| Author |
| Posted on 2006-11-08 07:54:28 |
|
|
| Bac |
 |
 |
|
(I guess this is only significant to Americans here, but maybe some of the rest of you follow this...)
Well, it looks like the Democrats are taking control of the House of Representatives here in the U.S. I was very afraid this would happen. But I can't say I'm totally surprised. Still, for me, it's depressing.
The news media will portray this as some sort of backlash against Bush for Iraq. They will use exit polling to show this, but most of the exit polls I've seen have shown that about 36% of those voters said their votes were based on unhappiness with the Iraq situation. So that really doesn't even cover most of the Democrat votes.
But this is not the case. Although, the Iraq policy has made an impact in this election, the blame for the loss lies squarely on that of the Republicans in the Senate and Bush for failing to get control over spending (well, at least not soon enough) and a pathetic view on border security/illegal immigration. As a result of these two issues, moderate voters (even some Republicans cast votes for Democrats or some other candidate) or they simply didn't bother to vote at all.
And although I'm not a card-carrying Republican, I do tend to supprt them 95% of the time. I was really hoping fellow conservates would not make this horrible mistake of pointless protest. And it benefits the conservative cause not one bit to throw this election out the window.
For one thing, this doesn't hurt Bush. He's in office till 2008 no matter what and the Dems will not be able to make sweeping changes to all his policies even though they have a majority in the House. Second, this strategy has punished the conservatives greatest ally - the House. It is the House that blocked Bush's silly illegal immigrant amnesty act and the House that has been the most overwhelmingly conservative these last several years. Yes, Republicans still have the Senate (at least last I checked, it looks like we do), but not by much and the Senate has not been very helpful at all, despite a GOP majority.
What, then, does all this mean for the future? Well, it might be a foreshadowing of 2008. If it is, then I have great concern for the future of this nation. I shudder at the thought that we might one day hear, "President Hillary Clinton" (or perhaps worse...)
About the only positive thing that may come from this is that we may have another GOP revival (likened to that of Newt Gingrich) in another 4 to 8 years, but it might be too late by then. There is one other possible positive - since Santorum lost in Pennsylvania, maybe he could run for President in '08? He would be fine President in my opinion.
So, thanks a heap America - especially to the moderates and centrists who've once again been suckered by the main stream media. And thanks again to the Republicans and conservatives who've foolishly sacrificed our future and handed the reins of power over to the likes of Pelosi, Kennedy, Schumer, Reid, Clinton, Kerry, Obama and these other wacked out socialists.
It's a decision that many will live to regret. |
|
|
|
| Author |
| Posted on 2006-11-08 11:08:37 |
|
|
| Quetzal |
|
 |
|
seeing it from outside of USA i would say that the osbcur medieval forces which help the actual governement to survive have been well put down.. old crusaders for vengeance and punitiv'expédition are not from ours time...
georgebush & co ever seems for to be an annachronism in the world, as maybe almageniad in Iran can be.. america show us this last 6years this most awfull face. bigots, corruptions, wars, attacks from civil liberties, denegation of the human right of war prisoners, creation of concentration camps, an environemtal politics coming from a period when earth seem to be plate and big, and not small, round and fragile as we know it now.
well, for me that "amish" governement should not have been at this place, it really in opposition with the interrest of the world, of america, and espeacelly of the view that other country can have about democraty, liberty, justice and human right.. it was a shame for the free occident and ours common value.
i really hope that democrats will get the wave of the modernity where the republicans have this last 6years try to drawn america into..
it's a normal and fair victory for america, it will stop for a moment the crazy behaviour of your so powerfull country.
the world is in late from a war, as we were us french before the nazi invasion... but where is the ennemi?? terrorist?? sure we must care, but the reel ennemi is the environemtal changes wich will comes sooner than we can imagine.. they says "it'll not happened", i can heard our old dirrigents before the WWII, saying that tank and planes where not so important into wars, and that us french where well protect beside the magino's line, an ensemble of fortitification.. and you may be know what happened to us.. in 1 month tanks and planes won theses battles..
it's not that we're not knowing it, is just that we couldn't imagin it possible..
i'll really hope that democrat will do what they'have to do to securise your country against this.. it'll fucklingly difficult and hard to do, for you, and for us, and fr the world.. but if you don't belive in it, you can be sure that it'll become harder and harder to change.
just late from a war.. i'll hope the democrats will.. |
|
|
|
| Author |
| Posted on 2006-11-08 12:15:07 |
|
|
| laaran |
|
 |
|
@Bac
If it is, then I have great concern for the future of this nation. I shudder at the thought that we might one day hear, "President Hillary Clinton" (or perhaps worse...)
You don't trust Democrats.
You think they will harm your country.
OK.
These elections are for 4 years, not for eternity.
If they harm your country, people will vote for Republicans again in 4 years.
This is why we destroyed kings. So that a country can make errors, and correct them after with another election.
@Quetzal
i can heard our old dirrigents before the WWII, saying that tank and planes where not so important into wars, and that us french where well protect beside the magino's line, an ensemble of fortitification
All French leaders didn't say that.
In 1936, most wanted to prevent the nazis of occupying the Ruhr.
In 1937-8, some wanted negotiations with Stalin.
In 1940, some tanks did a pretty good job.
In 1937-8, one man ruined the discussions with Stalin.
