Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Nash on May 23, 2005, 11:26:49 PM
-
Flibustered!
I am partisan, and despite my attempt here to frame things as objectively as possible, I know that it's not possible. With that in mind, here's my take on tonight's events:
----------------------------
Advantage Democrats: Republicans gave up an opportunity to squelch forever the Minority Party's (Democrats') ability to Filibuster judicial nominations. By last count, they had the votes.
Advantage Republicans: Democrats gave up their ability to Filibuster judicial nominations unless as a result of "extraordinary circumstances", the definition of which is not known to anyone, including the deal makers.
----------------------------
----------------------------
Advantage Republicans: Three controversial judges make their way to an up or down vote, who would not have done so under the existing filibuster rules.
Advantage Democrats: Democrats concede the three judges, but preserve their ability to fight the more important nomination/s for the Supreme Court.
----------------------------
----------------------------
Advantage Democrats: Bill Frist, seen as the front-runner for the run for President in '08 is now dead in the water, as he made promises he can't deliver, and cannot control his own party.
Advantage Republicans: Anybody, including Hillary, could wipe the floor with Frist. Now Republicans can run a formidable contender.
----------------------------
----------------------------
Advantage Democrats: Despite being the minority party, they were able to stave off an attack on 200 years of Senate history, tradition and process.
Advantage Republicans: American citizens have consistently come down on the side of the of the Minority party's role to advise and consent, favoring maintaining the Filibuster. Tonight the Republicans avoided a dramatic and likely damaging fight.
----------------------------
----------------------------
Uhm... I guess that will do. There obviously are other advantages/disadvantages. That's where you come in. Being the unapologetic political junkie that I am, it's without any compunction that I admit to being fascinated by tonight's development.
It's an impossible request, but please try and limit your replies to cold, objective observations of this deal. I know that as much as I attempted to try, and failed, so will you. But please make the attempt.
-
Interesting Nash, and thanks.
I have been pissed at the dems for not allowing a vote, but I can't blame them for using a tool that is available to them.
I feel that a fillibuster in order to obstruct a vote is not right. Ultimately, I feel that the people have spoken and put a majority of republicans in office and that an up or down vote should not be blocked.
Anyway, great points Nash.
-
I'm unable to consider the democratic party as anything other than a joke.. any party that embraces the likes of Al Sharpton doesn't stand a snowball's chance in hell of ever winning another national election.
*sigh*
Glad that the filibuster survived in some form.. not that it's gonna matter much anymore.
-
The Democrats don't stand a chance of ever winning another national election? Evar? Again?
All because Sharpton ran, it's time to pack it in?
Certainly an interesting observation, which curiously leaves out scores of lunatic Republican candidates and the effect it didn't seem to have on the party's chances, but which has nothing to do with tonight.
I'm more intrigued by your "not that it's gonna matter much anymore."
-
Whelp.. next election it's my guess another republican landslide.. and when the smoke settles, the republican advantage in both houses will stretch out to a comfy margin.
.. and now that the fillbuster has had most of it's teeth yanked, wot good will it be then?
We're on the road to a one party system.. the democratic party is dead; it's been dying since LBJ ticked off the south with the civil rights bill. Clinton was the last.. there will be no more dems in the White House. *sob*
Would be nice if the silent majority in this nation hauled it's wide flat bellybutton up off the couch to vote.. but that ain't likely unless somebody comes up with an issue that could spark more than flatulence from 'em.
One thing tho.. maybe... if gas hit's 5 bucks a gallon with a republican in the whitehouse and the army still in Iraq without Osama's head on a pipe then the nation might elect a freakin dog catcher.. or Sharpton.
-
Sharpton is the least of there worries..
can you say.......Dean"..omg..thsi man is off is rocker
-
Originally posted by GreenCloud
Sharpton is the least of there worries..
See what I mean... Sharpton, least[/i] of our worries.
*sigh*
-
I don't think the dems are dead, but they are on the ropes. Clinton was pretty damn lucky that Perot ran, otherwise he would have never been elected.
