Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 9/29/06 12:43 AM, WolvenBear wrote:

I used to be this way too. And even today, there's a lot I disagree with the Republicans on, but nothing I agree with the Democrats on. I may not be a firm Republican, but I know what I don't want...and that's Democrats in Power.

nonono democrats dont know what to do, and republicans know what to do, but with an extremely negative impact. i mean, clinton wuz actually an awesome presiden, and the most recently elected democrat, but he couldnt keep his dick in his pants, and the republicans were really bitchin about that even though clinton havin an affair doesnt affect the way he does his job. so maybe the liberals do know what to do, but i could be wrong

At 10/1/06 02:09 AM, nottoocommon wrote:

nonono democrats dont know what to do, and republicans know what to do, but with an extremely negative impact. i mean, clinton wuz actually an awesome presiden, and the most recently elected democrat, but he couldnt keep his dick in his pants, and the republicans were really bitchin about that even though clinton havin an affair doesnt affect the way he does his job. so maybe the liberals do know what to do, but i could be wrong

Yes, because apparently having an affair while in office doesn't affect your job, but according to democrats doing drugs 30 or 40 years ago while you were a teen and before you became president sure does.

At 10/1/06 02:12 AM, Integrity wrote:

Yes, because apparently having an affair while in office doesn't affect your job, but according to democrats doing drugs 30 or 40 years ago while you were a teen and before you became president sure does.

He was in his 20's, fully adult and mismanaging businesses by this time.

At 10/1/06 02:43 AM, stafffighter wrote:

He was in his 20's, fully adult and mismanaging businesses by this time.

ooo, so what? I'm a few years off.

I like the pick and choosing.

My parents pissed me off after kerry lost the '04 election, saying that they should've voted for howard dean because he would've made a better president anyway. What pissed me off was that after the 'Dean Scream' event, both of my parents said 'yeesh, he's insane. He'd make a horrible president. Not like those john edwards and john kerry fellows.' Damn hypocrites.

I say we all vote green and try something new on for size. I'm kinda curious as to how that guy'd run the country, as long as he didn't have a heart attack after hearing that he won.

I'm not making the argument that, internationally, the American parties measure to much on the political scale. I am simply saying that in domestic American politics, the gap between Kerry and Bush in 2004 (which is not that marked when comparing Kerry, Bush and socialist parties in Europe) is greater when only American political parties are considered. While it is true that American parties are not nearly as expansive as others in other countries, that hardly has relevance in the discussion of current American political trends.

Does Begoner ever say anything that isn't bat-shit crazy?

Look -- the US is an extremely conservative country. The political center is actually the center right. In Europe, the center is more or less democratic socialism. In the US, you would get called a commie if you were a democratic socialist. I'm sorry, but you are very deluded.

At 10/1/06 02:02 PM, Begoner wrote:

Does Begoner ever say anything that isn't bat-shit crazy?

Look -- the US is an extremely conservative country. The political center is actually the center right. In Europe, the center is more or less democratic socialism. In the US, you would get called a commie if you were a democratic socialist. I'm sorry, but you are very deluded.

But see, why care about European politcal standings when were talking about American politcal standings.

But see, why care about European politcal standings when were talking about American politcal standings.

As I said before, to prove that it's not a "lunatic fringe." In mainstream politics, the lunatic fringe includes mainstream conservatives in the US. The "lunatic fringe" to which the OP refers are actually centrists in global politics. If he had just said "US fringe," I would have been fine with that. But he just had to toss that "lunatic" in there, which is complete and utter bullshit.

At 10/1/06 02:09 PM, Begoner wrote:

But see, why care about European politcal standings when were talking about American politcal standings.

As I said before, to prove that it's not a "lunatic fringe." In mainstream politics, the lunatic fringe includes mainstream conservatives in the US. The "lunatic fringe" to which the OP refers are actually centrists in global politics. If he had just said "US fringe," I would have been fine with that. But he just had to toss that "lunatic" in there, which is complete and utter bullshit.

Wouldn't it have just been asumed though that he meant the lunatic fringe in terms of politics in America since we were talking about American politics?

At 10/1/06 02:09 PM, Begoner wrote:

As I said before, to prove that it's not a "lunatic fringe." In mainstream politics, the lunatic fringe includes mainstream conservatives in the US. The "lunatic fringe" to which the OP refers are actually centrists in global politics. If he had just said "US fringe," I would have been fine with that. But he just had to toss that "lunatic" in there, which is complete and utter bullshit.

It never was the lunatic fringe in any country.

Most Americans already fall into a centrist or moderate party, there just mearly forced to vote for the lesser of two evils in an election though.

When he's clearly talking about American politics, then they are the lunatic fringe.

