Weeding out the affiliation thread

[Tom In VA]

Lon Nol was the recipient of American aid.

Vinnie, Vinnie, Vinnie :tsk: :tsk:

Now Lon Nol was not the evil man that killed all those people. Pol Pot was.

[Dr_Phibes]

Lon Nol was the recipient of American aid.

Vinnie, Vinnie, Vinnie :tsk: :tsk:

Now Lon Nol was not the evil man that killed all those people. Pol Pot was.

How many different ways would you like the same answer?

Hundreds of thousands of people died from overwork, disease and starvation in an attempt to rebuild an agricuture system which the United States destroyed.

[Shlomart Ben Yisrael]

Lon Nol was the recipient of American aid.

Vinnie, Vinnie, Vinnie :tsk: :tsk:

Now Lon Nol was not the evil man that killed all those people. Pol Pot was.

How many different ways would you like the same answer?

Hundreds of thousands of people died from overwork, disease and starvation in an attempt to rebuild an agricuture system which the United States destroyed.

:roll:

If your madrassas is offering night courses, I suggest you enroll.

Sorry dawg. Just sayin'.

[Dr_Phibes]

I had no idea there were so many Dith Pran fans on the board.

[Tom In VA]

Lon Nol was the recipient of American aid.

Vinnie, Vinnie, Vinnie :tsk: :tsk:

Now Lon Nol was not the evil man that killed all those people. Pol Pot was.

How many different ways would you like the same answer?

Hundreds of thousands of people died from overwork, disease and starvation in an attempt to rebuild an agricuture system which the United States destroyed.

Vin man, I don't think you understand. You spinning as much as you are isn't making me dizzy, it isn't changing the facts, and it isn't doing much to anyone but you. I hope you don't puke.

Your claims, are:

1. The U.S. gave aid to Lon Nol's Cambodia.
2. The U.S. bombed Lon Nol's Cambodia.
3. The exfoliant laden bombs, dropped in Lon Nol's Cambodia, made regions untenable. As a result, people died from overwork, disease, starvation, etc.. etc... 300,000 or so people.
4. The people in Lon Nol's Cambodia got pissed and overthrew Lon Nol's Cambodia.
5. This made it Pol Pot's Cambodia.

Okay here's where you're tripping over your feet, so pay attention dog.

6. The U.S. stopped giving aid to Pol Pot's Cambodia.

7. Millions died in the killing fields in the genocide committed by Pol Pot in Pol Pot's Cambodia.


So unless you're going to tell me Lon Nol was Evil Dictator Number One you're completely and utterly wrong.

Either way, the United States did not give aid to the Evil Dicator Number Two, a.k.a Pol Pot.

Evil Dictator Number Two, committed genocide.

So if you want to reiterate your previous "explanation" please do so, but can you stop spinning. Try a pair of tap shoes this time. It'd be much more entertaining.

:D

[Shlomart Ben Yisrael]

Hey Tom, you forgot one point...

8. The Vietnamese Army invaded Cambodia to put an end to Pol Pot's shit-reign.

I know, I know...this completely fries the neural pathways of your typical "B-b-b-but the Vietnamese and Cambodians were both Communist....zzzzz....sizzle...sizzle...does not compute...crackle..." American unter-scholars.

Trust me. The world is much more complicated than the Bush-Think interpretation of "Us vs. Them".

[Tom In VA]

Hey Tom, you forgot one point...

8. The Vietnamese Army invaded Cambodia to put an end to Pol Pot's shit-reign.

I know, I know...this completely fries the neural pathways of your typical "B-b-b-but the Vietnamese and Cambodians were both Communist....zzzzz....sizzle...sizzle...does not compute...crackle..." American unter-scholars.

Trust me. The world is much more complicated than the Bush-Think interpretation of "Us vs. Them".

Trust you ?


But thanks for the confirmation that the Domino Theory was right on.

[Dr_Phibes]

Your claims, are:

1. The U.S. gave aid to Lon Nol's Cambodia.

-Yes. He was a dictator with the right political leaning, installed in a coup in 1970

2. The U.S. bombed Lon Nol's Cambodia.

-Yes. Lon Nol was engaged in combat with the Khmer Rouge. American and ARVN were engaged with the NLF and the NVA.

3. The exfoliant laden bombs, dropped in Lon Nol's Cambodia, made regions untenable.

-Yes

4. The people in Lon Nol's Cambodia got pissed and overthrew Lon Nol's Cambodia.

Yes. Cambodia was turned into wastland when the Americans invaded. The Khmer Rouge numbers increased from 5,000 to 70,000.

