Politically, I like Joseph Lieberman

[The Dad]

My take is that we just think that this most recent peak of partisanship is the worst ever because (a) we're soaking in it, and (b) we didn't live through the other ones.

Then again, I'd actually argue that partisanship is a good thing. If it's not important enough to fight over, why should I give a shit?

[Jer]

I haven't read this whole thread, nor do I intend to. I'm sure it's just all the regular douchebags yelling "STFU" at anyone who dares to deviate from the TGR Librofascist norm. But I would like to clarify something:

Why stop with Muslims? Let's take out the Christians too. Historically they've killed more people in the name of God than any other religion... by far. Then when we're done witht hem we move on to the Hindus. Those dothead fuckers are bound to get all uppity n'shit.

Yeah - Christianity has argueably killed more people than even Communism. The real difference between Christianity and Islam, tho, is that Christianity has evolved. Christians no longer burn heretics and they aren't the ones stoning women to death for infidelity and they aren't the ones committing the vast majority of terrorist acts in the world today and they aren't the ones advocating the total destruction of Isreal. Tip - it's 2007, not the Middle Ages. Christians did some horrible things hundreds of years ago. Muslims are doing some horrible things now (as well as back in the Middle Ages). Going back in time and doing something about the Christians isn't very realistic, but doing something about Islam in the present is. Then again, every good extreme liberal is an idealist, not a realist.

[Tippster]

You're a fucking Moron if you think "They" all think that way. The crux of the idiocy spouted by you and others is that if the loud people say something often enough it must be true.

Islam is no more a religion of hate than any other.

Yeah - Christianity has argueably killed more people than even Communism.

Heh... "arguably?" If Communism killed... say... 10 million people then the Christians can alone can lay claim to more in the New World alone... between the Spanish Conquistadors who worked almost directly for the Church, Manifest Destiny which was promoted by the Church, and shit.... witch burning there were a fuckload of people killed for not being all up in JC's shit.

[rideit]

Hey Jer, how do you feel about helicopter skiing in the wilderness?

[Jer]

You're a fucking Moron if you think "They" all think that way. The crux of the idiocy spouted by you and others is that if the loud people say something often enough it must be true.

Islam is no more a religion of hate than any other.

Heh... "arguably?" If Communism killed... say... 10 million people then the Christians can alone can lay claim to more in the New World alone... between the Spanish Conquistadors who worked almost directly for the Church, Manifest Destiny which was promoted by the Church, and shit.... witch burning there were a fuckload of people killed for not being all up in JC's shit.

Calm down - where did I say that all Muslims are living in the dark ages? Where did I infer that all Muslims should be shot in the head? Like most TGR Librodouches, you only hear what you want to hear. Modern Islam has a lot of problems that need to be dealt with. I'd say the exact same thing about the Roman Catholic Church if they were still burning witches. It's hillarious that you douches constantly rip on Christians, Mormons, etc. but when someone suggests the possibility that Islam has some huge problems you get your panties all bunched up.

And where the hell did you get that 10 million figure? Pol Pot killed a third of Cambodia. Ever hear of Joseph Stalin? 10 million? - that's like saying Hitler killed a few Jews.

[Jer]

Hey Jer, how do you feel about helicopter skiing in the wilderness?

Y'know - that's funny. A few days ago I was gonna bump one of the WPG threads just to really seal the "Jer is DW" deal.

Actually, I pretty much agree with DW on the WPG deal. Strange...

[PORNO SAVED MY LIFE!]

Sorry, but I think the pompous ass can go fuck himself. Arrogant and out of touch with his voters, he's always talking down to me, as though, due to his exalted position, he knows better. Has practically put it that way more than once. And he can't change his position right now - he's too heavily invested in it, just like dumb ass Bushie Boy.

out of touch....Hummmm?
then why is he still in office?
oh I get it not enough voters that think the way you do.