Carter was a complete failure and the republicans have dominated the senate for awhile.
-
Originally posted by GreenCloud
Sharpton is the least of there worries..
can you say.......Dean"..omg..thsi man is off is rocker
Holy snikies !!
With everything this admin has done to this country.
The out and out lies to us.
The backroom deals with our own version of the Islamic Fundamentalists. Yes I mean the fanatical Christian Right.
The obvious corp largess and all you can come up with is THE EVIL DEMS?
LOL I weep for the future
-
Originally posted by Silat
Holy snikies !!
With everything this admin has done to this country.
The out and out lies to us.
What has this administration "done' to this country?
-
...and the WMD is where?
(note.. new record. only 4 posts and Nash's well reasoned discourse has gone hopelessly off the rails. Soory dude. :()
-
Nash made some interesting observations.
-
Originally posted by Nash
Flibustered!
I am partisan, and despite my attempt here to frame things as objectively as possible, I know that it's not possible. With that in mind, here's my take on tonight's events:
----------------------------
Advantage Democrats: Republicans gave up an opportunity to squelch forever the Minority Party's (Democrats') ability to Filibuster judicial nominations. By last count, they had the votes.
Advantage Republicans: Democrats gave up their ability to Filibuster judicial nominations unless as a result of "extraordinary circumstances", the definition of which is not known to anyone, including the deal makers.
----------------------------
----------------------------
[----------------------------
----------------------------
Advantage Democrats: Despite being the minority party, they were able to stave off an attack on 200 years of Senate history, tradition and process.
Advantage Republicans: American citizens have consistently come down on the side of the of the Minority party's role to advise and consent, favoring maintaining the Filibuster. Tonight the Republicans avoided a dramatic and likely damaging fight.
----------------------------
Missing the events of the evening I am assuming they struck a deal on thsi whole filibuster issue.
Wise move. had they forever squelched the minority parties ability to filibuster eventually it would come around to bite em in the arse when they became the minority party again.
And at some point they will be.
This is a pretty amazing country I think. we always seem to balance things out. when the country goes too far left we vote to the right. and vice versa.
While I Voted Bush last election I am seriously hoping the Dems or someone else puts up someone worth voting for as I now feel we are starting to lean too far to the right.
The opposite was true after 8 years of Clinton.
I and I think most Americans like things more in the middle.
I think its safe to say most Americans are moderates reguardless of party affiliation and feel going too far in one direction or another is not good.
-
A Republican landslide (in 06' I presume).
It's funny. I look at your words Hang, and shake my head. Not because I disagree. But because I am compelled to actually think the same.
Very recent history proves my faith in common sense to be without justification. And your words to be more than justified.
It's really damned hard to let go.
The filibuster issue was to me in every sense the Republican's - upon the fulfillment of a 30 year struggle to control all three branches of government - effort to finally finish the job.
It's over-stepping.
Because at this point, there is really nothing left to do but wipe out the Minority. As if the Minority doesn't serve a purpose. As if the Minority were just in the way. As if the 49% of Americans who elected that Minority into office suddenly didn't count.
As if 51% of Americans were all that mattered to America.
With that slight of a lead, one to two percent, I find it near criminal to use that advantage to browbeat near half of every American into, arguably, total capitulation to the 51%'s will.
Never mind the particular issues, it's offensive.
But hey, it just seems to work. I don't know why.
Tonight? A significant event played itself out in one of the most important battles and (for now) resolutions that has ever faced the Senate in my lifetime.
Majority. Minority. Their respective roles.
Does the Minority in effect have no, none, zilch role? Do they lose the ability to speak for half of America simply because they happen to be the minority? Does half of America suddenly not count?
Do the wishes of 49% of Americans get dismissed out of hand, because of the wishes of the 51%?
It's pretty important stuff, I think. And it is sadly the tendency of some to trivialize it using worn blanket political rhetoric which dismisses outright the significance of events such as tonight's.
