Did you ever wonder why most Democrats in politics don't embrace people like Phil.
Posted By: - on 2005-09-23
In Reply to: You're entitled to your opinion. I guess it depends on what side of the spectrum you're on.nm - Democrat
or should I cally him Phillie. There are some far leftist Democrats that no Democrat worth their salt wants to be hooked up with. Phil is one of them. He has a long list of hates, some of which include cops. He hates them. If you remember his shows from eons ago, he had several shows about them. No politician worth his salt has someone like that on his ticket. Think about it. When was the last time you saw Phil with a politician?
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
Kristol said people of Iran would embrace US attack. sm
More warmongering from the lunatic neocons.
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/07/19/kristol-iran/
politics or people?
http://www.youtube.com/user/visionvictory
People - take it to the gab board - bf is not in politics
So what he never graduated high school. My dad never graduated high school and he's held jobs his whole life. Raised two kids, nephews. Sacrificed everything for us and I love him for it. He's no less of a person than people who did graduate high school, which some of them are bums!
So what her bf didn't graduate high school. That has nothing to do with politics.
That's because people continue to post on a non-politics issue
I got over her a long time ago. Obama and Biden won. McCain and Palin lost. Doesn't bother me one bit they lost because I didn't vote for them. I was upset the GOP put in such a lame candidate to begin with. But when you post a non-political issue on the political board gloating about the hardships they are going through and are gleeful about it because of the hatred for Sarah Palin, then yes, I will reply and I'll keep replying and will reply in the future. And if any picks on Obama's daughter's either I will reply with a rebuttal and keep replying. These people are not in politics. I followed Obama's advice he gave during the campaign - leave the candidate's family alone. Especially the kids. There is nothing lower that finding happiness in other people's sadness. And the kids did not do anything wrong.
" I will embrace the O as a president until he screws up" sm
"which, eventually, he will." Do you hear yourself? First of all, you DO NOT support him nor give him a chance to prove you wrong. You are against him from the get-go. Let's be clear on that.
Second of all, you would not know the truth if it bit you in the tush. You have made up your mind and anything that doesn't agree with your vision of what should be will ultimately be some kind of conspiracy in your mind.
All I can tell you is to open your mind and consider everything that is happening in the here and now, open your heart too. History shows that many great men and women endured rejection and even martyrdom when, against all odds, they stood up for what they believed for the greater good of all mankind, with the devil always in the background trying to dissuade. We have not seen someone like that in a very long time and I think people are very discouraged and find it hard to trust. The Chicken Little philosophy is getting us little people nowhere.
Yes, we have to be vigilant and cautious, but we also have to bring our country together in this very precarious time.
Always remember, if you don't like what he does, you can vote him out in 4 years. What a great country!
Is Obama starting to embrace McCain's thoughts and plans?
I just heard a little speech on the news at a rally made by the O. All of a sudden, he seems to be mirroring McC's ideas about regulation, the bail out, etc. I noticed him saying things before (and after the debate) that McC had first campaigned for, but didn't say anything because I really thought I was hearing things.
Now I'm flipping channels to see if I can hear this again.
Thank you, Dr. Phil. :-) nm
nm
Who said anything about Dr. Phil?
For starters, I did not author the original "classical psychopath" post, which Backwards Typist (BT) automatically assumed applied to her instead of the governor (who, by the way, IS a classic psychopath). But I did find the knee-jerk paranoid reaction rather intriguing, so I decided to respond, as is customary on this forum, while exercising 1st amendment rights.
Now here you come along to defend BT and, as is your usual style, you have conflated the situation way beyond the original context, to now include "whatever opinions expressed on this board that don't agree with" mine. Since I was not the original poster and my reply was a response to BT's own paranoid conclusion (and not an original premise of mine), the connections you are trying to make here are, shall we say, rather void of logic.
It does not take a Dr. Phil to look up a simple definition and apply it to a given context. There is nothing particularly judgmental in doing so, especially in light of the fact that I never claimed to be any sort of expert. It is merely an exercise in intellect and logic, concepts which, on more than one occasion, have seemed to cause you to go ballistic, as you are now demonstrating.