[rideit]

I can't believe SNR hasn't cunted up this thread yet.

[Jer]

I can't believe SNR hasn't cunted up this thread yet.

Pretty sure everyone else already beat him to it.

[mr_gyptian]

You're a fucking Moron if you think "They" all think that way. The crux of the idiocy spouted by you and others is that if the loud people say something often enough it must be true.

Islam is no more a religion of hate than any other.

Heh... "arguably?" If Communism killed... say... 10 million people then the Christians can alone can lay claim to more in the New World alone... between the Spanish Conquistadors who worked almost directly for the Church, Manifest Destiny which was promoted by the Church, and shit.... witch burning there were a fuckload of people killed for not being all up in JC's shit.

If you look at the number killed by and in the former USSR. The purges in China. North Korea's debacle of a state. the number is close to 100 million. how do you even begin to calculate the effects of the one child policy in china?

now go back and look at world wide population numbers during the time of the conquistadors, manifest destiny, the crusades, etc. they could have wiped the planet clean of human life and had a tough time killing 100 million people.

couple that with the fact that christianity has been around for a little over 2000 years and the fact that Communism as a state is a little over 60 years old. it makes the christians look like pikers by comparison.

[schindlerpiste]

So much for debating the pros and cons of Lieberman. Scheesh!

[Jer]

So much for debating the pros and cons of Lieberman. Scheesh!

Get used to it. So much for debating how fat Al Gore is.

[Jer]

If you look at the number killed by and in the former USSR. The purges in China. North Korea's debacle of a state. the number is close to 100 million. how do you even begin to calculate the effects of the one child policy in china?

now go back and look at world wide population numbers during the time of the conquistadors, manifest destiny, the crusades, etc. they could have wiped the planet clean of human life and had a tough time killing 100 million people.

couple that with the fact that christianity has been around for a little over 2000 years and the fact that Communism as a state is a little over 60 years old. it makes the christians look like pikers by comparison.

Do you have any links or charts or graphs to back this up? Sounds to me like this was all just cooked up by Fox News..

[Tippster]

If you look at the number killed by and in the former USSR. The purges in China. North Korea's debacle of a state. the number is close to 100 million.

The Crusades, the Inquisition, the 100 years War, the (insert pretty much any conflict in Europe between 800 and 1800 AD)? We have no idea how many people died. It was, however, a significant percentage to say the least, and just as valid an argument as what's going on with a Minority of Muslims currently. That is my point.

how do you even begin to calculate the effects of the one child policy in china?

[/QUOTE]
How do you calculate overpopulation in Africa, Asia, and Latin America which can be directly tied to the Church's refusal to acknowledge anything other than Abstinence when talking about pregnancy prevention? Then let's talk about the famines and disease caused by this "enlightened" worldview and how many people have died from that?

How about AIDS? No, the church didn't 'cause" that but the idiotic refusal to promote safe sex and hand out free condoms hasdirectly caused the death of millions as well.

No I'm not "defending" the actions of some religious extremists by invoking history, I am claiming that we have no moral superiority in this regard from a Religious standpoint. I was NOT the idiot who snidely suggested killing the Muslims as a solution.

[Chemical Ali' The Wax Master]

Joe has balls the size of cantaloupes

[schindlerpiste]

No matter what your political affiliation, in my opinion, the defeat of the Levin-Reed amendment is a good thing.

[The Dad]

Don't get me wrong -- I'm pretty far left of liberal, and I wasn't crazy about the Levin-Reed amendment.

But that doesn't change the fact that for at least 20 years I've thought, at least on the political front, that Joe Lieberman is a certifiable douchebag.

And while I've never said it to his face, I've said it to his daughter's. (I briefly dated her best friend. And yes, his daughter is far hotter than he is.)

[Grange]

No matter what your political affiliation, in my opinion, the defeat of the Levin-Reed amendment is a good thing.

