# An Open Letter to my Fellow Democrats



## CrusaderFrank (Feb 2, 2010)

My friends, we are at a crossroads. The challenge we face in 2010 are both unprecedented and without precedent. 

Repubs have made gains this past year because we lost our way as a Party. I say this as a proud lifelong democratic member of the Democrat Party

We let the nutburger Bluedogs have too much of a say in our party and we paid dearly.

It's time to say Adios to the lunatic Bluedog fringe and stay the course with our leaders: Pelosi, Reid and the man who is still too moderate for my Democrat tastes, Barry Obama

Let's pass universal healthcare, lets pass cap & trade, lets tax the rich, we had a 90% tax rate before maybe its time to go back to what's always worked for us as Democrats

To Jake, Bfgrn and righwinger I say, Bring it!! My Democratic Party is ready to do battle with you teabagging pubs any day of the week!!


----------



## Gunny (Feb 2, 2010)

CrusaderFrank said:


> My friends, we are at a crossroads. The challenge we face in 2010 are both unprecedented and without precedent.
> 
> Repubs have made gains this past year because we lost our way as a Party. I say this as a proud lifelong democratic member of the Democrat Party
> 
> ...



Dude ... really ....


----------



## noose4 (Feb 3, 2010)

What is this Democrat party?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Feb 3, 2010)

noose4 said:


> What is this Democrat party?



It's the proud party that kept the depression going longer than the 7 Biblical lean years, that Democrat Party.

Let Jake come at me with his crazy Republican "ideas" on how to grow the economy, we're back at 17% unemployment like it was under the glory days of FDR, the Greatest Democrat President ever.  We rule!


----------



## noose4 (Feb 3, 2010)

CrusaderFrank said:


> noose4 said:
> 
> 
> > What is this Democrat party?
> ...



It is? What country do they exist in? since no party by that name operates in the U.S.A.


----------



## midcan5 (Feb 3, 2010)

"He who knows does not speak, he who speaks does not know." Lao-Tzu

CrusaderFrank, see above, fits you perfectly.  

What Is Conservatism and What Is Wrong with It?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Feb 3, 2010)

midcan5 said:


> "He who knows does not speak, he who speaks does not know." Lao-Tzu
> 
> CrusaderFrank, see above, fits you perfectly.
> 
> What Is Conservatism and What Is Wrong with It?



LOL.  Note you're speaking to me.

maybe you can get that Home Lobotomy Kit from Lowe's?


----------



## kwc57 (Feb 3, 2010)

Gunny said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > My friends, we are at a crossroads. The challenge we face in 2010 are both unprecedented and without precedent.
> ...



While I don't understand it, I totally admire your ability to tolerate the resident troll population.


----------



## Harry Dresden (Feb 4, 2010)

midcan5 said:


> "He who knows does not speak, he who speaks does not know." Lao-Tzu
> 
> CrusaderFrank, see above, fits you perfectly.
> 
> What Is Conservatism and What Is Wrong with It?



your always TALKING dipshit.....so i guess it applies to you also.....


----------



## Liability (Feb 4, 2010)

CrusaderFrank said:


> midcan5 said:
> 
> 
> > "He who knows does not speak, he who speaks does not know." Lao-Tzu
> ...



You think he can have TWO lobotomies?


----------



## Oddball (Feb 4, 2010)

midcan5 said:


> "He who knows does not speak, he who speaks does not know." Lao-Tzu
> 
> CrusaderFrank, see above, fits you perfectly.
> 
> What Is Conservatism and What Is Wrong with It?


"A bigger heap of steaming, self-serving and self-congratulatory manure, I've not ever seen." 

~The Dude


----------



## Harry Dresden (Feb 4, 2010)

Dude said:


> midcan5 said:
> 
> 
> > "He who knows does not speak, he who speaks does not know." Lao-Tzu
> ...



he takes after his mentor....Pelosi...


----------



## midcan5 (Feb 5, 2010)

My friends, we are at the usual crossroad. The challenge we face in 2010 is the same challenge progress has always faced. How do we move forward when invested interests stand in the way?  