Personally, if one calls himself a patriot, believing with every fiber of his being in the just and righteous republic of the United States of America - he must speak honestly and without fear of reprisal. Especially now.
He would not look to play at flaky relativism via Sharpton. For it is just a distraction. And the growing multitudes of people who take that route do nothing but weaken the object of their ambivalence as if it were a forgone conclusion.
It is not.
Quit it.
-
Nash, again a great post.
I feel that the minority should not be able to block the majority simply because they can filibuster and overrule any vote. That's not fair in my opinion.
The people have voted and placed these people in power for a reason.
A filibuster seems very contrary to democratic vaulues.
-
The Democratic party is far from Dead. Sitting here watching "Warm Springs" for the 5th time I'm reminded that the same was said about the Republican party in the past. FDR pwn3d the White House so much that they had to pass a Constitutional amendment to keep it from happening again.
The Republicans rebounded, so will the Democrats. When the voting percentage of eligables reaches 80% and the vote swings 80% + on a consistant basis, then and only then it may well be time to as for whom the bell tolls. Until that time, it is just rabble rousing by the fanbois.
One thing to remember... absolute power, corrupts absolutely. Republicans tried to change the rules in the middle of the game to suit their needs (a la Tom Delay) and again with the fillibuster changes. That may well come to bite them in the arse at the mid-terms. Beware the sleeping giant known as the silent masses. Piss them off sufficiently and they will rise.
Unless you are some sort of Madame Cleo, I see nothing more from this thread that the rubbing of salt in the wound. Enjoy it while you can.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
What has this administration "done' to this country?
Nuke need we rehash ?
How about "Im a uniter"
He has divided this country with his "mandate" of 51% of those that voted.
As much as I want Iraq to be democratic I fear its a failure. We have shaken hands with the fundamentalists there and here. This admin has learned nothing.
They lied about the war. OK you can call it bad intelligence in the face of all the evidence to the contrary.
They have set back environmental law.
They have given to the rich at our expense. Your tax rebate has cost you much much more that it was worth.
I will make you a gentlemans bet that in 10 years this administration is historically looked at as the lowest point in modern American History.
-
It is not.
Quit it.
Possibly we're right. Hope not. It ain't lookin real good for the average Joe.. Washington seems to be engaged in the biggest snake oil sales job I've ever had the disgust to witness.. Nixon included. By the time the 'tables turn' will we even recognize a 'democrat' when we see one?
I'm just me, one vote.. one voice. And my voice/vote seems to not count.. the nation elected somebody else and we got Commisar Booosh in a Law Slide.. Without a clear majority he started acting like he had a mandate. Then sombody crapped in our cream of wheat with some airliners and the next thing yah know America is off on a Jihad. 'Get the muslims.. somebody's gonna PAY!' is the voice of the nation and so we shoulder the 'war necessities' of infringements of privacy and liberty. What's that you say, mister goverment lawyer.. ... it's forever?
Next we camp out on an oil field, then suffer thu a 50% gas price increase. "iraq oil revenue will fund the war effort" (ashcroft) The cheese stinks!
Tax cuts? With a 50 gigabuck war deficit? And the dupes we call democrats just roll over? Who's payin for this? Norway?
No wonder Zell just up and walked out.
I'm thinkin the democrats need to do a whole chiit load of house cleaning.. chuck the rubbish 'dems' and start talkin sense... extremist dem's need their walking papers. The party is a shambles; the nation's on a narrow guage railway ride to oblivion... the pendulum ain't gonna swing back if it just falls off. We either take this election, or it's gonna be AmeriKa for SURE.
Then there's the sad new fact, already demonstrated. Issues don't decide elections anymore. Majorities don't decide elections anymore. Corporate lobbies do.
So again.. what're our chances?
Sorry Nash. We're in deep; no lifeguard, no ladder, no arms.
Kickin is all we can do... but how long before they legislate the lenght of my legs to 6" less than the depth of the water?