In 1939, one man refused to attack Germany (when others wanted to support Poland)
In 1940, this man was commanding the French army. |
|
|
|
| Author |
| Posted on 2006-11-09 00:08:09 |
|
|
| Bac |
|
|
|
|
@Bac
If it is, then I have great concern for the future of this nation. I shudder at the thought that we might one day hear, "President Hillary Clinton" (or perhaps worse...)
You don't trust Democrats.
You think they will harm your country.
OK.
These elections are for 4 years, not for eternity.
If they harm your country, people will vote for Republicans again in 4 years.
This is why we destroyed kings. So that a country can make errors, and correct them after with another election.
|
Yes, you're correct that we do have this in place. Thank God for that.
But in the meantime we have a very important war on terror going on that we can't back away from. It is the greatest single threat to our way of life at this time.
I worry about what the Democrats will do with the power they now have.
Fortunately, Bush is still President and he still has power to veto any silly laws that the Dems try to pass, but I was hoping to see more good laws being created rather than having to prevent bad ones.
I hope I'm wrong, but I have this suspicion that the Republicans will nominate someone for President who is too moderate or liberal or that no matter who they nominate people will elect H. Clinton.  |
|
|
|
| Author |
| Posted on 2006-11-09 00:26:16 |
|
|
| Bac |
|
|
|
|
seeing it from outside of USA i would say that the osbcur medieval forces which help the actual governement to survive have been well put down.. old crusaders for vengeance and punitiv'expédition are not from ours time...
georgebush & co ever seems for to be an annachronism in the world, as maybe almageniad in Iran can be.. america show us this last 6years this most awfull face. bigots, corruptions, wars, attacks from civil liberties, denegation of the human right of war prisoners, creation of concentration camps, an environemtal politics coming from a period when earth seem to be plate and big, and not small, round and fragile as we know it now.
well, for me that "amish" governement should not have been at this place, it really in opposition with the interrest of the world, of america, and espeacelly of the view that other country can have about democraty, liberty, justice and human right.. it was a shame for the free occident and ours common value.
i really hope that democrats will get the wave of the modernity where the republicans have this last 6years try to drawn america into..
it's a normal and fair victory for america, it will stop for a moment the crazy behaviour of your so powerfull country.
the world is in late from a war, as we were us french before the nazi invasion... but where is the ennemi?? terrorist?? sure we must care, but the reel ennemi is the environemtal changes wich will comes sooner than we can imagine.. they says "it'll not happened", i can heard our old dirrigents before the WWII, saying that tank and planes where not so important into wars, and that us french where well protect beside the magino's line, an ensemble of fortitification.. and you may be know what happened to us.. in 1 month tanks and planes won theses battles..
it's not that we're not knowing it, is just that we couldn't imagin it possible..
i'll really hope that democrat will do what they'have to do to securise your country against this.. it'll fucklingly difficult and hard to do, for you, and for us, and fr the world.. but if you don't belive in it, you can be sure that it'll become harder and harder to change.
just late from a war.. i'll hope the democrats will.. |
We obviously have different world views. I don't see any of the things you mention coming from the Bush administration these last 6 years. ("...bigots, corruptions, wars, attacks from civil liberties, denegation of the human right of war prisoners, creation of concentration camps, an environemtal politics...") The only exceptions being some of the treatment of prisoners in Iraq, but that's about it and that didn't have anything to do with policy made by Bush.
You say we "should care" about dealing with terrorism, but that the biggest enemy is environmental change. First of all, I don't believe that there has been any evidence that people are causing global scale climate change. Especially since the earth has been hotter in the past (way before industrialization) than it is now. And even if I did believe it, that doesn't mean terrorism is not an enemy of the free world. It must be dealt with now. We can't put it off just because people are worried about the environment.
But oddly no one seems too concerned about them. Europe appears to be crumbling at the feet of fear of Islamo-facism. Again, they are afraid to recognize the true enemy of freedom and stand up to it. Instead, they look at us as the enemy while we are the only ones actually fighting this evil. It's going to be just like Nazi Germany and World War II. Unless something changes, it's just a matter of time before nations in Europe are clamoring for help from us - again. I only hope and pray it won't be too late by then. |
|
|
|
| Author |
| Posted on 2006-11-09 13:48:01 |
|
|
| Quetzal |
|
|
|
@Quetzal
i can heard our old dirrigents before the WWII, saying that tank and planes where not so important into wars, and that us french where well protect beside the magino's line, an ensemble of fortitification
All French leaders didn't say that.
In 1936, most wanted to prevent the nazis of occupying the Ruhr.
In 1937-8, some wanted negotiations with Stalin.
In 1940, some tanks did a pretty good job.
In 1937-8, one man ruined the discussions with Stalin.