A few democrats and moderate republicans have made gains this past year, changing the tone of politics to hope, and away from the despair and hubris of the past. I say this as a proud American who wants nothing more than to see America succeed.

But we have let the nuts on the far right go unchallenged too long. Americans suffer as the debate becomes about peripheral issues and not the critical ones of honest paid jobs, more creative uses of energy, and universal healthcare for those Americans in need.

It's time to say adieu to the lunatic fringe and move the nation forward as FDR did, and as progressive politics has always done, starting with our founding as a nation.

Let's bring back the golden rule and consider all Americans, not just the wealthy or the corporate interests. Let clean up the air we all breath, let's tax those who benefit so much from our freedoms fairly for a change, and let's care more for nature, as this is something we will leave to our grandchildren.

To those Americans who care about America, and not just the shrill politics of fear, greed and self interest, let's move forward and get it done. Keep working, we've done it before, we'll do it again.


----------



## Harry Dresden (Feb 5, 2010)

midcan5 said:


> My friends, we are at the usual crossroad. The challenge we face in 2010 is the same challenge progress has always faced. How do we move forward when invested interests stand in the way?
> 
> A few democrats and moderate republicans have made gains this past year, changing the tone of politics to hope, and away from the despair and hubris of the past. I say this as a proud American who wants nothing more than to see America succeed.
> 
> ...



but nothing to say about you and your FAR leftist friends?......who are also fucking up this country.....until you include them in your little speeches Midcant....YOUR NOTHING BUT A  HYPERCRITICAL ....PHONY AMERICAN.....and i use the word AMERICAN lightly here....


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Feb 5, 2010)

midcan5 said:


> My friends, we are at the usual crossroad. The challenge we face in 2010 is the same challenge progress has always faced. How do we move forward when invested interests stand in the way?
> 
> A few democrats and moderate republicans have made gains this past year, changing the tone of politics to hope, and away from the despair and hubris of the past. I say this as a proud American who wants nothing more than to see America succeed.
> 
> ...



Amen!  Obama is on that FDR Glidepath! 

Under the sage leadership of Obama and our Democrat Congress we too now have a 17% unemployment rate, just like Democrat Demigod FDR, praise be his holy name

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gqsT4xnKZPg]YouTube - "Happy Days are Here Again!" (Ben Selvin and the Crooners, 1930)[/ame]

If we are to eclipse the record of FDR we must hold this economy steady for the next 7 years. Can you imagine that?! How glorious! Can you imagine this economy for 7 more years? Those were our best days as Democratics!

We're Democrats and we Rule!! 

Note that the Republican cowards Jake Starkey, Rightwinger and center-right Bfgrn have avoided this thread. Grow a pair, fellow, bring your radical right-wing ideas here.


----------



## Bfgrn (Feb 5, 2010)

Dude said:


> midcan5 said:
> 
> 
> > "He who knows does not speak, he who speaks does not know." Lao-Tzu
> ...



Really The DUD...e? _This_ is the bigger heap of steaming, self-serving and self-congratulatory manure, you've not ever seen?

_What Is Conservatism and What Is Wrong with It?

Philip E. Agre
August 2004 

Liberals in the United States have been losing political debates to conservatives for a quarter century. In order to start winning again, liberals must answer two simple questions: what is conservatism, and what is wrong with it? As it happens, the answers to these questions are also simple:

    Q: What is conservatism?
    A: Conservatism is the domination of society by an aristocracy.

    Q: What is wrong with conservatism?
    A: Conservatism is incompatible with democracy, prosperity, and civilization in general. It is a destructive system of inequality and prejudice that is founded on deception and has no place in the modern world._

--------------------------------------------------------------

Then *THIS* must ALSO be the bigger heap of steaming, self-serving and self-congratulatory manure, you've not ever seen. And the author of *THIS* must be the bigger heap of steaming, self-serving and self-congratulatory manure, you've not ever seen.
*
Why I Am Not a Conservative

By Nobel laureate F. A. Hayek*


In the last resort, the conservative position rests on the belief that in any society there are recognizably superior persons whose inherited standards and values and position ought to be protected and who should have a greater influence on public affairs than others. 

