Nightmare on Elm Street for the Dems

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
Im not talking about any religion, particularly since Im an atheist.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't believe you.

[ QUOTE ]
And Ive already discussed why the nuclear family is a relatively new phenomenon.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not coherently. At any rate, as your concept of the nuclear family didn't even exist in the natural habitat of human beings, it can't be a "natural" family unit by any standard.

[ QUOTE ]
However, to say that there is no such thing as "natural", in the sense that we are using the word, is preposterous.

[/ QUOTE ]

Foal beat me to the punch. Can you support that assertion? Is this where you say you don't think humans evolved, and that there is some "greater" imperative than evolution that defines what is "natural?"

[CharlieDontSurf]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
bdk, on the oft chance that you don't actually know what Copernicus's point is, his point is that the political winds are blowing to the right at the moment.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not the "politicial winds" per se, but the underlying events that form those political winds. Accumulate similar results and then the winds will blow more to the right (note there is an implied "IF") in there.

And for anyone who doesn't think that thoughts of an accumulation of those events give Dem strategists cause for concern is incredibly naive.

Who was the Senator/Congressman who, on the one issue of Iraq, said that if Petraeus was correct that the surge is working that "It would be very bad for us".

[/ QUOTE ]

If the surge works and the violence slows down and Iraq isn't going crazy in 2008.

Dems win.

If the surge works to the point that Iraq is peaceful and no one is dying and thus our trips all get on planes and come home...then things change.

As long as troops are in Iraq...advantage Democrats

[InTheDark]

[ QUOTE ]
Hi Copernicus.

The republicans have thier own nightmare. There are a lot of republicans, me for instance, who are disenchanted with their own party.

Stu

[/ QUOTE ]

In spades.

Where is the conservative?

[InTheDark]

[ QUOTE ]
The efforts to paint RG as "liberal" are way off base except in one critical area, immigration, where I hope he learns from the vox populi.


[/ QUOTE ]

But it would be fair to say he's not a conservative. I can't vote for him under any circumstances.

[ElliotR]

[ QUOTE ]
copernicus, you say what i'm too lazy and uneloquent to say. keep up the good work.

[/ QUOTE ]


hahahaha this is the funniest post I've seen on here in a long time! [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[bdk3clash]

I'll probably try to respond to the "substance" of your posts here tomorrow. In the meantime, just for fun...

[ QUOTE ]
Who was the Senator/Congressman who, on the one issue of Iraq, said that if Petraeus was correct that the surge is working that "It would be very bad for us".

[/ QUOTE ]
I have no idea, nor do I trust you to provide an accurate context for this (alleged) quote without a link to some source for it. I couldn't find any references on Google's news search or blog search for this "quote." Google's web search turns up two references, one of them being this thread (!) and the other being an unsourced and unattributed comment on this blog post.

[anatta]

[ QUOTE ]
I'll probably try to respond to the "substance" of your posts here tomorrow. In the meantime, just for fun...

[ QUOTE ]
Who was the Senator/Congressman who, on the one issue of Iraq, said that if Petraeus was correct that the surge is working that "It would be very bad for us".

[/ QUOTE ]
I have no idea, nor do I trust you to provide an accurate context for this (alleged) quote without a link to some source for it. I couldn't find any references on Google's news search or blog search for this "quote." Google's web search turns up two references, one of them being this thread (!) and the other being an unsourced and unattributed comment on this blog post.

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay, your post and this one, that makes 4 references. How many more sources do you need?

[iron81]

lol

[andyfox]

I didn't equate the two, I pointed out that some people will vote for a person with the last name of Clinton rather than Guiliani merely on the basis of the last names. Mario Cuomo, on an exploratory presidential trip to the south, had one guy tell him, "We don't have many 'Marios' down here." [To which Cuomo responded, "Yeah, and we don't have many Billy-Bob's where I come from."]

I think Romney's a better candidate for the Republicans because he's more photogenic, better-spoken, and less prone to sticking his foot in his mouth. I'm a Democrat (as you know) and I think he's a much more capable guy. Guiliani would worry me as president; Romney, though I disagree with him on a lot of issues, would be a capable, competent president.

[Adebisi]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
That each individual is endowed by his Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are the rights to life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness

[/ QUOTE ][ QUOTE ]
3. Family: One husband and one wife with their children as divinely instituted

[/ QUOTE ]Move along..

[/ QUOTE ]

...or as naturally planned, what's the difference? Obviously the natural plan is for the nuclear family unit. If you don't believe in God you still believe in Nature, right?

Maybe some people should try to get past their distaste of religion and actually look at what's being worked towards.

[/ QUOTE ]

WTF? The "natural plan" is for men to go around f-ing and impregnating as many women as possible from age 12 until death and women (often unsucessfully) attempting to resist because being pregnant sucks and is potentially life threatening.

If you remove culture/society/religion, etc. and have people live by their instincts this is exactly what you'd get.