[redmenace]

More proof that republicans and democrats are dousche bags.
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/printstory.mpl/metropolitan/3188696

[Taristin]

Who needs proof?

[Cobra]

dumbasses.

[redmenace]

Aparently people here and in Europe do.

Frankly anyone that understands the republican and Democrat core values and think that one can be declared better than the other needs proof.

Anyone that can hear Howard Dean's comments in regaurd to Delay and compare them to comments about Osama bin Laden and not reach the conclusion that both party's are hipocritical.

[Rictor]

So basically, a Democrat supporter is heading up the investigation into Tom DeLay?

What did he do? I can't keep track of the he said she said between the two parties.

[redmenace]

The supporter obviously can't represent the state with out passion of prejudice when he is giving speaches about Delay at fundraisers. It looks horrible for the DA. Honestly he should recuse himself.

[WMCoolmon]

I'm tired of news sites pretending like everyone uses the same browser settings. Some of us like to keep our eyes from being burnt out at night.

[karajorma]

Originally posted by redmenace
Aparently people here and in Europe do.

Nope. I've said it before and it appears I'll have to say it again.

The difference between republicans and democrats supporters (and foreigners like myself who tend to end up on the same side of the argument as the democrat supporters) is that democrats supporters know that their candidates are wankers. They simply believe that their candidates aren't as big wankers as the republicans.

Republican supporters on the other hand seem to be under the strange delusion that their leaders are god-like men and that they can score points from the democrat supporters by proving that the democrats aren't god-like.

Guess what.

We already know.

We simply think that Bill Clinton, Al Gore and John Kerry wouldn't have ****ed up national and international politics quite as badly as Bush and co did.

[Kosh]

Lol! Hit the nail on the head there.

[WMCoolmon]

I think it more has to do with base ideologies.

Liberals are typically the ones suggesting idealistic things that benefit others.

Conservatives are typically the ones suggesting practical things that benefit conservatives themselves.

It's easier to say "This has worked well," than it is to argue that something will work well.

[redmenace]

Originally posted by karajorma


Nope. I've said it before and it appears I'll have to say it again.

The difference between republicans and democrats supporters (and foreigners like myself who tend to end up on the same side of the argument as the democrat supporters) is that democrats supporters know that their candidates are wankers. They simply believe that their candidates aren't as big wankers as the republicans.

Republican supporters on the other hand seem to be under the strange delusion that their leaders are god-like men and that they can score points from the democrat supporters by proving that the democrats aren't god-like.

Guess what.

We already know.

We simply think that Bill Clinton, Al Gore and John Kerry wouldn't have ****ed up national and international politics quite as badly as Bush and co did.

Frankly I think it is impossible to state which is better than the other. Each has the potential to royally **** domestic policy and international status quo. Honestly, do think the election of Barak in Israel was a good outcome of Clinton's international policies? Of course not. Was the Vietnam war a great outcome for the JFK and LBJ administrations? Of course not. So don't think that democrats would not **** things up. And in the case of Vietnam, it took Nixon to get us out of that mess(and yes I think Linebacker I and II were necessary). The propensity and the track records of democrats vs. republicans is basically the same; they **** up all the time.

And on the subject of John Kerry, I rather think that he was an incredible wimp. He didn't really have the gonads to be president. Not that I like bush any more.

[aldo_14]

I think the base perspective of most people in europe would be that Mr Ed the talking horse would be a better president in (at least) terms of global stability than George W Bush.

[Rictor]

Originally posted by karajorma

We simply think that Bill Clinton, Al Gore and John Kerry wouldn't have ****ed up national and international politics quite as badly as Bush and co did.

I beg to differ. First of all, look at evey war that America was enaged in since the end of WW2. Korea, Vietnam, The Bay of Pigs, Lebanon, Grenada, Panama, Kosovo, right up Iraq and Afghanistan, and any ones I missed. If I'm not mistaken, all of them were either initiated by a Democratic administration, or voted for by Democrats in the Congress. If they're not the jingoistic loonies the Republican are, why do they keep voting to engage in the most immoral and harmful human pursuit possible?

Secondly, Bush if getting a lot of flak, and rightly so, for killing and torturing innocent Iraqis. Fine, good. The trouble is that Clinton did the same thing for eight years, but because it wasn't done as spectacularly as a full-scale war, who was to notice? I'm not even talking about the sanctions, which put Clinton's bodycount well ahead of Dubya's. Bush favours military imperialism, but Cliton's weapon of choice was economic imperialism, no less deadly and much easier to swallow. How much damage to you think he caused in the developing world by forcing his policies down the throat of the global South? It's hard to know, because in Iraq, when an American GI puts a bullet into someone's head, you can clearly say "That man was killed by the US", but not so when thousands loose their jobs thanks to "structural re-adjustment" plans, or social chaos ensues due to the implementation of certain economic policies. The connection isn't as direct as in war, but it's there.

[NGTM-1R]

Originally posted by aldo_14
I think the base perspective of most people in europe would be that Mr Ed the talking horse would be a better president in (at least) terms of global stability than George W Bush.

I think it the base perspective of most people in the US would be that...well, that Mr. Ed would be better then either Bush or Kerry.

At least Mr. Ed listened to his scriptwriters. You can't always trust a President to do that...