If you are so tired of my alleged "holier-than-thou" attitude (your perception, yet not my intent) and condescension, you could always opt to skip my posts and save yourself some aggravation, since you seem to think they are identifiable by my yellow-bellied choice to use sentence form in the name and subject box instead of the more "regular" habit of employing a consistent moniker. You seem to be pretty good at identifying your least favorite poster on this forum, despite the fact that I am not the only one who fails to meet your strict standards of always using a "regular name." I have my reasons for posting in this fashion, but do not necessarily feel compelled to defend or explain myself to you, other than to say that I've BTDT and did not enjoy being stalked by sam night and day for weeks on end when I did use a nick-name. I certainly do not think the tired, worn-out right-wing fringe mantra of "do you have something to hide?" merits further comment.
By the way, as long as we are nitpicking over apostrophe placement, you might want to run spell check on your posts next time, unless you think "been" is spelled "bene". Having a built-in editing tool comes in handy and only takes a few seconds. Wish we had that back in the dark ages in 1974 when I first started transcribing.
Things tend to get a bit murky at this point. When trying to admonish me for having a "lot of nerve speaking for anyone but" myself, you probably should eliminate the part where you are "so sure there are others" who think I am heavy-handed and rude, MS sm......m, or whatever your regular name is. I have no difficulty "owning" my opinions, but am not really interested in engaging with posters who use raw emotions and juvenile catch phrases as a substitute for thoughtful, well researched political debate. If you are ever in the mood to actually confront a real political issue head-on, back up claims with fact and express intelligent conclusions in place of whining, blowing things out of proportion and taking things WAY too personally, I would be more than happy to accommodate.
Well, thank you, Dr. Phil.........sm
Whatever opinions expressed on this board that don't agree with yours are now considered psychopathic and have markers of antisocial behavior and lack of conscience. What gives you the right to pass such judgment on anyone?
Personally, I am a little tired of your holier-than-thou attitude and condescending mannerisms that you have displayed consistently since you have bene posting here without having the intestinal fortitude to sign your posts with a consistent moniker. I'm sure there are others who think your brand of criticism is rather heavy-handed and rude. Now, let's (and it is spelled with an apostrophe, which you would know if you were an MT) think about what that says about your personality type.
Most regular posters on this board use a regular name in posting so we can tell who we are conversing with. You, on the other hand, choose not to. Do you have something to hide? Are you afraid to "own" your own opinions because subconsciously you know you are somehow deficient or inconsistent in your opinions and afraid that you will be called on it? You seem to gain a great deal of satisfaction in elevating yourself to a position of false piety and have no conscience in doing so. And don't bother saying that no sarcasm is intended because each and every one of your posts literally drip with sarcasm. You have a lot of nerve speaking for anyone but yourself.
Hey, Dr. Phil......(sm)
Not even close....LOL.
She was in state politics at the time, not national politics......
how much foreign policy experience did Bill have when he went to the presidency having only been a governor? The same as Sarah Palin. Because he was concentrating on his job...the state of Arkansas (and Paula Jones and what was that stripper's name?). Sarah Palin was concentrating on the state of Alaska.
Good grief. lol. Why don't you poll all the governors in all the states in the union and ask them how much they think about foreign policy?
Like Dr. Phil Says...and it's true:
"Those who have nothing to hide, hide nothing." It matters not what y'all think of Dr. Phil.
If you had the truth on your side, wouldn't you produce it?
Enough said.
That's funny - on Dr. Phil?
You would think he would be able to help her!!! LOL!!!
Thanks for posting about Phil Donahue. I have not followed him, except sm
way back when when he had his talk show I loved to watch.
I agree with you, the site posted does not prove he is an atheist. I would have to hear it from his mouth to believe it.
Phil Berg for Hillary?