Let me return, however, to the main point, which is the characteristic complacency of the conservative toward the action of established authority and his prime concern that this authority be not weakened rather than that its power be kept within bounds. This is difficult to reconcile with the preservation of liberty. In general, it can probably be said that the conservative does not object to coercion or arbitrary power so long as it is used for what he regards as the right purposes. He believes that if government is in the hands of decent men, it ought not to be too much restricted by rigid rules. Since he is essentially opportunist and lacks principles, his main hope must be that the wise and the good will rule - not merely by example, as we all must wish, but by authority given to them and enforced by them.[7] Like the socialist, he is less concerned with the problem of how the powers of government should be limited than with that of who wields them; and, like the socialist, he regards himself as entitled to force the value he holds on other people.

When I say that the conservative lacks principles, I do not mean to suggest that he lacks moral conviction. The typical conservative is indeed usually a man of very strong moral convictions. What I mean is that he has no political principles which enable him to work with people whose moral values differ from his own for a political order in which both can obey their convictions. It is the recognition of such principles that permits the coexistence of different sets of values that makes it possible to build a peaceful society with a minimum of force. The acceptance of such principles means that we agree to tolerate much that we dislike. There are many values of the conservative which appeal to me more than those of the socialists; yet for a liberal the importance he personally attaches to specific goals is no sufficient justification for forcing others to serve them. I have little doubt that some of my conservative friends will be shocked by what they will regard as "concessions" to modern views that I have made in Part III of this book. But, though I may dislike some of the measures concerned as much as they do and might vote against them, I know of no general principles to which I could appeal to persuade those of a different view that those measures are not permissible in the general kind of society which we both desire. To live and work successfully with others requires more than faithfulness to one's concrete aims. It requires an intellectual commitment to a type of order in which, even on issues which to one are fundamental, others are allowed to pursue different ends.

Closely connected with this is the usual attitude of the conservative to democracy. I have made it clear earlier that I do not regard majority rule as an end but merely as a means, or perhaps even as the least evil of those forms of government from which we have to choose. But I believe that the conservatives deceive themselves when they blame the evils of our time on democracy. The chief evil is unlimited government, and nobody is qualified to wield unlimited power.[8] The powers which modern democracy possesses would be even more intolerable in the hands of some small elite.

*Why I Am Not a Conservative - F. A. Hayek*


----------



## Liability (Feb 5, 2010)

Bfgrn said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > midcan5 said:
> ...



EXCEPT, naturally, your quotation of that position expressed by Agre assumes that it is correct.  It isn't.    Conservatism is absolutely NOT the domination of society by any aristocracy.  That claim is merely a lie.

And the contention that conservatism is "incompatible" with democracy is also untrue.  Neither is it incompatible with prosperity.  Indeed, the precise opposite is true.  It is by virtue of conservative principles that societies flourish.  It is premised ON equality, not inequality.  That is another absolute lie.  

All of the negatives Agre and you falsely associate with conservatism are actually instead true of the modern American "liberal" political philosophy.

Hayek's contentions about the meaning of conservatism are also false for similar reasons.

One has to be a virtual imbecile to accept the false premises you cherish, Bfgrn.  But then, you ARE Bfgrn.


----------



## Bfgrn (Feb 5, 2010)

Liability said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Dude said:
> ...



Liability...F.A. Hayek is DUD...e's ultimate hero... what DUD...e claims to be a big 'heap of steaming, self-serving and self-congratulatory manure' is EXACTLY what DUD...e's  ultimate hero says

Yes I AM Bfgrn, and I'm fully aware of who I am, what I believe and WHY I believe it. My question to you Liability...are YOU DUD...e?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Feb 5, 2010)

Liability said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Dude said:
> ...



Hey!  There's nothing virtual about his imbecility, it's the real deal!


----------



## Liability (Feb 5, 2010)

Bfgrn said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



Holy shit, was THAT a massively stupid reply!  Bravo.  If you were intent on hitting the bulls eye of stupidity, you can save the rest of the arrows in your quiver!  