-
Advantage Democrats: Despite being the minority party, they were able to stave off an attack on 200 years of Senate history, tradition and process.
What attack on history? "The first time a filibuster was used on judges" Or the unauthorized rewriting of the constitution to now have a supermajority (60) votes to pass a judge, The constitution states explicitly that all it requires is simple majority 51. The Democrats were the only ones attacking Senate history.
-
I wouldn't say it was Bush's fault for not uniting the country.
He has tried many times to reach across the aisle only to have his hand smacked.
There is no way in hell the Dems were going to let him succeed.
Now don't get me wrong there were things done on the Repub side that caused problems but I wouldn't push all of the blame on Bush.
-
Originally posted by Silat
I will make you a gentlemans bet that in 10 years this administration is historically looked at as the lowest point in modern American History.
Only if the left writes the history books.
-
1. History shows that the lower the tax rate, the higher the revenue, as lower tax rates encourage investment.
2. Of course the rich save more money when the tax rate is cut, why not ? They pay more, therefore they would save more. Thats just commonsence.
3. I don't see any fundamentalist christians setting off car bombs,participating in driveby shootings of goverment officials, or cutting off heads 'cause they did'nt get what they wanted.
4. In the future, this will be known as one of the greatist periods in american history.
-
Originally posted by Silat
I will make you a gentlemans bet that in 10 years this administration is historically looked at as the lowest point in modern American History.
I'll take that bet ...
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Nash, again a great post.
I feel that the minority should not be able to block the majority simply because they can filibuster and overrule any vote. That's not fair in my opinion.
The people have voted and placed these people in power for a reason.
A filibuster seems very contrary to democratic vaulues.
This would be so if our government were based on pure democracy, however we are not.
I was glad that change was forced to be slow and based on more than a simple majority when the dems were in power and it concerns me a bit to see one party rule being embraced by so many in the nation now.
History shows over and over that mob rule does not work for long.
shamus
-
Originally posted by Shamus
This would be so if our government were based on pure democracy, however we are not.
I was glad that change was forced to be slow and based on more than a simple majority when the dems were in power and it concerns me a bit to see one party rule being embraced by so many in the nation now.
History shows over and over that mob rule does not work for long.
shamus
Democracy is based on the assumption that a million men are wiser than one man. How's that again? I missed something.
Autocracy is based on the assumption that one man is wiser than a million men. Let's play that over again, too. Who decides?
-
lots of younger men populate this board. Clinton is probably the first president they ever heard of and Algore the first man they ever cast a ballot for.....youth has its qualities, wisdom not being one of them.
on topic: the fillibuster should have been killed. It was a rape of logic when it started and has since become a perverted form of accepted protocol.
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
Democracy is based on the assumption that a million men are wiser than one man. How's that again? I missed something.
Autocracy is based on the assumption that one man is wiser than a million men. Let's play that over again, too. Who decides?
The problem is that pure democracy leads to autocracy more often then not.
I think thats why we were founded on a constitutionality limited republic, makes it a little tougher for the majority to jam values down the throats of the minority.
shamus
-
we may need a new political candidate qualification test.
"If he floats, he is a witch! If he drowns, he is worthy!"
-
Since we are here can any find the numbers of the number of judicial candidates that were filibustered? I heard it was a really low number. Usually the threat of filibuster was enough by itself.
and I agree with you Silat.
-
Originally posted by Krusher
Only if the left writes the history books.
Keep up the blind obedience in the face of facts. :(
I didn't specify who wrote the books. The bet is, a preponderance of all takes on this admin will call it a failure. It wont be just lefties.
The right is already leaving this radical right administrations sinking ship.
Why does the right hate our American freedoms?
-
Both the republicans and democrats are out to screw the people of this nation.
It won't matter who gets in office both are slowly going to take our rights and money away.
I would not be suprised in ten years if hate speach without violence lands you in jail.