Philip Berg is/was an avid Hillary Clinton supporter and filed his motions before the Democratic Convention, didn't he? Besides, the court has not made any demands on Obama to produce anything. He released his birth certificate and the Hawaiian birth announcement, nothing more is required.
Also if you check Obama's official website, you'll see that Michelle Obama has a busy campaigning schedule while her husband is in Hawaii. I don't know, but I don't think it's too strange to think that she may have felt it was important to continue campaigning during his absence at such a crucial time.
I think Dr. Phil is kind of a bully.
Oprah and Ellen, and Dr. Phil
are not in a position to force the rest of us to share our wealth, punish us if we do not, while keeping their wealth for themselves. Not a good comparison at all.
Oprah is on record saying that (even with her multi-millions) she does not just hand money to individuals who tell her they need it. Why should she think that would help someone who obviously failed to take care of their own money? They want money? They can go make it the hard way, as she has. (Then she supports Obama. Go figure!)
Obama is more like the minister who preaches fidelity, while having affairs with his parishioners. He's someone who says that to help public schools, all children should have to attend them (except his own.) Lectures on the evils of tobacco, raises taxes on it, while sneaking cigarettes. Gets his own sweet deal on a mortgage, supports the bailout of deadbeats, yet penalizes those who have been responsible with their money. Criticizes company executives for use of corporate jets, then flies on his own jet to Arizona just to sign a bill.
Get the picture? ''Do as I say, not as I do.''
This proves that Phil Berg is a hardhead who
twice failed legal action. So you still have presented nothing that back up your claim that this is still on the docket. By the way, ever heard of frivolous lawsuits. They are not confined to medical malpractice, dontcha know?
Phil Donahue is the man. Had Bill O'Reilly shaking in his boots.nm
He makes good points and the only thing you get from his stance is that he doesn't want to fight the taliban, which is unfortunate for you NOT true.
Give a quote where he says the US should not fight the taliban.
go democrats..go
Are they? Where I live I go house to house to get people to sign up as democrats and frankly many are signing on as democrats and I hear anger and distrust and concern about Bush and his policies..So, dont know where you are from but I see the actual opposite..I also see many minorities, Blacks and Latinos signing on to the democratic party. From your posts, IMHO you are a republican plant and so your posts mean nothing to me. You are either a couch political potato who never goes out there and works the grass roots or you are a republican trying to put seeds of discontent in the democratic party. Gotta tell ya, the democratic party is doing just fine and each time bush screws up, which has been many over the past five years, the democrats do even better..Yeehaww!!
Democrats
...and I sure DO NOT appreciate union busters. This country has gone beyond "dog eat dog." Bush wanted to spend $$$$ for research on Mars?! I'm all for new discoveries and learning new things, but come on...let's do ALL that we can for the problems here on earth and her inhabitants first.
The democrats did not cause
this mess. And it was not caused by the people who were extended credit. Here is part of what caused it:
Banks issued subprime mortgages to people at a rate they could initially afford but which would increase to an inflated rate after a period of time. Those banks then immediately sold those mortgages at the inflated rates to other banks. These adjustable rate loans were misrepresented to a lot of homebuyers, especially first-time homebuyers. A lot of them didn’t realize, for example, they could not refinance for a period of time without huge penalties. Then the market started to decline and many of those homeowners found themselves upside down on their loans and could not refinance. Their interest rates had ballooned to rates they could no longer afford. The banks who were sold the loans at inflated prices could not afford to lower the rates for the homebuyers because they had bought the loans based on the inflated interest rates and would lose money if they did. People lost their homes and the banks lost the amount of the loans they had bought. But the banks (and the CEOs) that initiated those loans walked away with a great deal of money.
It was because of greed. And the deregulation that the republicans have passed over the years allowed it to happen.
Here are some other facts:
Since 1960 the nation's deficit has risen during every republican administration and dropped during every democratic administration.
The standard of living and income has improved for everyone in the country during every democratic administration since 1960, EVEN for the top 1% of the country. It has gotten worse for everyone in the country during every republican administration EXCEPT the top 1%.