Hayek has a great economic mind.   If Dude respects that, that's fine by me.

But to the extent that Hayek defines "conservatism" in the irrational and baseless way you quoted him as defining it, then I don't care how great an economic genius Hayek may be.  His contentions about the meaning of conservatism are wrong all the same.

Dude and I have shared use of a brain (together with Frank).  When Dude and I disagree (it is rare, but it happens) it is pretty much cognitive dissonance time.  But the thing is -- and you and your ilk will never fathom this -- it is possible to disagree and yet do so in a respectful fashion.  His disagreements with some of my expressed positions have caused me to confront alternative views.  Not such a horrible thing.

Why don't you ASK Dude if he accepts every single pronouncement uttered from the mouth (or type-writer) of Mr. Hayek?  

When YOU quote somebody you cherish, like say Mao, does that mean that YOU accept every single thing that individual has ever had to say on any topic?


----------



## Bfgrn (Feb 5, 2010)

Liability said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...



I DID...are YOU DUD...e???


----------



## Liability (Feb 5, 2010)

Bfgrn said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



Asking me if I'm Dude is just you being an asshole.  But I repeat myself.

It is not, however, asking Dude if he accepts every single thing ever said by Hayek.

And -- not surprisingly -- you ducked my question.  Are you the kind of idiot that accepts EVERY single thing said by a person whom you admire or respect?


----------



## Bfgrn (Feb 5, 2010)

Liability said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...



I asked you if you are DUD...e for a reason that is obvious to everyone, yet remains oblivious to you. I ASKED DUD...e, but instead of DUD...e answering, YOU are answering FOR DUD...e...

DUD...e has every right to say that Hayek is the author of the biggest heap of steaming, self-serving and self-congratulatory manure, he's ever seen.

BUT, then DUD...e can not accuse me of 'cherry picking' when HE cherry picks.


----------



## Liability (Feb 5, 2010)

Bfgrn said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



Your argument (for lack of a better term) is absurd.

Dude is the one you should be asking, you nitwit.

And if Dude deems addressing your imbecile questions a worthwhile expenditure of his time, he might even deign to give you an answer.

In the interim, common sense (which you lack) is sufficient. 

If Dude likes Hayek in one field (say, for example, oh, I don't know, maybe 'economics'?) that does NOT mean that he as to accept every fucking thing that Hayek has to say on all topics.

I mean, you are an incredible imbecile, yet I doubt that even one as stupid as YOU would argue that you are obliged to accept EVERYTHING that a person says just because you happen to like, admire, respect or agree with that person on _some_ issues.

And you also misue the term "cherry picking" for similar reasons.


----------



## Bfgrn (Feb 5, 2010)

Liability said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...



Are you really THAT dense Liability? DUD...e CAN'T claim one author's words are the biggest heaps of steaming, self-serving and self-congratulatory manure, he's ever seen and have Hayek say the SAME thing, and NOT say the SAME thing about Hayek's words.

This can be easily cleared up...the ball's in DUD...e's court. All DUD...e has to do is say that F.A. Hayek is not a worthy, intelligent or even a credible source of political philosophy. That Hayek is strictly a source of economic philosophy. But when it comes to political philosophy Hayek spews the biggest heaps of steaming, self-serving and self-congratulatory manure, he's ever seen...



Liability said:


> Hayek has a great economic mind. If Dude respects that, that's fine by me.



The conservative feels safe and content only if he is assured that some higher wisdom watches and supervises change, only if he knows that some authority is charged with keeping the change "orderly."

This fear of trusting uncontrolled social forces is closely related to two other characteristics of conservatism: its fondness for authority and its lack of understanding of economic forces. Since it distrusts both abstract theories and general principles,[6] it neither understands those spontaneous forces on which a policy of freedom relies nor possesses a basis for formulating principles of policy. Order appears to the conservative as the result of the continuous attention of authority, which, for this purpose, must be allowed to do what is required by the particular circumstances and not be tied to rigid rule. A commitment to principles presupposes an understanding of the general forces by which the efforts of society are co-ordinated, but it is such a theory of society and especially of the economic mechanism that conservatism conspicuously lacks. So unproductive has conservatism been in producing a general conception of how a social order is maintained that its modern votaries, in trying to construct a theoretical foundation, invariably find themselves appealing almost exclusively to authors who regarded themselves as liberal.