5. This made it Pol Pot's Cambodia.

-Yes

Okay here's where you're tripping over your feet, so pay attention dog.

6. The U.S. stopped giving aid to Pol Pot's Cambodia.

-Yes

7. Millions died in the killing fields in the genocide committed by Pol Pot in Pol Pot's Cambodia.

-No. Hundreds of thousands died in the killing fields from a combination of overwork, starvation and disease. Combine this with Pol Pots men carrying out policies of profoundly anti-working-class character, which had far more in common with fascism than socialism. Pol Pot was no Marxist and American intervention created the situation, so ultimately, America is responsible.




[/quote]

[Shlomart Ben Yisrael]

The 'killing fields' were fields that (mainly) young cadres took innocent civilians to be executed.

Pol Pot targeted doctors, teachers, intellectuals, community leaders, technicians...anyone with over a grade 2 education and above 16 years of age was a potential victim...

This had nothing to do with people dropping dead from working 'the fields' too long with malnutrition and disease.

For fuck's sake.

[Dr_Phibes]

The 'killing fields' were fields that (mainly) young cadres took innocent civilians to be executed.

Pol Pot targeted doctors, teachers, intellectuals, community leaders, technicians...anyone with over a grade 2 education and above 16 years of age was a potential victim...

Yes. Somehow I doubt these instructions can be found in Marxism.

This had nothing to do with people dropping dead from working 'the fields' too long with malnutrition and disease.

For fuck's sake.

A combination of the two.

Does this mean I win?

[Tom In VA]

Okay, so even if these "facts" are corroborated and verified.


You still made an incorrect statement.

The United States did not aid the Evil Dude #2 named Pol Pot.

While our hands are not clean, it is by no means ours to shoulder the entire blame. Especially when Canada benefits from our presence here.

I say let's all blame Sihanouk, and call it a day.

[Shlomart Ben Yisrael]

The 'killing fields' were fields that (mainly) young cadres took innocent civilians to be executed.

Pol Pot targeted doctors, teachers, intellectuals, community leaders, technicians...anyone with over a grade 2 education and above 16 years of age was a potential victim...

Yes. Somehow I doubt these instructions can be found in Marxism.

This had nothing to do with people dropping dead from working 'the fields' too long with malnutrition and disease.

For fuck's sake.

A combination of the two.

Does this mean I win?

You took the term "killing fields" symbolically.

It's actually a literal description.

It had nothing to do with a genocidal war on the peasant class (quite the opposite, as the poorest and least educated made up the vast majority of Pol Pot's cadre force).

From this point forward, you should learn to embrace the knowledge bringing entity that is Google.

[Diogenes]

A registered Republican (moderate on many issues) who regularly crosses party lines in the ballot box for many county and states offices....but I guess I'm one of the "goat fuckers". But, for the record, I much prefer sheep over goats.

Mace

Democrat
27% [ 8 ]
Libertarian
0% [ 0 ]
Republican
41% [ 12 ]
Independent - I vote across all party lines
20% [ 6 ]
Green Party
0% [ 0 ]
Other (Post it below)
6% [ 2 ]
Whig ( Mace and Luther only)
3% [ 1 ]

Total Votes : 29


Whoever made up this shitty poll needs to make it Luther and Diogenes only.


I'm sure Luther will show up eventualy.......

And yes, Henry Clay was the man!

[Luther]

Of course I'm a registered republican. I live in a state that has more birkenstock wearing, tree hugging, spotted owl saving sonszabitches that you can find.

I'm kind of like Mace in that I've been known to cross a party line or two. However, I'm neither a goat or sheep fooker. I've also been known to wear a mullet rug and a studded neck collar if Doc Rightwingoit is preaching around in public.

Damn, I always hate seeing us embarassed.

Rip City

[socal]

FTFY

Uh, rack!

[Y2K]

Registered Republican in 1979 and have never seen a reason to change affiliations. Living in California, every day the reason to remain unchanged is reinforced tenfold.

[Jack]

I register Independent becasue I want to make up my own mind and not just follow. I have voted Republican in '80, '84, '88, '96, 2000 & 2004.

I voted for Perot in '92.

The Dude was right on about NAFTA and noone would listen because he looked funny and talked funny...

[Wolfman]

I forgot this place (sordid clambake ?) existed---
the politics one---
here in FL, I registered with the Republican Party.
Back in New York, I was a charter member of the
New York Conservative Party.
I'm sure that comes as no surprise to anyone here.

I'm still trying to figure out the "Independent Party"
platform and positions ?? Or is it merely wetting a finger-- putting it in the air and feeling how the wind
blows ??