Please tell me how you think the democrats...sm
contributed to the economy diving in the last 2 years. Specifics please. The economy takes way longer than that to do anything. No economic bills have been passed. The last 8 years of the Bush presidency has put us into the tank. Stop parroting the party line. Lets be honest here. John McCain offers nothing better.
Yes, well, those would be democrats as well
--
Democrats
 Obama, if elected the next President of the US, will change how other peoples look at the Americans: He will restore respect and admiration for the American people that was lost during these last 8 years. And the world will see that the American people do not discriminate (at least not the Democrats).
Can't think of anything that would help democrats more
Skip the landslide. It would be an avalanche.
Obviously so do Democrats. nm
*
Like the democrats
don't do the same thing. When are people going to realize that both parties are just as crooked as the other here? When the dems had control of congress during Bush's presidency, did the dems do anything positive for our economy then. Of course they didn't.....why.....because they would hate to do something good during Bush's presidency because he might get credit for it. This goes both ways and your post is very one sided. We all need to wake up and realize that the only people we can trust is ourselves and stop putting so much faith in either party. Government as a whole has screwed us over and I am sick and tired of putting all the blame on one party. They all had their greedy little hands in the cookie jar and that is the reason we are in the mess we are in.
democrats and
Pace your rage. It has only been 100 days.
LOL, who lies, not democrats
That is what dems say? LOL. I ask you to check out one of the top posts, i.e., Rush and Olbermann..Reality check starts attacking the poster, Olbermann, MSNBC, saying they lie, even though the transcript is on the web, also printed in his article, and on video..yet they are lying right?? and its the dems that always scream that people are lying, right? I thought up a new name for neocons after reading about that Xtian..NOT..Robertson stating Chavez should be eliminated. Neocons are the American Taliban. You are just as bad. If everyone does not think, act, believe, live like you, then they are wrong and lying..You guys are ridiculous..
Democrats/Liberals
Amen,sm! I noticed that you used one word in one of your responses that is the tell-tale sign distingishing conservatives from liberals, that word being logic. Liberals have no logic and cannot reason, else why would they support Bill Clinton going to war in Bosnia/Yugoslavia when no attack at all had been made on our country and deploy our troops all over the world for no good reason, then pounce on President Bush who is only engaging us in this war on terror to protect all of us here at home, as well as those of our loved ones who have to travel the world over for companies they work for or those who serve our government in various capacities all over the world? Prior to 911, we had been attacked 19 times by terrorists over a period of 20 years or so and not one single president but Ronald Reagan and finally George W. Bush had the gumption to be a real leader and respond, with very noticeable results I might add. Does anyone remember Moamar Kadafi and how his terrorism stopped after President Reagan took care of him?? Bin Ladin and his terrorist organization had attacked us so many times without any response that he called the United States a paper tiger, believing his dreams of total destruction of our country were an inevitable event. I suppose the liberals prefer having our schools, supermarkets, shopping malls, sports arenas, etc., etc., be the targets for terrorists rather than following the advice of every top military general I can think of (save Wesley Clark who obviously has political ambitions)and fight the terrorists where they are amassed rather than fighting them here. To say that Saddam Hussein had no connection to terrorist organizations is nonsense. He hated us with the same vitreolic hatred Bin Ladin had for us and would have loved nothing better than to see us go down. In addition, he was paying a $25,000 reward for each Israeli killed in a terrorist attack. He was a WMD himself, just as Adolph Hitler was. You don't have to possess WMDs to be a WMD; the result is the same. Immediately after the 9-11 attack, 27 Al Qaeda terrorists were rounded up in the very small community in which I live (makes one wonder how many were in the larger cities and communities), and believe me, I feel a lot better knowing that they, along with their terrorist network, have been put out of commission under President Bush's leadership. As of today, our military has brilliantly performed the task of reducing the entire terorrist organization to about 17,000 in number. Quite a feat!! God bless them all!! I recently heard that a letter from a top terrorist leader was intercepted and stated, We are losing the war. I have much more I could say, but I'll save it for another time as it is getting late.
