifiable reason to disrespect your opponents in a field like politics.

Call it morbid curiosity, I guess. I just want to know what it's all about.



posted on Feb, 27 2004 @ 10:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xenographer
Give 'em time.

I'm just wondering if it occured to them that there isn't really a justifiable reason to disrespect your opponents in a field like politics.

Call it morbid curiosity, I guess. I just want to know what it's all about.


Be prepared for more direspect though.



posted on Feb, 27 2004 @ 10:18 PM
link   
Always am, my friend.

Always am.



posted on Feb, 28 2004 @ 01:05 AM
link   
Well, let me weigh in.

Why does the left-wing, liberal side of this forum attack the conservative side with name calling?

Because when you don't have a defensible position, you can do one of two things:

1. Re-evaluate your position, or
2. Attack your opponent with name calling

Face it, it's much easier to just take the second course of action. That way you don't have to produce facts to defend your position, or - most importantly - come up with a better solution. That way, you don't have to think. You just have to scream louder than your opponent.

Also, there's always the chance that you'll encounter a newbie, or a timid person, and can intimidate them and scare them off.

For the record, I don't group left-wing radicals in with democrats in general. Democrats have a philosophical difference of opinion with republicans. Both parties have done much good for this country.

Left-wing radicals, though, are a different breed. They never have a rational argument or a good alternative solution, and I mean never. They react like Rumplestiltskin, stomping their foot into the ground until they entrap themselves. There is not one single positive change that has ever been brought about in this country by left-wing radicals.

john



posted on Feb, 28 2004 @ 01:58 AM
link   
we could always stoop down to their level and call them democraps... yeah, that's the best i've got.

i agree though. i'm tired of all the right-wing bashing, and i'm not even really all that right wing. i'm like just to the right of the middle.

EDIT:

Originally posted by jsobecky
Left-wing radicals, though, are a different breed. They never have a rational argument or a good alternative solution, and I mean never. They react like Rumplestiltskin, stomping their foot into the ground until they entrap themselves. There is not one single positive change that has ever been brought about in this country by left-wing radicals.


agreed. just like how ultra-conservatives shouldn't be grouped with republicans.

[Edited on 2/28/2004 by cmdrkeenkid]



posted on Feb, 28 2004 @ 02:16 AM
link   
You and I could call myself a lefty easily. I've never called a republican a repugnant. I'm not farmiliar with the term. I call republicans republicans or occansionally a douche bag, but same goes for any person of almost every political party or views.


By the way if you're a lefty and are considered a radical, that usually means you're a socialist, communist, etc. So, there are not many radicals abound in that area. The whole labeling is a bit goofy.



posted on Feb, 28 2004 @ 02:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Requiem
You and I could call myself a lefty easily. I've never called a republican a repugnant. I'm not farmiliar with the term. I call republicans republicans or occansionally a douche bag, but same goes for any person of almost every political party or views.


By the way if you're a lefty and are considered a radical, that usually means you're a socialist, communist, etc. So, there are not many radicals abound in that area. The whole labeling is a bit goofy.



No, not the same. A socialist or communist has a point of view, an alternate solution. I can debate with a socialist.

A radical, on the other hand screams "Anybody but [Nixon|Reagan|Bush]" or blames "The Man". He doesn't know why he is screaming it; he only knows it makes him feel better. A radical can offer no other solution other than to tear down The Man. He is incapable of thinking beyond that point, to what the next step would be.

john



posted on Feb, 28 2004 @ 03:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xenographer
I just want to know why the left-wing majority of this board feels the need to insult the political beliefs of the other end of the spectrum under this arrogant and derisive term... we have the decency to call you "Democrats"; why is it that we can't ask for the same deference in return?

Your thoughts, please.


Honestly, the most of the "repugnant" stuff is perpetrated by one man...Colonel. And don't play the innocent role in all of this. I have seen insulting phrases done by republicans and righties: "knee-jerk liberal", "communist", "pinko commie bastard", "Demoncrap", "Demo-rats", "Demonrats". Both sides do it. Do a search of some key words, I'm pretty sure you will turn out some posts with those phrases in it. But, look for repugnant, and the only people who have repugnant are: Colonel, People who quote Colonel, the few people who imitate Colonel, and people asking Colonel if "....does that make me a repugnant too?"

And no, I'm not denying that there is a majority of lefties and probably more extreme lefties than extreme righties.



posted on Feb, 28 2004 @ 07:58 AM
link   
Also, there's always the chance that you'll encounter a newbie, or a timid person, and can intimidate them and scare them off.

I just realized...in the above paragraph, I had originally typed the word n-e-w-b-i-e, not "new member", and the system automatically substituted "new member" into my post.