Or that no one will be owning firearms legaly in 20.. unless they are single shot rifles for hunting.
If you think your party gives a **** about you (either one), you are fooling yourself.
Nothing will change either cause we the people are two lazy and or dumb to send them a message.
-
Originally posted by Silat
Why does the right hate our American freedoms?
spoken like a west coast hippie LOL
do something productive, go change your bong water, I can smell it from here :)
-
screw them..
Look who democrats put up as there poster bwoy....
Howard Dean...ya...Democrats arent going to win crap with him as there spokes"men"
-
Originally posted by Silat
Keep up the blind obedience in the face of facts. :(
I didn't specify who wrote the books. The bet is, a preponderance of all takes on this admin will call it a failure. It wont be just lefties.
The right is already leaving this radical right administrations sinking ship.
Why does the right hate our American freedoms?
Paranoia will destroy ya. And you got it BAD. Grab yer tinfoil, the blakc helicopters are coming.
-
Seriously, who do the Dems have that will stand a snowballs chance in hell in getting elected?
Hillary? There are not THAT many women voters to get her in
Dean? WOOOOAAAAAAHHHHHH.........and no, he will never live that down.
Kerry? He started campaigning again the day after he lost. He will not even make the Democratic nomination.
Anyone?, anyone? beuller?
They are not a DEAD party, and they will hold office again..........not for a while
John McCain just needs to sit back and not do anything stupid until the next election and he is our next President.
Tapakeg
-
Originally posted by GreenCloud
screw them..
Look who democrats put up as there poster bwoy....
Howard Dean...ya...Democrats arent going to win crap with him as there spokes"men"
You shouldnt talk about things you know nothing about. What do you know about Howard Dean other than what you saw on the TV? And how often can you count on that to be the truth?
Bah.
For the most part I'm embarassed to call myself a Democrat these days, with the party being overrun with liberal crybabies and left-wing nutjobs. Dean is none of those, but he's smart enough to use them, and smart enough to keep his distance from them too. Still, while he may not be the future of the Dem. party, at least he gives a rat's arse what happens to it and has some kind of vision to keep it afloat. I think it was Patton that said "Lead me, follow me, or get the hell out of my way." What I've always interpreted that as meaning, is sometimes someone has to make a decision, even if none of them seems right. Either have the guts to make the decision, get behind someone else who has the guts, or if you can't do it or agree with anyone else, at least get out of the way and let someone who HAS an idea have his shot. I think Dean will kick enough butt and shake things up enough to FIND the leaders we need out of that mess, and give them a common thread to bind them back together again.
Maybe I'm wrong. But I see a new generation of Democrats starting to come into things. They wont make much of a difference this next election in '06. But by 2010 I think not only will the pendulum be well on its way the other direction again, the Democratic party will be completely unlike the one you see today. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong.
-
I just want to know one thing. What the hell do they mean by "extraordinary circumstances"?
-
extraordinary circumstances= a conservative judge being nominated
-
Originally posted by Sandman
I just want to know one thing. What the hell do they mean by "extraordinary circumstances"?
One of Bush's daughters becoming a federal judge?
-
Despite being the minority party, they were able to stave off an attack on 200 years of Senate history, tradition and process.
This not correct. There is absoulutely no history of filibustering judicial nominees. You are full of crap with this sentence.
That said, I cannot see any advantage for the GOP. It is libs in GOP clothing like Mccain that need to be routed out and sent over to the other side. I find it hard to believe that he actually believes anyonce considers him a republican.
-
hey have given to the rich at our expense. Your tax rebate has cost you much much more that it was worth.
This is nonsensical spew. Give me examples.
-
What do you know about Howard Dean other than what you saw on the TV?
Well I know he has an extremely left wing voting record. does that count?
-
Originally posted by Steve
This is nonsensical spew. Give me examples.
You are Correct. Nonsensical Spew.
