Author Topic: Filibustered! (Read 1287 times)

lazs2 · « **Reply #60 on:** May 25, 2005, 02:43:54 PM »

anything that ensures the democrats go down for the count is a good thing.

ending womens suffrage would be a big help. I would also like it to be that only landowners could vote.

lazs

StarOfAfrica2 · « **Reply #61 on:** May 25, 2005, 03:19:45 PM »

How about since Republican controlled govt. has taken away any significant rights a "landowner" has these days, you make the rule "gainfully employed". I've seen too many people have their land taken away from them because the govt. had better ideas of what do do with it to make money for themselves.

lazs2 · « **Reply #62 on:** May 26, 2005, 08:48:44 AM »

soa.... I believe that you are talking about the new IRS... the EPA... the EPA grows stronger when democrats are in power and weaker when Republicans are in power.

The EPA will infiltrate every aspect of all of our day to day lives and have more power over us than any government or agency every has.

The EPA is a direct result of allowing the blue areas and women to vote.

If you want the EPA to grow in power then vote for democrats.

lazs

StarOfAfrica2 · « **Reply #63 on:** May 26, 2005, 06:07:26 PM »

I think thats a bit of an overgeneralization. All of the Democrats I've supported have promoted giving more power to the states for Environmental issues, not holding it at the Federal level. On Bush's watch I've seen family farms taken away by govt. offices, paid a fraction of their actual land value, and then had a small portion of the land carved up for "services" while the rest is sold off to private developers who build subdivisions or condo complexes. Then a few years later you see flooding when their runoff issues were never properly addressed.

I'm tired of seeing "whats good for the country" rammed down our throats. Give me a valid argument, let me decide for myself. If the rest of you disagree with me, I'll still support the guy in charge, but I want to know I had the opportunity to comment, and that someone took note of it. I'm tired of courts that are battlegrounds for "hot button" topics instead of between law and chaos. I'm tired of having one set of rules for the guys in charge, and another for those of us on the street. I'm tired of being guilty until proven innocent. We pay more taxes, and have more cops on the street, and have an even bigger divide between the high and the low. Less petty crime, more violent crime. And I'm not talking about gun issues either, I'm talking about attitude issues. I'm tired of wondering why my govt. spends more money than it has since Reagan was in office, yet gives me a "tax cut," and still takes out the same amount of money from my paychecks. Last time I saw something like that, it was called a "shell game."

I try to stay out of the Republican vs Democrat arguments, because when it all boils down most of them are out for #1 anyway. Its usually damage control, which one is going to screw things up the least. I get a little ticked off though, when people start making these emotional outbursts of support for one side or the other, and all they are doing is spewing party lines and indoctrinational drivel. Even the Russians did away with that, why is it still happening here in the "Land of the Free?" Get off your soapbox. I'm down here in the same pit you are.

GtoRA2 · « **Reply #64 on:** May 26, 2005, 06:12:53 PM »

Star
I am way way agaist eminant domain used as your describe. Hell I know a guy who has been in fremont 20 plus years running a hobby show and Fremont took his land away to build a shopping center. NOTHING VITAL... just a shopping center. Hell I even went to city hall to protest at the hearing...

Nothing stopped them.

What did bush or the repulicrats have to do with those laws though? Did he make them more powerfull?

I can see them for truely vital things but I dont see them being used in that way much.

Raider179 · « **Reply #65 on:** May 26, 2005, 06:22:07 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by StarOfAfrica2
I'm tired of wondering why my govt. spends more money than it has since Reagan was in office, yet gives me a "tax cut," and still takes out the same amount of money from my paychecks. Last time I saw something like that, it was called a "shell game."

Nicely put!

Raider179 · « **Reply #66 on:** May 26, 2005, 09:35:52 PM »

This is why I love politics. lmao

Filibustered anyway!

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist had said he wanted a vote on the nomination before the weeklong Memorial Day holiday.

"It does disappoint me," Frist said after the vote. "It looks like we have, once again, another filibuster."

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/05/26/bolton.senate/index.html

lazs2 · « **Reply #67 on:** May 27, 2005, 09:10:57 AM »

SOA... I don't think it is an exageration at all. The EPA is as much a pet of the democrats as is the teachers union.

You want a stronger EPA and public schools to continue to be the expensive wastes with no competition from vouchers then vote democrat... You want less and less firearms rights and more and more restrictions on cars and motorcycles and anything a man wants to do (except smoke pot) then vote democrat.

I am not a black woman or a teacher or a staunch union member or anti car or anti gun... nor do I need someone to tell me to buckle up or wear a helmet or lifejackets... nor do I need safety triggers on my power tools.

democrats are the party of the whiners... women and so called minorities are conned by em.

Ca is the perfect example of legeslators all being democrats... is that what you all want the rest of the country to look like?

lazs

StarOfAfrica2 · « **Reply #68 on:** May 27, 2005, 01:51:19 PM »

Lazs, not all Democrats want to ban guns, ram laws that affect no one but individuals down the throats of the public, or pass laws to restrict what common sense should control. My family has been Democrat for as far back as anyone can remember. We all own guns. We are all NRA members. I believe we have plenty of gun laws already, and lack for enforcement. All of us think seatbelt and helmet laws are bogus BS that belittles the intelligence of every adult American. None of us give a damn for unions. I am a supporter of public schools, and while I dont mind a limited voucher system for some private schools I am dead set against giving govt. money to parochial schools. We all believe in raising the required fuel economy of the new cars produced, while grandfathering in old ones so we can preserve our heritage instead of watching it turned into scrap. And yes, we consider classic cars to be part of our "heritage" as Americans.

You call Democrats a party of "whiners", I call Republicans a party of "Bullys" that like to take over and do exactly what you are complaining the Democrats do. We can toss names back and forth all day long. I'm sorry that your state couldnt find better people to elect than the specimens you have, but perhaps rather than saying its a Democrat problem, why not identify it as a California problem?

Charon · « **Reply #69 on:** May 27, 2005, 02:34:42 PM »

Lazs, you should drop seatbelt laws from the list. As I have pointed out before, Bush is fully in favor of them and is working to spead them throughout the nation:

Quote

Eighteen states let police officers ticket an unbelted driver or front-seat passenger, and the federal government is urging the rest to adopt the same so-called "primary" or mandatory seat belt laws. The Bush administration earlier this month proposed highway programs that included a $100 million-a-year incentive for states to enact mandatory seat belt laws.

Insurance industry dollars at work. Expect the same with his "tort reform."

Where guns are concerned, in IL it is primarily a Democrat run thing in Cook County, but it is also popular in the Republican suburbs while downstate Democrats are against it. You can find the same elsewhere. The democratic govenor is trying to avoid the subject as much as possible. In "general" Republicans support the 2nd ammendment, unless the soccer mom vote is more important than the gun owner vote.

Bush himself cannot be counted as a strong friend of gun owners:

Quote

Bush said in the 2000 campaign that he would sign an extension of the 10-year ban on the semiautomatic weapons. However, he did not press Congress to send him such a bill, and its Republican leaders never did.

You can look at welfare too. Social programs are minor compared to coprorate welfare, which typically doesn't provide the end "benefits," like new jobs, etc. that were claimed.

Both parties are different sides of the same coin, both are for bigger and more intrusive government and neither has the average person's interests at heart, IMO. The best thing to hope for, short of a radical change the quality of leadership (and the elimination of most of the special interest dollars) is to have a balanced system where the two parties cancel out the most extreme elements of each. We don't really have that now.

Charon

Torque · « **Reply #70 on:** May 27, 2005, 05:24:11 PM »

is there some obscure law forcing people to live those blue nanny states?