Psychotic democrats.
Well I guess that is better then a psychotic democrat.
I believe the Democrats will take the House
and pick up seats in the Senate enough to make it very even. When Lieberman is elected as an Independent, I predict he will change his party to Democrat when he gets into the Senate, a direct slam at the Democrats who failed to support him. Lieberman, the only Democrat with a spine, will be the big winner. I am not gnashing my teeth about any of this. Democrats are the one who do the teeth gnashing. They have been gnashing since Bush won the first election and their bitterness and sore loser attitudes have eaten away like a cancer all these years. Democrats have no plan for keeping America safe, or winning the war against the fanatics. They have opposed most of the Bush administration’s domestic surveillance methods. They have opposed aggressive interrogation tactics designed to get information to protect us, including opposition to the detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, where detainees are treated better than they could expect if they were detained in their homelands... The terrorists in Iraq and elsewhere don’t speak of timetables for withdrawal or bringing their fighters home. They’re in it for the long haul. They believe we are not. A victory by Democrats will validate their view and encourage them to fight harder. Republicans have been far from perfect in this war. They have barely approached mediocrity in their handling of domestic issues. But to change horses and leaders mid-war is a prescription for a longer engagement, because this is a confrontation that will end only in victory or defeat for one side or the other. That’s why the Republicans need to keep their majority and conservatives need to keep the pressure on them to get back to the original GOP principles that brought them that majority. That’s a better strategy than Republicans acting like Democrat-lite. Unfortunately, I think it is too late this time around. But there is always next time. God Bless our troops.
Democrats vs Republicans...
I agree that problems occur on both sides of the aisle...obviously. What I find troubling, and I am being serious here, is that Democrats seem much less likely to own up to it when they do something wrong, even when caught, and the entire party seems to rally around them and somehow want to twist the wrong into a right or rationalize the wrong (he only lied about sex for example. He committed felony perjury, doesn't matter what the lie was about. If it was no big deal, why didn't he just tell the truth? I guess that depends on what the meaning of truth is?). Republicans generally fall on the sword when caught. There just seems to be something skewed about the Democratic party as a whole and their vision of what is wrong or right and it seems to be directly correlated to whether one of their party is guilty or the other party is guilty. This is just an observation. I am not a registered Republican nor Democrat. I am conservative, I am registered Independent but vote for whoever most closely follows my belief system, though they as a rule don't do as they say...and I mean ALL politicians. I just keep hoping for an honest one. Bush did what he said he would do for a long time, but I see him waffling now, and I am not sure that is a good thing. As I look at the two major parties in this country, it just seems to me that on the Democratic side they are more likely to support each other and try to spin wrongdoing even when caught at it, rarely if ever admitting to wrongdoing. I do not see that so much on the Republican side. I suppose now I should go back to the conservative side and let the process continue. I thought the boards were about opinion and discussion and debate. How can you expect to change any minds if you only talk to the like-minded? Thanks for your time, Lurker. I do enjoy talking to you.
This is old news...and yet the Democrats in...
congress voted to give the President the use of force in Iraq. They knew all this then. But they voted to use force. So I do not understand why it is being brought up again now like it was some big secret. Yes, 20 years ago the US did try to deal with Saddam. And you saw what his word was worth. Zip, nada, nothing. Much like the word of the Democratic Congress that sold South Viet Nam down the river to the North...broke the promises that were made to end the war. If you want to point fingers at something dispicable that should be HIGH on your list.
I see it with Democrats and Republicans. sm
Where are all the progressives and antiwar people?
WELL there are certainly NO liberal Democrats
running for president...
Sick of it too, but the Democrats are no different. sm
Of the main candidates, our choices are a socialist, a Marxist, and a fascist. Which one do you think is not going to tax our eyeballs out, or force us further and further into a control grid? Obama sounds like the least harmful, but the only thing he is going to change is his mind. My vote goes to NOTA (none of the above).