This is censorship at it's most vile, and is clearly a left-wing plot to distort the meaning of my words!


john



posted on Feb, 28 2004 @ 08:19 AM
link   
Let's make a deal.

You give me a situation since 1980 where I could respect a Republican, and I'll stop thinking of them as repugnants. Otherwise, I'm just going to keep thinking of them like that.

Furthermore, we use that specific term simply because some of the policies of the republican party are so ludicrous and out there that it's sickening, or repugnant.

Example: Pro-Lifers who support the Death penalty.

=MAKES NO SENSE!

But, like I said, find me an issue where I would side with the republicans since 1980, and I'll stop saying repugnant.



posted on Feb, 28 2004 @ 08:40 AM
link   
How's this for an example:

End of the Cold War.

john



posted on Feb, 28 2004 @ 08:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Loki
Let's make a deal.

You give me a situation since 1980 where I could respect a Republican, and I'll stop thinking of them as repugnants. Otherwise, I'm just going to keep thinking of them like that.

Furthermore, we use that specific term simply because some of the policies of the republican party are so ludicrous and out there that it's sickening, or repugnant.

Example: Pro-Lifers who support the Death penalty.

=MAKES NO SENSE!

But, like I said, find me an issue where I would side with the republicans since 1980, and I'll stop saying repugnant.


Wow. Nice. I'd have to say the 80's solidified me as 100% anti-Republican for life as well. In two words: Jesse Helms. Truly disgusting human being. But even without him, the seemingly constant stream of dirty dealings from Nixon to Ford pardoning Nixon to Reagen/Bush Iran Contra... is just a hard thing to get over.

The RNC is dirty, dirty, dirty. And though I find many prominent Republicans truly repugnant I do attempt to not call all Republicans that name, as some are merely ill informed, selfish or simply have allowed their religion to influence their politics.

I, for one, have less of a problem with a CONSISTENT pro-life, anti-drug, bible thumping Republican... than I do with a pot smoking, pro-choice right winger. That just makes no damn sense.

And you're right. The death penalty thing does not bode well for consistency in either party.



posted on Feb, 28 2004 @ 08:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
How's this for an example:

End of the Cold War.

john


Few were more surprised then the Republican Party that their "go to" source for public support collapsed. And one fake war ending doesn't count if you just have another fake one ready in it's place to prop up your Military/Industrial, Oil & Banking Party back into power.

If you don't understand why peace is bad for the Republicans look what happened when the cold war ended. 8 years of clinton. Then a little bombing here and there, and the terror brainchild squeaked a Bush victory SOLIDIFIED by 9/11 once in charge of "defense'.

The Democrats are talking about positive messages of hope. The Republicans arre harping on fear. From the Evil Empire to the Axis of Evil, nothing has changed or been won. There will always be an enemy for the "stong on defense" party to combat. It's a shell game.

I'm not saying the Democrats are perfect, but please have a little objectivity on the Republicans and the "cold war". That was a boon business for the RNC and hardly "won" on purpose. Not the way you mean. The proof is in it's replacement. The war on terror? Oh that's a good one. It can't be won by design.



posted on Feb, 28 2004 @ 09:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by RANT

Originally posted by jsobecky
How's this for an example:

End of the Cold War.

john


Few were more surprised then the Republican Party that their "go to" source for public support collapsed. And one fake war ending doesn't count if you just have another fake one ready in it's place to prop up your Military/Industrial, Oil & Banking Party back into power.
______________________________________
You are totally wrong on this. It was Reagan and Bush working with Yeltsin to end the cold war. It was a good thing. I can understand your reluctance to give the Republicans any credit for this, though.

Or do you think that the cold war was a good thing?

The military/industrial complex has been around since Ben Franklin's brother-in-law made musketballs for the troops. Both Democrats and Republicans have benefited from the jobs created by BAE, GE, and practically every other DJIA players. What does this prove?
_______________________________________
If you don't understand why peace is bad for the Republicans look what happened when the cold war ended. 8 years of clinton. Then a little bombing here and there, and the terror brainchild squeaked a Bush victory SOLIDIFIED by 9/11 once in charge of "defense'.
______________________________________
I can remember a time in the not-so-distant past that the Democrats were considered the party of war. It was a method of creating jobs to get us out of a recession. The point is, the Democrats have as much blood on their hands as the Republicans do.

But I guess it was the Republians in charge during the VietNam fiasco, wasn't it? No wait...it was Nixon's war. It was just a lucky coincidence that the war ended while he was in office, right?