In 1939, one man refused to attack Germany (when others wanted to support Poland)
In 1940, this man was commanding the French army.[/quote]
hm, laaran, if many were not saying that, if you look at the result of the blindness of our army, i'll really hope that our actual dirrigeant will not be as blind as them on the ecologic futur disaster, if they ain't do anything. |
|
|
|
| Author |
| Posted on 2006-11-09 14:54:49 |
|
|
| Quetzal |
|
|
|
|
We obviously have different world views. I don't see any of the things you mention coming from the Bush administration these last 6 years. ("...bigots, corruptions, wars, attacks from civil liberties, denegation of the human right of war prisoners, creation of concentration camps, an environemtal politics...") The only exceptions being some of the treatment of prisoners in Iraq, but that's about it and that didn't have anything to do with policy made by Bush.
|
[b]well, you don't see anything, of what i'm saying?? hm, i prefer to say nothing. if it was in france, and if we got the fourth amendement, i think that we have change of governement, with guns... civil liberties had no prize, and what have done your gov, is not far of the limit, but just beside.. a president who accept that somes man could not have a layer for defent them, and prefers military justice, is not a democrat or a republican.. few weeks ago he has accept that police interrogatory could get be violent ?? generaly that kind of thing should not happened in a democraty what torture ever exist an its a part of secret service. but when the president accept it to become "so natural" and not a real execption.. well, it's the beginig of the end..
plato ever said that the dictature ever comes after democraty, it could appears strange, but it explain that tyrans comes because democraty was ever too nice, and unable to protect itself against the will of some part of the population. take care back if you ain't see nothing..
|
You say we "should care" about dealing with terrorism, but that the biggest enemy is environmental change. First of all, I don't believe that there has been any evidence that people are causing global scale climate change. Especially since the earth has been hotter in the past (way before industrialization) than it is now. And even if I did believe it, that doesn't mean terrorism is not an enemy of the free world. It must be dealt with now. We can't put it off just because people are worried about the environment.
|
well, groenland lose every years 100 billion km3 of ice every years, since 1980 the situation was equal in the snow coming and from what was lose by this isles. an there is an other certitude, the level of the see augmet of 1, or 2 millimeter everyear.. normal?? may be i dn't think so.. if your remember the CFC wich where into fridge, then been forbiden 15years ago, then the fact of the effect of the human activities on climat is more than new than this périod by any dirrigent.. but, they if for the CFC the situation was "easy", the change of others part of our economies was too difficult and for them may be not an emergency.
now it's a certitude, and if terrorist exist and we have to care, as we've ever do, but us what can we do?? to inform people means nothing, caus it's a work fr secret service, we pay them for it.. if some do politics on it, it's that they got other intention.. there were ever terrrism around the world, and ever our secret service have do their job as the best they can. if there is a real emergency, the govs must gives them what they need to protect well us.. the fact that the population knows it mean anything, except a will to fragment the population, or to fears them in the wish to put on them specials laws without their consentement.. this is an old fashist strategy.
in fact in the case of terrorism, the fact is that terrrism exist in first, only by the information people get of it.. terrorist need to used informations to scare people, caus this is their goals. generaly the used was to inform but not to scare the populations who can do anything by itself, maybe care a little more, but only fewthings. the éssetiel of the work have to be done by secret service, it's their jobs, and not the job of population. except if politics wabt something special from their population..
|
But oddly no one seems too concerned about them. Europe appears to be crumbling at the feet of fear of Islamo-facism. Again, they are afraid to recognize the true enemy of freedom and stand up to it. Instead, they look at us as the enemy while we are the only ones actually fighting this evil. It's going to be just like Nazi Germany and World War II. Unless something changes, it's just a matter of time before nations in Europe are clamoring for help from us - again. I only hope and pray it won't be too late by then. |
well, do you really think that we don't know the divergence of point of view with muslims in europe?? lol, we fight with them and trade a long time before USA was borned. and well muslim are our neihbour too, and it's true, the fact some muslims use their religion more as a weapon than a religion is for us really problematic, because in one part faith is protect by human right but weapon are not. what is normal.. religin should stay religion, and not become weapon of mass destruction.. and i say it not only for muslims, but for some christians who call for vengence and call for a crusade in the name of god.
a war is war, and who call to war and use any weapon is a soldier before to be a beleiver. no-one can protect soldiers to be killed into a war, it's what beleivers should remember. the part of your religion wich ca be turned into a weapon, will not be considered as a part of a religion, but just as a weapon. and not be protect by human right.
if religion are here to help people in their life, we have to protect them, but if religion are made to be an help to kill, destroy and rape.. well war is war and religion, religion. beliveir and others, do your choice before hell.. no-one could accept now that some religious get of the hearts of people from their chest to give to their god, who ever this god, the best or the worst..
this point first, because all the problem of the religious(cultural) war beetwen USA and the islamic part of midle est, comes from of the real intollerance from usa and from some muslims. the best that we should do, is to stay neutral into this medieval war. but england, but spain, italy, poland, in their sillyness, have prefered to go battle wich against what we just should laugh, and wait that by the too much of blood and horrors, the faithfull, go back from their madness, and choice their own peace and humanity. go back homes to live with their wifes and their children. but they've have to do it both. or it'll never takes ends.. but this is may be the problem with religious as any fool or fanatic, only death can delivers the world from their madness. as japon in 1945(the emepor was a god on earth) religious wars do not know any ends til there no any soldiers. badly, in our times it can be really easy to stop an army of soldiers or a country in it's totality.. some should care when they call to a crusader or to a jihad, they may don't know with what they really play, we're not in the mile-aged anymore.
at last i'm happy of the coming back of the democrats because may be we will know some more about the 9/11.. i hope that all the prew have not been lose somewhere by the bush administration.. but i think that whatever they do, democrats will have real diffiulties to do this jobs.. |
|
|
|
| Author |
| Posted on 2006-11-09 15:05:44 |
|
|
| laaran |
|
|
|
the blindness of our army
This blindness of our army, this was the easy answer at the Riom trial in 1942.
And de Gaulle repeated this explanation after 1945.