To be technical I don't believe the Levin-Reed amendment was defeated because the Republicans wouldn't let the Senate vote on the amendment. The Republicans played the same game the Democrats did with the Judges. Funny how the the parties switched arguments.

[Steven S. Dallas]

I'm not going to read this entire thing, so maybe the point has been made, but- Crass, how can you possibly kill Democrats for politicizing Iraq when the Bush administration has created the most polarized Congress since the 1850s (or at least the New Deal)? EVERYTHING that the White House has done in the last 7 years has been ideologically motivated, to the point where (as was recently reported) the Surgeon General was reprimanded for his involvement in the Special Olympics because it is a favorite cause of the Kennedy family. If any lack of support for the Iraq effort is due to partisan politics, then it's a classic case of chickens coming home to roost.

[mr_gyptian]

I'm not going to read this entire thing, so maybe the point has been made, but- Crass, how can you possibly kill Democrats for politicizing Iraq when the Bush administration has created the most polarized Congress since the 1850s (or at least the New Deal)? EVERYTHING that the White House has done in the last 7 years has been ideologically motivated, to the point where (as was recently reported) the Surgeon General was reprimanded for his involvement in the Special Olympics because it is a favorite cause of the Kennedy family. If any lack of support for the Iraq effort is due to partisan politics, then it's a classic case of chickens coming home to roost.

how the hell do you blame the an administration for what Congress is doing?

A congress, mind you, that has the same approval rating as Nixon. The day he left office.

like I said back in November, democrats deserve Pelosi and Reid. talk about chickens coming home to roost.

[Steven S. Dallas]

how the hell do you blame the an administration for what Congress is doing?

A congress, mind you, that has the same approval rating as Nixon. The day he left office.

I'm saying that it's idiotic for blaming a Congress for "playing politics" when that's been the name of the game for the last 7 years, and I'm blaming this administration for creating an atmosphere on Capitol Hill where everything is done on party lines and there is complete mistrust on both sides of the aisle. Bush et al did everything they could to marginalize and even humiliate Democrats in the years leading up to the midterm elections. I'm not saying any retaliation by the Democrats now is appropriate, but they spent a few years in the wilderness there. No question they take some pleasure in giving Bush et al a hard time, rightly or wrongly. I happen to believe that he's the worst, most corrupt president in the last 95 years, and that he deserves what he gets, but not at the cost of proper government. Still, I can't blame the Congress Democrats for wanting to isolate him even further.

As for Congressional inactivity... Still a lot of Republicans in that Congress. They'll all be cleaned out in the next election.

[mr_gyptian]

I hope the usual suspects, Byrd, Stevens, Lott, Kennedy, Levin et. al should retire for the sake of the institution. unfortunately the list is longer and less distinguished.

but if the democrats felt marginalized, it's their own fault. jeebus, their senate majority leader, Tom Daschle, couldn't even get re-elected. the utter beauty of last november is the fact that the democrats got elected on an idea with no substance or plan behind it. The pork keeps rolling out of congress like never before. Now we see the worst approval rating ever for a congress. a congress supposedly lead by democrats.

[Steven S. Dallas]

but if the democrats felt marginalized, it's their own fault.

Just not true, sorry. There has been no end of writers and long-serving politicians who say that there had never been such a fracture between the parties, and that any Republican who so much as contemplated working on serious bipartisan legislation would be met with a sharp rebuke and a slap on the wrist by the White House for not sticking to the so-called "mandate." That conveniently ignores that the Democrats in Congress were elected, too, and their constituency has a right to effective representation.

If I was a staunch Republican, I'd probably cheer that approach. If I was a hard-core Democrat (whatever that is) I'd decry it. But as I am, it just seems like a shitty way to run a country, and Bush is reaping what he sowed (sew?).

[natty dread]

Shrub sure seems to...

[Grange]

The pork keeps rolling out of congress like never before.

Like never before? Where the hell have you been the last 6 years?