[RadioFan]

Back in New York, I was a charter member of the
New York Conservative Party.
I'm sure that comes as no surprise to anyone here.

Ah yes, the great meeting of 1846, no?

:wink:

[Wolfman]

I laughed !!
thanks for the chuckle

[Mister Bushice]

I'm still trying to figure out the "Independent Party"
platform and positions ?? Or is it merely wetting a finger-- putting it in the air and feeling how the wind
blows ??

No actually, it's more like taking a look at the reality and seeing how much the ruling parties blow, or suck, as the circumstances dictate, and voting otherwise.

The vote may not mean as much, but at least I'm not responsible for the sham that is the democratic/republican party.

[DrDetroit]

I'm still trying to figure out the "Independent Party"
platform and positions ?? Or is it merely wetting a finger-- putting it in the air and feeling how the wind
blows ??

No actually, it's more like taking a look at the reality and seeing how much the ruling parties blow, or suck, as the circumstances dictate, and voting otherwise.

the vote may not mean as much, but at least I'm not responsible for the sham that is the democratic/republican party.

The two major parties are a sham??? In what ways?

BTW - at the least the two major parties have some consistent principles and values. These so-called independents have neither except to be something other than a Democrat or Republican. Hardly endearing to voters.

[RadioFan]

BTW - at the least the two major parties have some consistent principles and values. These so-called independents have neither except to be something other than a Democrat or Republican. Hardly endearing to voters.

Bullshit. There are factions within each party. There are also regional differences. Most Democrats in Oklahoma are more conservative than many Republicans in Kansas, as an example. Also, many people vote for or against (the lesser of two evils) individual candidates, not party affiliation.

[Viper in Vancouver]

I don't really like any of the politcal parties here in Canada. I vote fro the NDP provincially, and the Liberals federally. I'm not a huge fan of either party, but I figure they're the best of the worst

[Mister Bushice]

No actually, it's more like taking a look at the reality and seeing how much the ruling parties blow, or suck, as the circumstances dictate, and voting otherwise.

the vote may not mean as much, but at least I'm not responsible for the sham that is the democratic/republican party.

The two major parties are a sham??? In what ways?

They pander to the voting blocs like never before, even at the expense of party ideals. They don't nearly represent the traditional party stances in the way they did even 30 years ago. They control what and who we are allowed to vote for by restrictive registration, excessive campaign spending, and campaign reform regulations voted in by them that give them the advantages.

A true democracy would allow the smaller, independent parties access to participate in the debates, provide a more level playing field financially so that the American people can see for themselves what else is out there besides the Dems and the Repubs, give them venues for broadcasting their message on a scale equivalent to that of the ruling parties, and allow for even handed open voter registration everywhere in America.

But no, that will never happen, because that would mean they could lose power, so the rules are set up so that no other group will ever have a significant impact in the elections, except to perhaps alter which of the two ruling parties might win, such as what Nader was accused of doing. They have no need to really step up and give the people what they want because the competition is limited. Limited by their actions

BTW - at the least the two major parties have some consistent principles and values. These so-called independents have neither except to be something other than a Democrat or Republican. Hardly endearing to voters.

Have you even attempted to read what other parties priniciples and values are to make a blanket statement like that? Other parties aren't endearing to voters because they are A: depicted that way by being excluded from debates, and financially restricted leaving only those with significant money being the only ones who voters even get to hear about on a large scale, and B: not given even a remote chance to get their voices heard on somewhere near the scale of the two Ruling parties.

Educate yourself a little. Read up on even ONE alternative candidate. Try the libertarians. GO here and check out what this guy believes in.

http://www.badnarik.org/

You may not agree with him, but it certainly proves the fallacy of your assumptions that there aren't viable alternatives that have consistent principles and values.

[Hapday]

I don't really like any of the politcal parties here in Canada. I vote fro the NDP provincially, and the Liberals federally. I'm not a huge fan of either party, but I figure they're the best of the worst

I always knew you were a tard and you just proved it yet again.

[Viper in Vancouver]

I don't really like any of the politcal parties here in Canada. I vote fro the NDP provincially, and the Liberals federally. I'm not a huge fan of either party, but I figure they're the best of the worst

I always knew you were a tard and you just proved it yet again.

hahaha good one
:roll: :roll: :roll:
Atleast the Liberals are in power, so I'm obviously in the majority. That would probably make you the tard

[Hapday]

No, you are clearly in the 'tard' minority.

[Viper in Vancouver]

No, you are clearly in the 'tard' minority.