But some tanks fought pretty well in 1940, and de Gaulle was not commanding these tanks.
I will not write more about this trial. It was not as bad as Hitler wanted (Hitler wanted Death sentences for the political leaders who declared the war to Germany).
But it was not the truth either.
on the ecologic futur disaster
For this disaster, I am interested, because this is a nice physic experiment.
If you want to stop it, then buy intruments, so that physicians can study what happens.
Physicians don't want to destroy the planet. but if we get few instruments, we need a more important and more dangerous reaction. |
|
|
|
| Author |
| Posted on 2006-11-09 17:15:19 |
|
|
| LORDHUMONGOUS |
|
 |
|
You have to admit the reps. kinda did themselves in. All the scandals didn't help there cause either. But hey, the people have spoken. |
|
|
|
| Author |
| Posted on 2006-11-10 19:42:36 |
|
|
|
|
seriously, do you think there's a difference?
the same bs will get done/not-done. the same raises for congress for doing nothing will get passed. no major changes will come out of this.
If a democrat is elected in next election, the same things will be done the only difference will be in it's delivery.
buck up. america has a one track mind. |
|
|
|
| Author |
| Posted on 2006-11-10 20:31:42 |
|
|
|
|
speaking of which...hear in mass there was talk on future ballots being able to write in a candidate while still voting DEM or REPUB.
essentially trying to be sure that 3rd parties never get a real vote in future elections. |
|
|
|
| Author |
| Posted on 2006-11-12 04:51:39 |
|
|
| Bac |
|
|
|
|
| You have to admit the reps. kinda did themselves in. All the scandals didn't help there cause either. But hey, the people have spoken. |
Yeah, there were some local scandals apparently with a few people, but most of which I'd never heard of. There were plenty of Reps. that weren't involved in any scandal that ended up getting the boot.
And yes, they certainly did speak. One of the silver linings (to me anyway) is that the vote actually signalled a shift further to the right. It was a loss primarily for the GOP, but not conservativism (which is my main concern). This is best illustrated by the fact that these same people who voted Democrats in also voted in favor of banning same-sex marriage and similar propositions. Very interesting. It basically shows that even the people voting for Democrats (and many voted in are moderate and even conservative Democrats) have mostly conservative values.
The big danger for me is that the Democratic leadership is made up mostly of far-left liberal extremists. |
|
|
|
| Author |
| Posted on 2006-11-12 05:05:34 |
|
|
| Bac |
|
|
|
|
well, you don't see anything, of what i'm saying?? hm, i prefer to say nothing. if it was in france, and if we got the fourth amendement, i think that we have change of governement, with guns... civil liberties had no prize, and what have done your gov, is not far of the limit, but just beside.. a president who accept that somes man could not have a layer for defent them, and prefers military justice, is not a democrat or a republican.. few weeks ago he has accept that police interrogatory could get be violent ?? generaly that kind of thing should not happened in a democraty what torture ever exist an its a part of secret service. but when the president accept it to become "so natural" and not a real execption.. well, it's the beginig of the end..
plato ever said that the dictature ever comes after democraty, it could appears strange, but it explain that tyrans comes because democraty was ever too nice, and unable to protect itself against the will of some part of the population. take care back if you ain't see nothing..
well, groenland lose every years 100 billion km3 of ice every years, since 1980 the situation was equal in the snow coming and from what was lose by this isles. an there is an other certitude, the level of the see augmet of 1, or 2 millimeter everyear.. normal?? may be i dn't think so.. if your remember the CFC wich where into fridge, then been forbiden 15years ago, then the fact of the effect of the human activities on climat is more than new than this périod by any dirrigent.. but, they if for the CFC the situation was "easy", the change of others part of our economies was too difficult and for them may be not an emergency.
now it's a certitude, and if terrorist exist and we have to care, as we've ever do, but us what can we do?? to inform people means nothing, caus it's a work fr secret service, we pay them for it.. if some do politics on it, it's that they got other intention.. there were ever terrrism around the world, and ever our secret service have do their job as the best they can. if there is a real emergency, the govs must gives them what they need to protect well us.. the fact that the population knows it mean anything, except a will to fragment the population, or to fears them in the wish to put on them specials laws without their consentement.. this is an old fashist strategy.
in fact in the case of terrorism, the fact is that terrrism exist in first, only by the information people get of it.. terrorist need to used informations to scare people, caus this is their goals. generaly the used was to inform but not to scare the populations who can do anything by itself, maybe care a little more, but only fewthings. the éssetiel of the work have to be done by secret service, it's their jobs, and not the job of population. except if politics wabt something special from their population..
well, do you really think that we don't know the divergence of point of view with muslims in europe?? lol, we fight with them and trade a long time before USA was borned. and well muslim are our neihbour too, and it's true, the fact some muslims use their religion more as a weapon than a religion is for us really problematic, because in one part faith is protect by human right but weapon are not. what is normal.. religin should stay religion, and not become weapon of mass destruction.. and i say it not only for muslims, but for some christians who call for vengence and call for a crusade in the name of god.
a war is war, and who call to war and use any weapon is a soldier before to be a beleiver. no-one can protect soldiers to be killed into a war, it's what beleivers should remember. the part of your religion wich ca be turned into a weapon, will not be considered as a part of a religion, but just as a weapon. and not be protect by human right.