But; try this on for size.. (apologies for the wall of text)
One of Bush's biggest tax-cut whoppers came when he stated, during the presidential campaign, "The vast majority of my [proposed] tax cuts go to the bottom end of the spectrum." That estimate was wildly at odds with analyses of where the money would really go. A report by Citizens for Tax Justice, a liberal outfit that specializes in distribution analysis, figured that 42.6 percent of Bush's $1.6 trillion tax package would end up in the pockets of the top 1 percent of earners. The lowest 60 percent would net 12.6 percent. The New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, ABC News and NBC News all reported that Bush's package produced the results CTJ calculated.
To deal with the criticism that his plan was a boon for millionaires, Bush devised an imaginary friend--a mythical single waitress who was supporting two children on an income of $22,000, and he talked about her often. He said he wanted to remove the tax-code barriers that kept this waitress from reaching the middle class, and he insisted that if his tax cuts were passed, "she will pay no income taxes at all." But when Time asked the accounting firm of Deloitte & Touche to analyze precisely how Bush's waitress-mom would be affected by his tax package, the firm reported that she would not see any benefit because she already had no income-tax liability.
As he sold his tax cuts from the White House, Bush maintained in 2001 that with his plan, "the greatest percentage of tax relief goes to the people at the bottom end of the ladder." This was trickery--technically true only because low-income earners pay so little income tax to begin with. As the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities put it, "a two-parent family of four with income of $26,000 would indeed have its income taxes eliminated under the Bush plan, which is being portrayed as a 100 percent reduction in taxes." But here was the punch line: The family owed only $20 in income taxes under the existing law. Its overall tax bill (including payroll and excise taxes), though, was $2,500. So that twenty bucks represented less than 1 percent of its tax burden. Bush's "greatest percentage" line was meaningless in the real world, where people paid their bills with money, not percentages.
Bush also claimed his tax plan--by eliminating the estate tax, at a cost of $300 billion--would "keep family farms in the family." But, as the New York Times reported, farm-industry experts could not point to a single case of a family losing a farm because of estate taxes. Asked about this, White House press secretary Ari Fleischer said, "If you abolish the death tax, people won't have to hire all those planners to help them keep the land that's rightfully theirs." Caught in a $300 billion lie, the White House was now saying the reason to abolish the tax--a move that would be a blessing to the richest 2 percent of Americans--was to spare farmers the pain in the bellybutton of estate planning. Bush's lies did not hinder him. They helped him win the first tax-cut fight--and, then, the tax-cut battle of 2003. When his second set of supersized tax cuts was assailed for being tilted toward the rich, he claimed, "Ninety-two million Americans will keep an average of $1,083 more of their own money." The Tax Policy Center of the Brookings Institution and the Urban Institute found that, contrary to Bush's assertion, nearly 80 percent of tax filers would receive less than $1,083, and almost half would pocket less than $100. The truly average taxpayers--those in the middle of the income range--would receive $265. Bush was using the word "average" in a flimflam fashion. To concoct the misleading $1,083 figure, the Administration took the large dollar amounts high-income taxpayers would receive and added that to the modest, small or nonexistent reductions other taxpayers would get--and then used this total to calculate an average gain. His claim was akin to saying that if a street had nine households led by unemployed individuals but one with an earner making a million dollars, the average income of the families on the block would be $100,000. The radical Wall Street Journal reported, "Overall, the gains from the taxes are weighted toward upper-income taxpayers."
David Corn. From 'Mastering the Art of Deception.'
-
Interesting. This makes another pint of mine. People always complain that tax cuts are for the "wealthy". It's gotten to the point where the "wealthy" people are the only one paying taxes.
Short of actually giving people money, I'm not sure what else can be done for the bottom 60%. This of course would be socialism, reditribution of wealth. It's why dems have no answer other than to whine at Bush's tax cut. There's simply no more cutting, of any appreciable amount, for the "poor".
-
I am far from wealthy, I make under 50k a year.
I benifited from both the estake tax change and bush's tax cut.