_______________________________

The Democrats are talking about positive messages of hope. The Republicans arre harping on fear. From the Evil Empire to the Axis of Evil, nothing has changed or been won. There will always be an enemy for the "stong on defense" party to combat. It's a shell game.
__________________________________

Yeah, I know. Let's wait for the UN to give us permission to defend ourselves, right? Like in Iraq.. the French were against us going in because of... "the children!" Never mind that they were in bed with Saddam, getting oil at dirt-cheap prices. Much easier to scream about Halliburton/Cheney instead of examining the French companies that lost out.

Besides, you're right..the war on terror will probably never end. There will always be scumbag terrorists wanting to murder us.


_________________________________

I'm not saying the Democrats are perfect, but please have a little objectivity on the Republicans and the "cold war". That was a boon business for the RNC and hardly "won" on purpose. Not the way you mean. The proof is in it's replacement. The war on terror? Oh that's a good one. It can't be won by design.

_________________________________

And I'm not saying that the Republicans are perfect, either. I'm saying that they are worse than Democrats on some issues, better on other issues.

And who profited from the boon business created by Viet Nam? The party of positive messages and hope?

So the Republicans ended Viet Nam and REPLACED it with an end to the Cold War. Doesn't make a lot of sense, if we are to accept your premise.

Anyway, my post was directed to the person who asked the specific question. He asked for an example;hopefully I provided one.

john



[Edited on 28-2-2004 by jsobecky]



posted on Feb, 28 2004 @ 09:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
How's this for an example:

End of the Cold War.

john



The End of the Cold War isn't something I side with the Republicans on.


Republicans started the Red Scare to begin with. It should never have happened.

Mass paranoia and hysteria, and even National conflict is how Republicans maintain their regimes.

We can see this as far back as the Civil war (Lincoln=Republican)

We can see this today. I mean honestly folks...do you think Kleenex and Duct Tape and Color Codes will keep you safe?

I rest my case.



posted on Feb, 28 2004 @ 10:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by RANT

Wow. Nice. I'd have to say the 80's solidified me as 100% anti-Republican for life as well. In two words: Jesse Helms. Truly disgusting human being. But even without him, the seemingly constant stream of dirty dealings from Nixon to Ford pardoning Nixon to Reagen/Bush Iran Contra... is just a hard thing to get over.

The RNC is dirty, dirty, dirty. And though I find many prominent Republicans truly repugnant I do attempt to not call all Republicans that name, as some are merely ill informed, selfish or simply have allowed their religion to influence their politics.

I, for one, have less of a problem with a CONSISTENT pro-life, anti-drug, bible thumping Republican... than I do with a pot smoking, pro-choice right winger. That just makes no damn sense.

And you're right. The death penalty thing does not bode well for consistency in either party.



Here comes the protests of innocence. You act like the DNC is a choir boy with no skeletons in its closet. Look at some of the poor bastards you guys have turned out, Ted Kennedy (murderer), Jesse Jackson (repugnant racist), and more recently the congresswoman who said we were racist since we didnt interfere with Haiti's turmoil. What is it with you people, you take a thread asking why you have to resort to calling people names and it becomes a thread about excuses. If you wanna play the "well since 19-- Ive been a republican hater, then I guess Ive hated democrats since 1960, for starting a useless war in a useless country, WHOS STARTING A RED SCARE NOW!, I think it was Lyndon Johnson who was responsible for the largest troop presence in Vietnam. Hypocritis.



posted on Feb, 28 2004 @ 10:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Loki

Originally posted by jsobecky
How's this for an example:

End of the Cold War.

john



The End of the Cold War isn't something I side with the Republicans on.


Republicans started the Red Scare to begin with. It should never have happened.

_______________________________________

Do you remember the Russians moving nuclear warheads into Cuba? Who was president? Not that it matters, but it was JFK. Point is the USSR had a lot to do with the Red Scare, doncha think?

And you can sit there and say the Republicans started the Red Scare?

________________________________________

Mass paranoia and hysteria, and even National conflict is how Republicans maintain their regimes.

We can see this as far back as the Civil war (Lincoln=Republican)

We can see this today. I mean honestly folks...do you think Kleenex and Duct Tape and Color Codes will keep you safe?

__________________

Well duct tape seems to have scared away bin Laden so far ...especially when it's fastened to the tip of a MOAB.

Who put us in this position? A governor from PA or was it 19 wackos commandeering four airplanes?

The end to the Cold War was a good thing. The Republicans made it happen. It doesn't matter who started it....if the Democrats were so friggin wonderful, then why didn't THEY end Viet Nam or the Cold War?

I rest my case.



posted on Feb, 28 2004 @ 10:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky

It doesn't matter who started it....if the Democrats were so friggin wonderful, then why didn't THEY end Viet Nam or the Cold War?

I rest my case.


Gooing...going gone! And the crowd goes wild.





new topics
top topics
 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join