if religion are here to help people in their life, we have to protect them, but if religion are made to be an help to kill, destroy and rape.. well war is war and religion, religion. beliveir and others, do your choice before hell.. no-one could accept now that some religious get of the hearts of people from their chest to give to their god, who ever this god, the best or the worst..
this point first, because all the problem of the religious(cultural) war beetwen USA and the islamic part of midle est, comes from of the real intollerance from usa and from some muslims. the best that we should do, is to stay neutral into this medieval war. but england, but spain, italy, poland, in their sillyness, have prefered to go battle wich against what we just should laugh, and wait that by the too much of blood and horrors, the faithfull, go back from their madness, and choice their own peace and humanity. go back homes to live with their wifes and their children. but they've have to do it both. or it'll never takes ends.. but this is may be the problem with religious as any fool or fanatic, only death can delivers the world from their madness. as japon in 1945(the emepor was a god on earth) religious wars do not know any ends til there no any soldiers. badly, in our times it can be really easy to stop an army of soldiers or a country in it's totality.. some should care when they call to a crusader or to a jihad, they may don't know with what they really play, we're not in the mile-aged anymore.
at last i'm happy of the coming back of the democrats because may be we will know some more about the 9/11.. i hope that all the prew have not been lose somewhere by the bush administration.. but i think that whatever they do, democrats will have real diffiulties to do this jobs.. |
Hey Quetzal, I read through your points, but honestly, I'm too tired to write responses to all this. I've responded to most of these points about 100 times on this forum before. So, please don't be mad at me for not articulating a lengthy response.
I know enough about world history to know about battles between Europe and Islam in the past. I know enough about all the global warming rhetoric that I can repeat as well as most of them can. I know that many respectable people are total pacifists and don't care to lift a finger if they see their neighbor being attacked. I understand all that. I don't agree, but I understand. etc...
Plus, I'm having some difficulty with your English (this is no offense I hope as I don't speak French at all). Anyway, I hope some good does come from this election. I really do. I want a peaceful, safer world as much as anyone else. My view on how we achieve that, however, is certainly different from others. |
|
|
|
| Author |
| Posted on 2006-11-12 05:10:53 |
|
|
| Bac |
|
|
|
|
seriously, do you think there's a difference?
the same bs will get done/not-done. the same raises for congress for doing nothing will get passed. no major changes will come out of this.
If a democrat is elected in next election, the same things will be done the only difference will be in it's delivery.
buck up. america has a one track mind. |
Unfortunately (as it is now), I do believe there is a difference. One of the first things Bush said the day after the election was that he plans on getting his illegal alien amnesty bill passed. And he very easily could now that the House is more Democrat.
Ughhh...
You're right though, as I think I mentioned earlier, on many things it won't make a big difference for a couple years since Bush can still veto. I'm going to be more concerned after the '08 election if a Democrat wins. Then you'll see some very clear differences if you seriously haven't seen them before now. |
|
|
|
| Author |
| Posted on 2006-11-12 23:57:08 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
seriously, do you think there's a difference?
the same bs will get done/not-done. the same raises for congress for doing nothing will get passed. no major changes will come out of this.
If a democrat is elected in next election, the same things will be done the only difference will be in it's delivery.
buck up. america has a one track mind. |
Unfortunately (as it is now), I do believe there is a difference. One of the first things Bush said the day after the election was that he plans on getting his illegal alien amnesty bill passed. And he very easily could now that the House is more Democrat.
Ughhh...
You're right though, as I think I mentioned earlier, on many things it won't make a big difference for a couple years since Bush can still veto. I'm going to be more concerned after the '08 election if a Democrat wins. Then you'll see some very clear differences if you seriously haven't seen them before now. |
i mean the difference between rep. and dem. are so negligible that america won't change enough to matter to most people regardless of who's in office.
for example the example i gave about keeping the two party system and making it seem like the people have a voice and choice.....
as a matter of fact i think that allowing poor politicians into office will eventually lead to such an urgent situation that people will have no choice but to DO something. |
|
|
|
| Author |
| Posted on 2006-11-19 05:43:24 |
|
|
| Bac |
|
|
|
|
i mean the difference between rep. and dem. are so negligible that america won't change enough to matter to most people regardless of who's in office.
for example the example i gave about keeping the two party system and making it seem like the people have a voice and choice.....
as a matter of fact i think that allowing poor politicians into office will eventually lead to such an urgent situation that people will have no choice but to DO something. |
I see... yeah, in some respects the differences are great, but as I said, there are enough differences that the two parties can effect change in dramatic ways.
I would prefer to have two more viable parties. The problem, in my opinion, is that one thrid party emerging is not going to work. Basically, a third and fourth party (with at least some opposing views) need to emerge about the same time. Because when it is only a third party then if it's a more conservative party it will cause conservative voters to vote for the GOP out of fear of the Democrats always winning. And vice-versa.
Still, let's face it, there are plenty of bills that would not have passed in the last six years without the GOP have control of the Executive and Legislative branch. |
|
|
|
| Author |
| Posted on 2006-12-01 20:41:03 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
@Bac
If it is, then I have great concern for the future of this nation. I shudder at the thought that we might one day hear, "President Hillary Clinton" (or perhaps worse...)
You don't trust Democrats.
You think they will harm your country.
OK.
These elections are for 4 years, not for eternity.
If they harm your country, people will vote for Republicans again in 4 years.
This is why we destroyed kings. So that a country can make errors, and correct them after with another election.
|
Yes, you're correct that we do have this in place. Thank God for that.