F.A. Hayek...'a great economic mind.'


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Feb 5, 2010)

Great News, Comrades!! Obama's 5 year Plan has cause unemployment to plummet, crashing below the 10% level!

Rejoice, Comrades!!


----------



## Liability (Feb 5, 2010)

Bfgrn said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



As much as I admire your ability to randomly quote excerpts of the works of others without adding anything of your own to make clear what your point might be, I have to admit, your style does cause more confusion than elucidation.

Hayek may very well be a great economic mind.  That does not mean that he is correct in his philosophical analysis of conservatism vs. "liberalsim."

Furthermore, you sluggish dolt,  What Dude RESPONDED to with his "steaming pile of manure" comment was THIS post:  http://www.usmessageboard.com/writing/104093-an-open-letter-to-my-fellow-democrats.html#post1975324

In that post, the words of an ancient Asian philosopher, Lao-Tzu (which are rather random and meaningless -- at least when quoted so completely out of context) were "quoted."  Then, in your usual unclear style, you offered a link to Agre's work.  

Maybe YOU assume that Dude was criticizing the words of Agre.  But it looked to me like he was instead criticizing the words of the Asian philosopher, Lao-Tzu.

Why not ask Dude?


----------



## Bfgrn (Feb 5, 2010)

Liability said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...



Hello? I DID ask DUD...e, but ALL I've heard from is the guy defending his man crush on DUD...e 

THAT would be YOU...

DUD...e can take your unsolicited advise and LIE about his reply, But midcan5 was addressing CrusaderFrank with the quote, NOT DUD...e



Dude said:


> midcan5 said:
> 
> 
> > "He who knows does not speak, he who speaks does not know." Lao-Tzu
> ...



Then my question: Is DUD...e CrusaderFrank, or is this just a circle jerk triad of sperm swappers?


----------



## Liability (Feb 5, 2010)

Bfgrn said:


> * * * *
> 
> Hello? I DID ask DUD...e, but ALL I've heard from is the guy defending his man crush on DUD...e



Hello.  No.  You didn't ask Dude.  You asked me if I was Dude.  And now I have pointed out to YOU that you quoted Lao-Tzu then conjoined it with that LINK to Agre's piece.  So it remains quite unclear (because of your idiot posting style) WHICH author (Tzu or Agre) Dude was speaking of.



Bfgrn said:


> THAT would be YOU * * * *


  No.  It wouldn't.

Your 3rd grade level humor probably got you no laughs through grade school.  It still sucks.  You go down on President Obama.  I only ask you some questions about your idiot commentary relative to Dude.  See the difference?  No?  Get your eyes out of President Obama's crotch for a minute, then.



Bfgrn said:


> DUD...e can take your unsolicited advise and LIE about his reply, But midcan5 was addressing CrusaderFrank with the quote, NOT DUD...e
> 
> 
> 
> ...



As noted above, the balance of your imbecile post only proves that you are babbling.  There was the quote of Tzu conjoined (for some unclear reason) with the link to Agre's piece.  This was followed by Dude's observation.  YOU unilaterally then determined that the observation referred to Agre's shit, but that makes no particular sense.   It still LOOKS like the comment was about the stupid out-of-context quotation of Lao-Tzu.

Look.  Just go back down on the man-child president, finish it off, wipe your chin and then get back to posting lengthy quotes with no intelligible commentary.

Get to it.


----------



## Bfgrn (Feb 5, 2010)

Liability said:


> As noted above, the balance of your imbecile post only proves that you are babbling.  There was the quote of Tzu conjoined (for some unclear reason) with the link to Agre's piece.  This was followed by Dude's observation.  YOU unilaterally then determined that the observation referred to Agre's shit, but that makes no particular sense.   It still LOOKS like the comment was about the stupid out-of-context quotation of Lao-Tzu.