There forcing the large majority to voice the minority and once again giving the corrupt Neo-con republicans another easy victory.

I will say this one more time:

Fuck Europe. I am not talking about Europe. I am not doing a comparative analysis of Europe and the United States. In United States politics, BARRING EUROPE since it does not matter one iota in American political elections, there is most definitely a pronounced liberal fringe that hurts the party.

At 10/1/06 02:55 PM, Truthiness wrote: I will say this one more time: etc.

Yes, now you said it perfectly. Prior to this post, you claimed that the fringe was a "lunatic" fringe, which was a ridiculous assertion. It would be analogous to claiming that those against Hitler's policies in Germany were a "lunatic" fringe group -- sure, they were a fringe group, but they were perfectly sane. However, everything you posted above is fact: there is a fringe to the Democratic Party which may sometimes serve to pit American moderates against the Democratic Party due to their out-of-the-US-mainstream politics.

At 9/30/06 07:02 PM, Begoner wrote: Maybe by American standards. By international standards, however, both parties are center-right.

http://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection

No, actually, in many cases the American left is even FURTHER left than europe. For example: Europe has imigration controls, and many in the left want open borders including open ended amnesty. There are very definite limits in Europe on abortion...American leftists want none, and bitterly fight even the smallest restriction. Etc.

At 10/1/06 02:09 AM, nottoocommon wrote: nonono democrats dont know what to do, and republicans know what to do, but with an extremely negative impact. i mean, clinton wuz actually an awesome presiden, and the most recently elected democrat, but he couldnt keep his dick in his pants, and the republicans were really bitchin about that even though clinton havin an affair doesnt affect the way he does his job. so maybe the liberals do know what to do, but i could be wrong

Clinton was a crap President. And he's lucky to be remembered for his affairs and not his ineffectual Presidency. And yes, his affairs affected his job. It got him sued, and spent over a year defending himself against the allegations. Didn't affect his job? Nonsense!

And if you think the liberals know what to do...you are indeed, in fact, wrong.

At 10/1/06 02:43 AM, stafffighter wrote: He was in his 20's, fully adult and mismanaging businesses by this time.

And Clinton was in his fifties when he got impeached. He was in his forties when he svammed people with WHitewater.

At 10/1/06 02:02 PM, Begoner wrote: Look -- the US is an extremely conservative country. The political center is actually the center right. In Europe, the center is more or less democratic socialism. In the US, you would get called a commie if you were a democratic socialist. I'm sorry, but you are very deluded.

You sir are full of crap, from your head to your toes.

At 9/30/06 07:06 PM, Begoner wrote:

Why would I care about international standards when I'm talking about United States elections?

You shouldn't. However, you should not consider the centrists a "lunatic liberal fringe" either. That's analogous to Bush being considered a radical leftist in 1940s Germany. Just because US politics are incredibly slanted towards the right doesn't make those who do not conform to that slant "lunatics."

Excuse me? Hitler was a leftist bud. He was a vegetarian, eugenist, socialist, abortion loving, race preference having, leftie. No one would look at Bush in Germany 1940s and call him left of the party.

I'm quite frankly not going to let you get by with this bullshit distortion.

At 10/1/06 07:06 PM, Begoner wrote:

At 10/1/06 02:55 PM, Truthiness wrote: I will say this one more time: etc.

Yes, now you said it perfectly. Prior to this post, you claimed that the fringe was a "lunatic" fringe, which was a ridiculous assertion. It would be analogous to claiming that those against Hitler's policies in Germany were a "lunatic" fringe group -- sure, they were a fringe group, but they were perfectly sane. However, everything you posted above is fact: there is a fringe to the Democratic Party which may sometimes serve to pit American moderates against the Democratic Party due to their out-of-the-US-mainstream politics.

And the lunatic fringe runs the Democratic party. On the world stage, there aren't many who are further left than the US democrats.

Excuse me? Hitler was a leftist bud.

Oh, I see what your problem is. You honestly don't know the distinction between left and right. Don't worry, you'll get it eventually.

And the lunatic fringe runs the Democratic party. On the world stage, there aren't many who are further left than the US democrats.

So you'd approve of the Democratic Party becoming social democrats? You're for the nationalization of key industries, the nationalization of secondary education so that everybody gets a fair shot at college, at increased welfare spending so that the top 5% don't control 95% of the wealth. You're in favour of heavy subsidation of essential industries, like the farming industry? Do you want to give much more power to unions so that they may enforce a higher minimum wage? You think such a change for the Democrats would be moving right? Well, I'd approve of such a change.

At 10/2/06 10:07 AM, Begoner wrote: Well, I'd approve of such a change.

I dont know how people can still support these things. In a capitalist world market with outsourcing and multinationals, practices like that would destroy an economy. For fucks sake, just look at France.