But in the meantime we have a very important war on terror going on that we can't back away from. It is the greatest single threat to our way of life at this time.
I worry about what the Democrats will do with the power they now have.
Fortunately, Bush is still President and he still has power to veto any silly laws that the Dems try to pass, but I was hoping to see more good laws being created rather than having to prevent bad ones.
I hope I'm wrong, but I have this suspicion that the Republicans will nominate someone for President who is too moderate or liberal or that no matter who they nominate people will elect H. Clinton. |
I totally agree with you. For those of us who want to finish the business that was started over in Iraq (why turn back now?!) having the "we should hide up our rear-ends Dems" back in the house was terrible news.
But I honestly don't think Hilary will even win the primary elections if she runs. She's more of a joke, and a loud mouth when it comes to politics, she should just keep quiet. (Even though smart people know that she wore the pants while Billy Boy was up skirts er I mean in office). I also think the dems will go with John Kerry (another dumbass that should shut his mouth, I think he's the worst Dem contender for the Presidency ever!) or John Edwards (don't like him either but he's the best choice for the dems). Now if Hilary does run it is my wish that Condi runs against her  ... I still haven't heard who from the Reps will run in 2008 tho. |
|
|
|
| Author |
| Posted on 2006-12-02 06:42:38 |
|
|
| Bac |
|
|
|
|
I totally agree with you. For those of us who want to finish the business that was started over in Iraq (why turn back now?!) having the "we should hide up our rear-ends Dems" back in the house was terrible news.
But I honestly don't think Hilary will even win the primary elections if she runs. She's more of a joke, and a loud mouth when it comes to politics, she should just keep quiet. (Even though smart people know that she wore the pants while Billy Boy was up skirts er I mean in office). I also think the dems will go with John Kerry (another dumbass that should shut his mouth, I think he's the worst Dem contender for the Presidency ever!) or John Edwards (don't like him either but he's the best choice for the dems). Now if Hilary does run it is my wish that Condi runs against her ... I still haven't heard who from the Reps will run in 2008 tho. |
I'd love it if they run Kerry again because he'd almost surely loose. No, unfortunately, I don't think the Dems are that stupid when it comes to strategy. It might be Obama (who I think would be worse than Clinton), but it's likely we might see Edwards (as you suggest) or possibly even Howard Dean again. Not sure who it's going to be yet.
I'll bet the GOP front runners will be McCain, Giulliani, and ... well, I'm not sure who else. I'd always like to see Keyes run again, but it doesn't seem likely. And the first two are not my favorites. I'd love to see Condi Rice run, but she's been saying she won't.
As for the war on terror - well - almost all of the Democrats are worthless. I think the only way the Democrats may ever stand up and fight anybody is if a big army masses up along our shores or borders and prepares to invade. Then they might do something... maybe. |
|
|
|
| Author |
| Posted on 2006-12-02 07:06:36 |
|
|
| Nickthebassist |
|
 |
|
I'm very hopeful after the results of this year's election. Corruption was running amok (Delay, Abramoff, Cunningham, Ney, etc) and there was no desire to make a change at the Defense Dept and the way the war has been run. Be depressed if you will, but things have not been going smoothly with the United States government over the past 6 years with one party in power. You would think that this type of situation would get some serious work done, but the party in power was itself divided between socially conservative elements and business minded elements. There has been no discussion of serious issues as they pertain to our people. Plus, the checks and balances of the United States government were non-existant with the Congress acting as a rubber stamp for the President. Hopefully some serious discussion will emerge and the government might actually get something done.
Hopefully both parties can return to some sort of moderate stances. Extremism from both parties is not conducive to a cohesive government that does things for the benefit of it's people. Hopefully both parties will run more moderate candidates that have a broader appeal to everyone. John McCain has sullied his maverick, Arizona conservative appeal by trying to get in bed with the Christian conservatives who were very instrumental in events of the past few years. But will those people be ready to back any candidate in light of a book by a former Bush administration staffer that said that the White House was just offering lip service to that constituency in order to gain their political support? And on the flipside, will the Democrats nominate Hillary Clinton who has a history of being a lightning rod for the conservative media? I am most certain that conservative media types like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity et al are hoping for this because they basically have a "playbook" for a Hillary Clinton candidacy.
Iraq is a much more complex issue that will remain a part of United States politics for a long time to come. Those on the left wing of the Democratic party are for immediate withdrawal. They are in the minority. Were they the majority, then PA Congressman John Murtha would have been elected to the post of House Majority Leader. Rather, another congressman with a more moderate view was elected to that post. Why? Because the war in Iraq is seen by thoughtful people in the Democratic party as the responsibility of the United States. Why? Because the United States invaded the country and is responsible for the current state of things. It is therefore the responsibility of the United States government, either Democrat or Republican, to see the process through to some reasonable conclusion. Should that conclusion mean withdrawal because the presence of US troops is leading to more violence than stability, then that may be the end result. But it currently appears that no one party has an easy answer for these complex issues. |
|
|
|
| Author |
| Posted on 2006-12-05 01:05:25 |
|
|
| Bac |
|
|
|
|
I'm very hopeful after the results of this year's election. Corruption was running amok (Delay, Abramoff, Cunningham, Ney, etc) and there was no desire to make a change at the Defense Dept and the way the war has been run. Be depressed if you will, but things have not been going smoothly with the United States government over the past 6 years with one party in power. You would think that this type of situation would get some serious work done, but the party in power was itself divided between socially conservative elements and business minded elements. There has been no discussion of serious issues as they pertain to our people. Plus, the checks and balances of the United States government were non-existant with the Congress acting as a rubber stamp for the President. Hopefully some serious discussion will emerge and the government might actually get something done.
