Are the Democrats stupid?

[friedpie]

I wouldn't say they are all stupid but like most socialists, they are a bit naive.

 

[hagbard]

Originally posted by: ScottyB
We are a lot smarter than the fascist regime known as the republicans.

I frankly don't see any difference between the Republicans and the Democrats, especially if you view results and not rhetoric. They're really one party..the Republicrats. But that's just my "foreigner" opinion.

 

[notfred]

Originally posted by: dcpsoguy
The Washington governor...has nothing to do with the government

I think the person that's stupid just might be the one that started this thread.

 

[gypsyman]

Yes

 

[Chadder007]

Originally posted by: Marlin1975

Originally posted by: Babbles
I think when Bush mentioned moving away from petroleum based fuels, saving forests, and reducing emissions, the Democrats kinda ran out of things they could have attacked him on.

Just liek when he ran he said he was for cleaning water but got into office and changed tune. He is just talking, it will never happen.

His numbers have droppped and he is grabbing at anything he can.


Can't wait for Kerry/Edwards to cream him in 2004

Kinda like all the promises Clinton made but never followed up on???

 

[Spac3d]

Originally posted by: datalink7
Democrates can suck it.

Republicans can suck it.

That is what I have to say on the subject

Yep, be independent and vote on what really matters to you, not along party lines

Spac3d

 

[Thegonagle]

Originally posted by: jjsole

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: jjsole

Originally posted by: dcpsoguy As I am watching the Democratic response of the State of the Union speech, I am looking. Who the hell is this guy? The Washington governor? Gary Locke? Who the hell cares what he has to say? He has nothing to do with the government, let him handle his own state. I think this is pure idiocy by the Democratic party, ONCE again.

Its political strategy. The main democratic honchos aren't going to follow a SOTU address because if it turns out to be a phenomenally popular and successful speech, you could take a big hit dis'ing it right after, imo.

Another sign of lack of leadership in the democratic party?

There's not alot of good leadership now in either party.

Yep. Only politics as usual.

We desperately need third parties AND run-off voting everywhere in this country.

 

[flavio]

Originally posted by: notfred

Originally posted by: dcpsoguy
The Washington governor...has nothing to do with the government

I think the person that's stupid just might be the one that started this thread.

That's already been established.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Garfang

Originally posted by: jjsole

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: jjsole

Originally posted by: dcpsoguy As I am watching the Democratic response of the State of the Union speech, I am looking. Who the hell is this guy? The Washington governor? Gary Locke? Who the hell cares what he has to say? He has nothing to do with the government, let him handle his own state. I think this is pure idiocy by the Democratic party, ONCE again.

Its political strategy. The main democratic honchos aren't going to follow a SOTU address because if it turns out to be a phenomenally popular and successful speech, you could take a big hit dis'ing it right after, imo.

Another sign of lack of leadership in the democratic party?

There's not alot of good leadership now in either party.

Yep. Only politics as usual.

We desperately need third parties AND run-off voting everywhere in this country.

A major 3rd party would ensure that we would have a tyrany of the minority and massive swings in goverment policy. The 2 party system works well, even thought it is not perfect.

 

[Chadder007]

Originally posted by: Garfang

Originally posted by: jjsole

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: jjsole

Originally posted by: dcpsoguy As I am watching the Democratic response of the State of the Union speech, I am looking. Who the hell is this guy? The Washington governor? Gary Locke? Who the hell cares what he has to say? He has nothing to do with the government, let him handle his own state. I think this is pure idiocy by the Democratic party, ONCE again.

Its political strategy. The main democratic honchos aren't going to follow a SOTU address because if it turns out to be a phenomenally popular and successful speech, you could take a big hit dis'ing it right after, imo.

Another sign of lack of leadership in the democratic party?

There's not alot of good leadership now in either party.

Yep. Only politics as usual.

We desperately need third parties AND run-off voting everywhere in this country.

We do have third/other parties.....its just no one votes for them.

 

[Orsorum]

Gary Locke is an incredibly intelligent man; humorous and down to earth (I've met him personally a few times). The speech that he was given was written before the SOTU address was given, it's no wonder that some of those statements sounded odd.

He's normally much better in front of the camera, I was surprised at his demeanor tonight.

 

[SuperTool]

The response was very good.
It adressed most of GOP hypocricies.

 

[ViRGE]

I think Locke was a very appropiate person to give such a speech. Washinton has been heavily hit by the .com-bust, and the economy faltering in general, leaving it with one of the highest rates of unemployment in the nation(I believe only Oregon is worse). I think for that reason alone Locke is qualified to give the respone speech, from his own first-hand perspective.

 

[zippy]

Originally posted by: Marlin1975

Originally posted by: Babbles
I think when Bush mentioned moving away from petroleum based fuels, saving forests, and reducing emissions, the Democrats kinda ran out of things they could have attacked him on.

Just liek when he ran he said he was for cleaning water but got into office and changed tune. He is just talking, it will never happen.