Well Liability, I didn't involve YOU in my post TO DUD...e, YOU decided to intrude.

And, YOU unilaterally originally determined that the observation referred to Agre's shit, not as a reply to the quote directed at Crusader Frank...



Liability said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Dude said:
> ...



So, NOW my question is, are YOU Liability?


----------



## Liability (Feb 5, 2010)

Bfgrn said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > As noted above, the balance of your imbecile post only proves that you are babbling.  There was the quote of Tzu conjoined (for some unclear reason) with the link to Agre's piece.  This was followed by Dude's observation.  YOU unilaterally then determined that the observation referred to Agre's shit, but that makes no particular sense.   It still LOOKS like the comment was about the stupid out-of-context quotation of Lao-Tzu.
> ...



Newsflash just for you, Bfgrn, you retard.  It's a message board.  People jump into these threads with or without your leave, you schmuck.  The question is not whether I was invited into the discussion or not.  The question is whether you made a fucking mistake when you *ASS*umed that the "manure" comment was made with reference to the line by Tzu or the line by Agre.



Bfgrn said:


> And, YOU unilaterally originally determined that the observation referred to Agre's shit, not as a reply to the quote directed at Crusader Frank...



Wrong again, moron. I made no such assumption.  What I did, unlike you, was to note that it LOOKED like that to me.  It is YOUR fault, not mine, you fucking retard, that you compose posts in a blathering unintelligible gibberish form of quasi-English.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Feb 5, 2010)

Liability said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...



I see Pos Rep again in your future as soon as I'm able


----------



## Sarah G (Feb 5, 2010)

CrusaderFrank said:


> My friends, we are at a crossroads. The challenge we face in 2010 are both unprecedented and without precedent.
> 
> Repubs have made gains this past year because we lost our way as a Party. I say this as a proud lifelong democratic member of the Democrat Party
> 
> ...




Frank...   

You are losin it.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Feb 5, 2010)

Sarah G said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > My friends, we are at a crossroads. The challenge we face in 2010 are both unprecedented and without precedent.
> ...



It depends on what you're definition of it is


----------



## Sarah G (Feb 5, 2010)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Sarah G said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



Arrggghh, that old Clinton quote again?


----------



## Liability (Feb 5, 2010)

Sarah G said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Sarah G said:
> ...





Not exactly, but it WAS awfully damn close!


----------



## Harry Dresden (Feb 5, 2010)

Bfgrn said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



Dude may have been referring to your "brother of the Turd"....Midcant...he does fit that quote .....


----------



## midcan5 (Feb 6, 2010)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Under the sage leadership of Obama and our Democrat Congress we too now have a 17% unemployment rate, just like Democrat Demigod FDR, praise be his holy name.



As always you need a bit of the real history, but since you are changing to the bright side, here are the facts:

1931 
No major legislation is passed addressing the Depression. 
The GNP falls another 8.5 percent; unemployment rises to 15.9 percent. 

1932 
This and the next year are the worst years of the Great Depression. For 1932, GNP falls a record 13.4 percent; *unemployment rises to 23.6 percent. *

Industrial stocks have lost 80 percent of their value since 1930. 

10,000 banks have failed since 1929, or 40 percent of the 1929 total. 

GNP has also fallen 31 percent since 1929. 

Over 13 million Americans have lost their jobs since 1929. 

International trade has fallen by two-thirds since 1929. 

Congress passes the Federal Home Loan Bank Act and the Glass-Steagall Act of 1932. 

Top tax rate is raised from 25 to 63 percent. 

Popular opinion considers Hoover's measures too little too late. Franklin Roosevelt easily 
defeats Hoover in the fall election. Democrats win control of Congress. 

1933 
*Roosevelt inaugurated; begins 'First 100 Days'; of intensive legislative activity. *

A third banking panic occurs in March. Roosevelt declares a Bank Holiday; closes financial institutions to stop a run on banks.


Timeline of the Great Depression


----------