Hopefully both parties can return to some sort of moderate stances. Extremism from both parties is not conducive to a cohesive government that does things for the benefit of it's people. Hopefully both parties will run more moderate candidates that have a broader appeal to everyone. John McCain has sullied his maverick, Arizona conservative appeal by trying to get in bed with the Christian conservatives who were very instrumental in events of the past few years. But will those people be ready to back any candidate in light of a book by a former Bush administration staffer that said that the White House was just offering lip service to that constituency in order to gain their political support? And on the flipside, will the Democrats nominate Hillary Clinton who has a history of being a lightning rod for the conservative media? I am most certain that conservative media types like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity et al are hoping for this because they basically have a "playbook" for a Hillary Clinton candidacy.
Iraq is a much more complex issue that will remain a part of United States politics for a long time to come. Those on the left wing of the Democratic party are for immediate withdrawal. They are in the minority. Were they the majority, then PA Congressman John Murtha would have been elected to the post of House Majority Leader. Rather, another congressman with a more moderate view was elected to that post. Why? Because the war in Iraq is seen by thoughtful people in the Democratic party as the responsibility of the United States. Why? Because the United States invaded the country and is responsible for the current state of things. It is therefore the responsibility of the United States government, either Democrat or Republican, to see the process through to some reasonable conclusion. Should that conclusion mean withdrawal because the presence of US troops is leading to more violence than stability, then that may be the end result. But it currently appears that no one party has an easy answer for these complex issues. |
Well said... even though I think you're off on a couple of central points. Mainly that having a GOP executive branch and a Democrat legislative is going to mean more is getting done. Instead (with the possible exception of amnesty for illegal aliens) it will be a ton of gridlock and very little will get done. The Dems may push some laws through congress, but Bush will likely veto most of them. He may be forced to sign a few of the more moderate changes, but that would more than likely be for shear political points. Personally, I would have been much happier to have a "rubber stamp" going for the GOP, but that's because I prefer GOP policy over the Dems.
I am pleased that in the last six years, Bush and the Republicans did manage to get some great things done (especially with the nomination of justices to various courts).
Not to mention some tax cuts and bills banning partial birth abortion, the patriot act, and so on.
So for me, it's been a good run, despite problems in Iraq and with terrorism overseas (notice that since 9/11 there hasn't been another terrorist attack on U.S. soil).
And yeah, Murtha didn't get the job, but Pelosi still got hers and she's hardly a moderate. Many moderate Dems did get elected, but the Democratic leadership is far-left.
Hopefully, the Democrats will have enough sense to work on stabilizing Iraq before a withdraw. If they do, then I will be very happy about that! But the kind of talk I'm hearing from them lately is not inspiring confidence in them for me.
I read an interesting preditcion on the 2008 election. You might check it out. For me it's scary, but this guy may be right. Read here. |
|
|
|
| Author |
| Posted on 2006-12-05 06:33:12 |
|
|
| Nickthebassist |
|
|
|
I have to disagree that there's been meaningful legislation or fiscal policy in the past 6 years. A ban on partial birth abortion (called that because it sounds more graphic. The accepted medical term is late term abortion) does not impact the majority of the society as it is a very rare procedure, it only grabs headlines because of it's controversial nature. The Patriot Act has only served to erode American civil liberties. The prescription drug plans have been more of a boon to the pharmaceutical industry than an easy plan for senior citizens to take part in. And the change in the bankruptcy laws has taken away rights from individuals and given more rights to lenders.
Then we can look at the economics of this administration. The administration touts a strong economy, but the bulk of the American citizens are not making all of that money. The increase in jobs is somewhat tainted, as many people have taken on multiple, low-paying jobs to make ends meet. And on that front the current Federal minimum wage is a joke.
The changes in the tax codes have benefitted the wealthy much more than anyone else. The US dollar is also incredibly weak, which diminishes it's purchase power overseas. And to top it all off the national debt has skyrocketed. No President in the history of the United States has waged a war and cut taxes before this President because it is imprudent. Yet that's been the policy of this administration. And when you factor in that American debt is highly centralized between China and Japan, the American economy is in a precarious position. Should China decide that they want to be a dominant world power, all they would need to do is dump all of their US Treasury bonds and they could leave the US economy in ruins.
Contrast this with what the Democrats have espoused economically and it's a very different picture. Clinton heavily advocated a strong dollar policy. Clinton worked the debt down considerably and had the nation working on a surplus. And the Democrats have advocated more fiscal responsibility, ie paying our bills, and not working on credit, ala the deficit spending that the current administration has been doing. And continuing to spend at this pace will only serve to weaken the strength of the US dollar.
The added benefit to a Democratic Congress is going to be transparency in the US government. For instance what happened in this Energy summit that was chaired by the Vice President and kept secret? Congressional oversight is also going to look into how the war has been run in a more thorough manner. This is incredibly important, especially in light of the secret Rumsfeld memos that have been revealed in the past day or so.