His numbers have droppped and he is grabbing at anything he can.

Agreed 100%. I'll believe it when I see it, until then I don't trust a word he, or anyone in his administration, says about their plans for the environment.

Another example of a whole of talk, though not related to the environment, is that he insisted while running for president that nation building would cease. Apparently that is only his philosophy when not in office because we're doing a lot of nation building in Afghanistan right now and I'm sure, if and when we attack, that we'll be doing the same in Iraq assuming that Hussein and his henchmen are ousted successfully.

 

[TheWart]

Originally posted by: zippy

Originally posted by: Marlin1975

Originally posted by: Babbles
I think when Bush mentioned moving away from petroleum based fuels, saving forests, and reducing emissions, the Democrats kinda ran out of things they could have attacked him on.

Just liek when he ran he said he was for cleaning water but got into office and changed tune. He is just talking, it will never happen.

His numbers have droppped and he is grabbing at anything he can.

Agreed 100%. I'll believe it when I see it, until then I don't trust a word he, or anyone in his administration, says about their plans for the environment.

Another example of a whole of talk, though not related to the environment, is that he insisted while running for president that nation building would cease. Apparently that is only his philosophy when not in office because we're doing a lot of nation building in Afghanistan right now and I'm sure, if and when we attack, that we'll be doing the same in Iraq assuming that Hussein and his henchmen are ousted successfully.

I just had to chime in.

Yes, he said he did not want to get involved in Nation building, but that was before September 11th, after which we could not go and simply destroy what little infrastructure the Taliban had set up without helping rebuild the country. Would you rather we left Afghan after taking care of the Taliban?

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: zippy

Originally posted by: Marlin1975

Originally posted by: Babbles
I think when Bush mentioned moving away from petroleum based fuels, saving forests, and reducing emissions, the Democrats kinda ran out of things they could have attacked him on.

Just liek when he ran he said he was for cleaning water but got into office and changed tune. He is just talking, it will never happen.

His numbers have droppped and he is grabbing at anything he can.

Agreed 100%. I'll believe it when I see it, until then I don't trust a word he, or anyone in his administration, says about their plans for the environment.

Another example of a whole of talk, though not related to the environment, is that he insisted while running for president that nation building would cease. Apparently that is only his philosophy when not in office because we're doing a lot of nation building in Afghanistan right now and I'm sure, if and when we attack, that we'll be doing the same in Iraq assuming that Hussein and his henchmen are ousted successfully.

So you dont want to see congress pass plans to reduce plant emissions?
You dont want congress to pass 2 billion in fuel cells?
You dont want congress to pass better forest managments, so forest fires will destroy less forests?

 

[Babbles]

Originally posted by: zippy

Agreed 100%. I'll believe it when I see it, until then I don't trust a word he, or anyone in his administration, says about their plans for the environment.

Another example of a whole of talk, though not related to the environment, is that he insisted while running for president that nation building would cease. Apparently that is only his philosophy when not in office because we're doing a lot of nation building in Afghanistan right now and I'm sure, if and when we attack, that we'll be doing the same in Iraq assuming that Hussein and his henchmen are ousted successfully.

And, what is wrong with nation building in Afghanistan? A coalition went into that country, and most literally blew it up, changed their daily lives and you have a problem with nation building? Crap, what do you expect?? Drop a few thousand tons worth of bombs then go and hide back in our borders and ignore Afghanistan?

And, concerning the environment, no new policy has been implemented, except for the lowering of arsenic detection limits. Granted he wanted to drill in Alaska, but that hasn't happened yet.

I do wonder, though, what his policy towards Alaska is now that he stated he wouldn't mind searching for alternative fuels. However, even with alternative fuels in passanger vehicles, we would still require large sums of petroleum.

 

[Damage]

Originally posted by: SuperTool
The response was very good.
It adressed most of GOP hypocricies.

Read the thread title and you are proving a point. heheh..:frown:

 

[mellondust]

Simple answer: YES!

 

[Rookie]

don't get the Democrats going... PLEASE

I hate attempting to fight ignorance with knowledge... it is AMAZING how difficult it can be.

 

[IGBT]

What do ya expect for a bunch of elitist socialists.

 

[gopunk]

republicans and democrats are both stupid. there, happy? ok.

seriously, it's hilarious looking at all these "democrats suck" or "republicans suck" threads. its like a cripple fight (southpark anyone?)

 

[Analog]

always been.

 

[zippy]

I would love to see nothing more than have emissions decrease. In fact, my career goal is to design fuel efficient automobile engines.

I have no problem with rebuilding Afghanistan - it is clearly necessary. However, that was just an example of Bush just blowing smoke and not actually thinking ahead to the possibility that we might end up bombing the hell out of a nation, leaving it in tremendous need.

 

[snooker]

Why do they even do a Democratic response (Or Republican if the pres. is a Democrat)?


Who cares what the other large party has to say about his speech. Did any other party get a chance to respond? No. Then they shouldn't either.