Now you can make the argument that tax cuts right now are bad idea since we are at war, but only saying the rich got something out of it is stupid.
-
Originally posted by Steve
Interesting. This makes another pint of mine. People always complain that tax cuts are for the "wealthy". It's gotten to the point where the "wealthy" people are the only one paying taxes.
Short of actually giving people money, I'm not sure what else can be done for the bottom 60%. This of course would be socialism, reditribution of wealth. It's why dems have no answer other than to whine at Bush's tax cut. There's simply no more cutting, of any appreciable amount, for the "poor".
I wish I could find the source for the numbers that said the something like 75% of the government's income is paid by the top 10% (income wise) of the population.
I'll be honest...I make a bout 50,000 a year and end up getting 300% back from the government from my taxes...I take the money but it still doesn't seem right.
-
;)
Sometimes, the obvious is anything but.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Nash, again a great post.
I feel that the minority should not be able to block the majority simply because they can filibuster and overrule any vote. That's not fair in my opinion.
The people have voted and placed these people in power for a reason.
A filibuster seems very contrary to democratic vaulues.
Well said
I just wish my two wishy-washy moderate republican Senators (Snowe & Collins) would wake up, realize we are the majority, and do the people's business.
We won the Executive, Congress and Senate. Why must we always oblige the minority wishes? They certainly didnt when the roles were reversed.
Majority rules, nuff said.
-
how long was the recession again?
how was it turned around in such short order again?
in what admin did the decline start?
which admin pulled it outa the hole in record time even with 911 compounding the issue?
I'm sure goron & the dems would have invented something that woulda done it faster - LOL LOL LOL
-
Originally posted by Mighty1
I wouldn't say it was Bush's fault for not uniting the country.
He has tried many times to reach across the aisle only to have his hand smacked.
Huh? Why don't you list a few.
-
Originally posted by Steve
Well I know he has an extremely left wing voting record. does that count?
Extreme compared to who? I'd say for a supposed "leftist liberal" he has a fairly moderate voting record, and has in fact pissed off the liberals more than once for not being liberal enough. Granted, he has gone with the left more times than not in the past, but he was gearing up to run for president too.
-
Granted, he has gone with the left more times than not in the past
Well there ya go.
but he was gearing up to run for president too.
Ummm people running for President try to mover toward the middle for a run, not either wing. well, people that hope to win anyway. Just look at Hillary's behavior lately. thankfully, and I am thankful, enough people know her for the whackjob she is and won't vote for her.
-
hang.. you are probly right and Bush is out to get me financially in order to benifiet the rich but..
I got no choice. I like guns and Hot rods and don't like helmet or seatbelt or condom laws. I moved away from home and moms rule long ago... not gonna go back to pre teen having mom tell me what to do for my own good by voting for a democrat.
I don't feel treating everyone differently is the road to equality. I feel socialism is evil. I think all crime is "hate" crime and it shouldn't have to be mentioned.
If a few more gazzilonares get a little richer in order to keep democrats out of my life then it is worth it.
If the supreme court gets a few more judges that believe the constitution is not a "progressive document" meant to be changed with the times like bell bottoms and disco... then it indeed all worth it.
lazs
-
I don't think dems are any more 'evil' than republicans.
They both lie like rugs to further their agendas.
Time for some changes. Tax code has ta go. Flat tax corporations; fund SS, get a decent health progam in motion, get education fixed, restore common sense in the courts.
These ain't republican OR democratic agendas.. I'm tired of the high profile tease tactics of politicians on either side of the asile. It seems like a promise made is a guaranteed promise broken... regardless of who makes it.
I dunno how to fix whats wrong.. I do know it's busted. One thing that folks should consider is it doesn't matter which side of the asile a good (or bad) idea comes from. Just as soon as folks on the street drop the partisan bullchit, it'll get dropped in Washington.
Stop looking for the (r) or (d) behind a politicians name. If he makes sense and has a decent agenda, get his bellybutton into washington. If he's been there awile and keeps dropping the ball, get his bellybutton out next election.