Your smack is just terrible

[Hapday]

No, you are clearly in the 'tard' minority.

Your smack is just terrible

:roll: :roll:

I guess it clearly isn't up to the:

hahaha good one

level.

[Viper in Vancouver]

No, you are clearly in the 'tard' minority.

Your smack is just terrible

:roll: :roll:

I guess it clearly isn't up to the:

hahaha good one

level.

Being in the "tard minority"? That makes no sense at all. The majority of the country voted the same way I did, so clearly we can't be in the "tard minority"

[Hapday]

Being in the "tard minority"? That makes no sense at all. The majority of the country voted the same way I did, so clearly we can't be in the "tard minority"

Well, 36% of voters in the lowest voter turnout in over a century voted for the party. That isn't a 'majority' of the country, but is was enough to beat the Conservatives. The Liberals will be tossed in the next election so enjoy it while you can!

[Viper in Vancouver]

Being in the "tard minority"? That makes no sense at all. The majority of the country voted the same way I did, so clearly we can't be in the "tard minority"

Well, 36% of voters in the lowest voter turnout in over a century voted for the party. That isn't a 'majority' of the country, but is was enough to beat the Conservatives. The Liberals will be tossed in the next election so enjoy it while you can!

Hahaha never going to happen. That was supposed to happen last election. I am also in the majority becuase the Libs, Bloc, and NDP are all left wing parties, and we make up the majority of voters

[Hapday]

Hahaha never going to happen. That was supposed to happen last election. I am also in the majority becuase the Libs, Bloc, and NDP are all left wing parties, and we make up the majority of voters

I don't think it really will matter to you, when you are old enough to vote it will.

[Viper in Vancouver]

Hahaha never going to happen. That was supposed to happen last election. I am also in the majority becuase the Libs, Bloc, and NDP are all left wing parties, and we make up the majority of voters

I don't think it really will matter to you, when you are old enough to vote it will.

I'm 25; once again your takes make no sense

[MotoGoalie]

Your smack is just terrible

:roll: :roll:

I guess it clearly isn't up to the:

hahaha good one

level.

Being in the "tard minority"? That makes no sense at all. The majority of the country voted the same way I did, so clearly we can't be in the "tard minority"

You very well may be in the TARD plurality which is a concept that, much like your geneology, would be far too confusing and self defeating to 'splain to you. To the point, many a tard thought socialist marxism was a good idea despite whatever common sense and basic math algorithms debated thier theory.
You keep walking the flat earth society of socialism out and pay your taxes like a good little Junior American, cause WTF do I care if your life is spent paying for immigrants sitting at home. :twisted:

[Variable]

The Dems may not be the best option, but they are the only viable one.

If you always vote along party lines, you are the DittoChimp. Just mark the box that they tell you to, chimpy. Nevermind that you can change what you don't like about your party by sending a message with your vote. Just do what you're told so they continue doing whatever the fuck they want, since they know they'll always have your vote regardless of how badly they fuck things up. Brilliant strategy. :roll:

[Terry in Crapchester]

Is fiscally conservative social moderate an option?

WTF is that supposed to mean???

How do you propose to pay for you social programs???

Trotting out this red herring again, eh, Doc?

Social programs are a minute part of the federal budget, and you know it.

[Terry in Crapchester]

A registered Republican (moderate on many issues) who regularly crosses party lines in the ballot box for many county and states offices....but I guess I'm one of the "goat fuckers". But, for the record, I much prefer sheep over goats.

Mace

Democrat
27% [ 8 ]
Libertarian
0% [ 0 ]
Republican
41% [ 12 ]
Independent - I vote across all party lines
20% [ 6 ]
Green Party
0% [ 0 ]
Other (Post it below)
6% [ 2 ]
Whig ( Mace and Luther only)
3% [ 1 ]

Total Votes : 29


Whoever made up this shitty poll needs to make it Luther and Diogenes only.


I'm sure Luther will show up eventualy.......

And yes, Henry Clay was the man!

Actually, I think the reference to Luther and Mace was age smack. In fairness, Wolfie and DJPI (if he still posts here) should have been included as well.

Hell, for that matter, I'm almost old enough to have been a Whig. Almost.

[Terry in Crapchester]

To answer the question, registered Democrat, but have voted across the aisle when appropriate, which is usually restricted to the local level. I did vote for the incumbent Republican Congressman in '02 and lived to regret that.

Btw, I'm calling serious bullshit on this poll as representative of the true party affiliations on this board. 42% Republican??? :roll: Either a lot of Republicans haven't voted, or a lot of people are not being honest with themselves about their political affiliation.