At 10/1/06 02:02 PM, Begoner wrote: Look -- the US is an extremely conservative country. The political center is actually the center right. In Europe, the center is more or less democratic socialism.

If you are going to use a link to prove your point at least be consistent and keep making shit up.

And let me say, politicalcompass is NOT a valid website to prove America is "far right." Your source doesnt prove that and now that we are on your source, it is an invalid source. I cant find who funds it or how they come up with their method or who does it and their credentials.

Stop mixing up your own opinion with facts. You have an extremely bad habit of that.

For fucks sake, just look at France.

France's economy is doing a lot better than that of the US. Sure, they have a lower GDP per capita. However, the poor in France are much, much better off than the poor in the US. Under Bush, the median income in 47 states decreased -- a good economy is only "good" if everyone gets to share in the pie. In France, the poor and middle class get to share it, but in the US only the rich do.

Fuck France, lets see it make an XBox 360.

At 10/2/06 02:43 PM, Begoner wrote:

For fucks sake, just look at France.

France's economy is doing a lot better than that of the US. Sure, they have a lower GDP per capita. However, the poor in France are much, much better off than the poor in the US. Under Bush, the median income in 47 states decreased -- a good economy is only "good" if everyone gets to share in the pie. In France, the poor and middle class get to share it, but in the US only the rich do.

'Poor' is used to define under the poverty line. There are more 'poor' people in France (most of them Algerian immigrants) then in the US. How they fare makes no difference.

Oh, and the French populace must be loving their economy. That little debacle of last year was just a car-flaming show of appreciation for their profit.

At 10/2/06 02:43 PM, Begoner wrote: France's economy is doing a lot better than that of the US.

No, its not. There GDP growth is negligable and their economic laws and policy are so serpentine and confusing it keeps companies and businesses out of France. And we cant forget their unemployment.

Simply put, their economic policy from earlier administrations and decades is failing. Which is why they are trying to change it.

Policy issues: Medium-term challenges are to reduce the budget deficit and to make further inroads into the rate of unemployment, which remains high even by EU standards. This will require wide-ranging reforms to the country's tax and benefits system, to public administration and to the legal framework for the labour market, social resistance to which will be high.

Taxation: The tax burden rose through much of the 1990s and is now well above the EU average. Two surcharges on corporation tax were introduced in 1995 and 1997 to help France qualify for economic and monetary union, but these have now been eliminated. The standard rate of corporation tax is 33.3%. The standard rate of value-added tax (VAT) was cut from 20.6% to 19.6% in April 2000. Rates of income tax have been falling for several years (particularly at the top end), but fiscal constraints will prevent the government from honouring its pledge "to cut income taxes by a third" during the current parliamentary term.

In other news, France is still being French.

At 10/2/06 05:59 PM, Truthiness wrote: In other news, France is still being French.

Unless the Germans are invading, they always are.

At 10/2/06 06:19 PM, Glendale wrote:

At 10/2/06 05:59 PM, Truthiness wrote: In other news, France is still being French.

Unless the Germans are invading, they always are.

You know what France used to be called? Germany.

At 10/2/06 06:21 PM, Peternormous wrote:

At 10/2/06 06:19 PM, Glendale wrote:

At 10/2/06 05:59 PM, Truthiness wrote: In other news, France is still being French.

Unless the Germans are invading, they always are.

You know what France used to be called? Germany.

Those were the good days, when the french werent french, they were Franks (free men), who originated around the modern German state of Hessen. Then Charlemagne, preserver of Christianity in Europe, died, and his empire split into France, Italy and Germany, eventually consolidating into France and the Holy Roman Empire.

French are unemployed because they're lazy. They don't have to work because their government supports them.

Go away.

At 10/2/06 06:59 PM, Truthiness wrote: Go away.

Me? What did I do?

At 10/2/06 06:50 PM, NorseBeast wrote: French are unemployed because they're lazy. They don't have to work because their government supports them.

You’ve got it wrong. The French have jobs….it’s just they strike all the time because they’re lazy.

At 10/2/06 06:21 PM, Peternormous wrote:

At 10/2/06 06:19 PM, Glendale wrote:

At 10/2/06 05:59 PM, Truthiness wrote: In other news, France is still being French.

Unless the Germans are invading, they always are.

You know what France used to be called? Germany.

Let's just hope they're no mods from Quebec. Or we could be looking at 30 day bans here.

It seems fairly clear, barring the Euro-philes, that there is an obvious lunatic fringe in both parties that threatens the electoral viability of the Democrats over the Republicans, since Republicans have been (until late) much more efficient at enforcing party discipline and unified messages within their candidate ranks. Who knows, we may be seeing the end of this with Pedogate.