-
Originally posted by LePaul
Majority rules, nuff said.
Not in this country. The minority has always been valued.
The majority ruled in Germany and we all know where that got them.
-
"It has become clear that The Republic no longer functions"
-
Originally posted by LePaul
Majority rules, nuff said.
By design much of what US government does requires more than a simple majority.
For example, take amending the Constitution,
Congress proposes an amendment by a 2/3 majority; 3/4 of the states ratify by simple majority votes in their state legislatures.
In that process, a simple majority only figures in at the State legislature level.
There are numerous examples and ample writing all from the Founders that show a "simple majority" was not one of their sacred cows. In fact, the evidence points the other way.
-
Originally posted by Steve
Ummm people running for President try to mover toward the middle for a run, not either wing. well, people that hope to win anyway. Just look at Hillary's behavior lately. thankfully, and I am thankful, enough people know her for the whackjob she is and won't vote for her.
Forgive the rambling nature this post will take, lots of stuff in the head (mostly junk probably) and little time today.
********
Basically I think he lied his bellybutton off because he felt the liberal guys had the strongest part of the Democrat party under their umbrella, and he wanted their support. Being moderate as a Democrat these days might keep you popular back home, but it does nothing to get you on TV. Do I think Dean has liberal tendencies? Of course. Is he perfect? No. But at least he has a spine and I think he might be just center enough to support some of the same things I do if he gets a chance. Bottom line is, he's a politician and I trust him to be what he is and nothing more. But I do believe he has an agenda under all of that, and my guess is that while I wont like part of it, I can live with it. Like I said, I could be wrong. But whats to lose? Like Bush and his buddies havent tried to take away any freedoms? I mean, we got an end to that stupid gun ban, but we gained the Patriot Act? Not much of a trade IMO. At least the gun ban was pretty much useless as far as the average gun owner was concerned. Made some nice profits for dealers and collectors. Clinton gave the anti-gun nuts something and they loved it. He also made sure it didnt really have any teeth, and set it to expire. He played it so it worked for both sides. I believe thats called "compromise". Bush doesnt know how to do that, and apparently his crew doesnt either. I hate extremists of any stripe, left or right.
-
hang... sometimes it just saves you a lot of time if you read the "r" or "d" at the end of their name.... you won't have to worry if socialism is their agenda or.... dues.. for being where they are.. You won't have to wonder where they stand on firearms rights..
You certainly won't have to wonder where they stand on school vouchers which are the only way to "fix" our bloated, worthless monoploly of a school system. You probly won't have to worry about the next batch of laws to make your car or motorcycle even more unfun.
Call me insensitive... I don't care about the rest of the crap.
lazs
-
IIRC, and I might get this a little wrong. For those of you looking for statistics... I'm going by memory here but the numbers will be close.
Divided up by quintiles...
The top 20% earned 50% of the income and paid 75% of the income tax. (2003)
The top 20% have 84% of the wealth in the country (assets, not paychecks, for those who don't know the difference). (2001)
Bottom 40% have 0% wealth. (actually, the bottom 20% have negative wealth, the next 20% almost cancel the bottom 20% out).
The wealth distribution is tremendously inequitable, even being in the top 20% of wage earners doesn't really mean you'll have much wealth. The top 10% of wage earners own 71% of the wealth, the top 5% 59%, the top 1% 33%.
Does it matter? Not at all. Hell, that is just a sign that our chosen form of government/society works. It is working as intended.
By the way, I was relatively disappointed that the Republicans chickened out of their attempt to seize control of the judiciary. That would have led to a true one party system, as no Republican would have ever lost another election of any importance. I'm sure they'll seize absolute power before the end of Bush's second term though. There really isn't any danger of the Democrats coming off the ropes any time soon, but why take chances? Better to ensure they never can.
-
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
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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!
-
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
-
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
-
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?
-
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:
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:
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
-
is there some obscure law forcing people to live those blue nanny states?