Democrats vs Republicans
1. My research on the black liberation movement of which Obama's church is a part tells me all I need to know about whether or not I want to see him in office. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_liberation_theology
2. If McCain is elected I believe we will face a great depression which will make the depression of the 30s look like a Sunday School picnic. People already losing homes, jobs, exploding deficit (and the piper will be paid sooner or later), cost-of-living getting so people can hardly afford to live. McCain's judgement is questionable in his choice of a running mate. Totally reckless to name someone he has only met once but then there's oil in Alaska.
I will not support or vote for either of them as were doomed either way.
The rich ARE the democrats
Look back over time. Who benefitted from tax breaks Clintons 2% of the richest people. Everyone makes it sound as though only republicans are rich. The democrat party has some of the richest people and they aren't paying their fair share. With the Democrats I've always had to pay more taxes. With the republicans I received refunds every year.
One wishes the Democrats who are...
Christians and live in rural areas would abandon the party that has created the kind of mentality that posts like this, so as not to be identified with such condescencion and intolerance. The Democratic party as it once existed is dead, and this is what rose from the ashes. Certainly something to be proud of...not so much.
Me too! My parents both Democrats....
the Zell Miller kind. THAT Democratic party is no more.
Because they are Democrats....and toeing....
the party line (congressmen) or Republicans who hate McCain. Not a one among them, I would be willing to bet, if you hooked them to a lie detector, would not get past the do you really think he would be a good President...lol Don't really think congressmen are the best judges...their approval rating is lower than Bush's. NO offense...just sayin.
Democrats are not responsible
for the mess we are in. It's the republicans and all their deregulation, for one thing. How about the war in Iraq and the huge deficit we now have? And then there are the corporate tax breaks. All of those things have contributed to the mess we are in. The money didn't trickle down, did it? It only made the top 1% of the people in this country better off. Those aren't things the democrats have done.
The republicans made this mess and then they have the gall to turn around and blame the democrats. Do you know why? Because there are those out there who don't know better and will believe them. That's what they are relying on. The republicans got into office with lies and misleading the public and they are still trying the same tactics. Hopefully enough people will not buy into it this time.
Democrats vs Republicans
Just dropped in to see if either the Dems or Pubs on this board have given an inch. They haven't. Boring and useless. I'm betting McCain will win so we'll never know about big, bad Obama for sure. I'll drop back in after a few years of McCain to see how well y'all like him then. Like about now I'm really wondering if John Kerry wouldn't have been an improvement over George Bush. I understand ole Georgie has an all time low approval rating. Must be a bunch of Republicans who aren't as pleased with him as they thought they would be.
I think that the democrats need to go home...sm
and let the republicans sort it out with their president. Hurt feelings are not a reason to vote for or against something that is good for the country because you are trying to make a point. What a bunch of middle-aged/elderly/men crybabies. I hope that the president lays it on the line to those that voted against his plan.
So would those 94 democrats who voted no.nm
nm
Yes, and 94 Democrats voted no. So why not...
11 more democrats voting yes instead of 11 more Republicans?
Oh yeah...right. Those same democrats who...
got us into this financial mess. Let's reward them. NOT. For the first time in my life I am voting a straight Republican ticket.
Democrats are not socialists and do not need
credibility by defending themselves against this McCain campaign desperation. We can all see by now how well the current disparities in wealth distribution in our country are serving our overall interests. Our economy is in a meltdown. It's time for a different approach. Get with the program.
Kendra, please do not think that because we democrats...sm
do not agree with the war that we in any way do not honor our troops that are serving in the mid east. One has NOTHING to do with the other. Our soldiers are doing their duty for our country. I just do not believe that going to war was in anyones best interest. I also believe that injured and mentally scarred soldiers coming home should be given the best of care and their family's given every support by our government. Sadly, this is not the case most of the time. I hope you have a good support system and will pray for your husband to come home safely to you and his new baby son/daughter. God bless!
|