As for the lack of terrorist attacks in the US, that seems to be due to efforts overseas rather than at home. There was a startling report on the inefficiencies of the FBI's Counterterrorism division that ran on NBC tonight. Read more about that in this article: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16042604/ |
|
|
|
| Author |
| Posted on 2006-12-06 05:35:57 |
|
|
| Bac |
|
|
|
|
I have to disagree that there's been meaningful legislation or fiscal policy in the past 6 years. A ban on partial birth abortion (called that because it sounds more graphic. The accepted medical term is late term abortion) does not impact the majority of the society as it is a very rare procedure, it only grabs headlines because of it's controversial nature. The Patriot Act has only served to erode American civil liberties. The prescription drug plans have been more of a boon to the pharmaceutical industry than an easy plan for senior citizens to take part in. And the change in the bankruptcy laws has taken away rights from individuals and given more rights to lenders.
Then we can look at the economics of this administration. The administration touts a strong economy, but the bulk of the American citizens are not making all of that money. The increase in jobs is somewhat tainted, as many people have taken on multiple, low-paying jobs to make ends meet. And on that front the current Federal minimum wage is a joke.
The changes in the tax codes have benefitted the wealthy much more than anyone else. The US dollar is also incredibly weak, which diminishes it's purchase power overseas. And to top it all off the national debt has skyrocketed. No President in the history of the United States has waged a war and cut taxes before this President because it is imprudent. Yet that's been the policy of this administration. And when you factor in that American debt is highly centralized between China and Japan, the American economy is in a precarious position. Should China decide that they want to be a dominant world power, all they would need to do is dump all of their US Treasury bonds and they could leave the US economy in ruins.
Contrast this with what the Democrats have espoused economically and it's a very different picture. Clinton heavily advocated a strong dollar policy. Clinton worked the debt down considerably and had the nation working on a surplus. And the Democrats have advocated more fiscal responsibility, ie paying our bills, and not working on credit, ala the deficit spending that the current administration has been doing. And continuing to spend at this pace will only serve to weaken the strength of the US dollar.
The added benefit to a Democratic Congress is going to be transparency in the US government. For instance what happened in this Energy summit that was chaired by the Vice President and kept secret? Congressional oversight is also going to look into how the war has been run in a more thorough manner. This is incredibly important, especially in light of the secret Rumsfeld memos that have been revealed in the past day or so.
As for the lack of terrorist attacks in the US, that seems to be due to efforts overseas rather than at home. There was a startling report on the inefficiencies of the FBI's Counterterrorism division that ran on NBC tonight. Read more about that in this article: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16042604/ |
Well... obviously you've touched on several different subjects which I'm not sure how much we want to get into here.
It's sounds more to me like you disagree with the legislation rather disagreeing on whether or not "meaningful" legislation has been passed. From your comments, it sounds to me like it has been "meaningful" to you in some way - just not in a good way.
As for the specific legislation, again, those are all seperate issues. But alright...
I'll make the point that if you want to call partial-birth abortion, "late term", then that's fine. It doesn't change what it is. Specifically, the legislation is referring to baby that is partially delivered through the vagina. In most cases, the baby's head is still inside the mother and the head/brain is punctured at that time - killing the baby. Thus the term - "partial-birth abortion".
I concede the point that this an uncommon procedure, nevertheless, if it saves the lives of a few defenseless babies, then I'm all for it.
There is nothing contained in the patriot act that erodes civil liberties. The ACLU and some others have pushed this falsehood on the American public. The primary purpose of the Patriot Act is to dismantle the walls of communication between various law enforcement agenies that existed prior to 9/11.
The ability of these agencies to share information has already saved lives. The terrorist plot to blow-up the Brooklyn Bridge is good example of where the Patriot Act made a big difference.
I'm not all that familiar with the specifics regarding any federal prescription drug plans. As a matter of principle, I prefer that the federal government have as little as possible to do with private health care companies. However, one could make a case to protect American drug companies since they spend millions on research and come up with the drugs that help people. So they need lots of money to do the research.
I've heard this arguement before that the low-unemployment rate is misleading because the jobs people are taking are low-wage. However, this simply is not true.
Wages across the board are up.
As for minimum wage - one can make a very strong case for no minimum wage. Which I would certainly prefer to raising it. But even with the current minimum wage, less than 4% of people working are making minimum wage and the majority of those people are teens and other people taking on temporary jobs.
Well, this can go on and on... but anyway... that's why I'm pretty satisfied with the previous six years under Bush. That's not to say I'm 100% happy with everything. (Spending, for example.) |
|
|
|
| Author |
| Posted on 2006-12-06 20:42:16 |
|
|
| laaran |
|
|
|
Well, this can go on and on... but anyway... that's why I'm pretty satisfied with the previous six years under Bush.
This is a good reason to change.
You change during 4 years, and in 4 years, you can compare with more knowledge and more wisdom.
I know, 4 years can be long. Knowledge has a price. |
|
|
|
| Author |
| Posted on 2006-12-07 01:47:50 |
|
|
| Bac |
|
|
|
|
Well, this can go on and on... but anyway... that's why I'm pretty satisfied with the previous six years under Bush.
This is a good reason to change.
You change during 4 years, and in 4 years, you can compare with more knowledge and more wisdom.
I know, 4 years can be long. Knowledge has a price. |
Hmmm... not necessarily. Change is certainly not always good. I'd have been happier if the Senate had changed to become more conservative, but that didn't happen.
I'm sure some of will grow wiser with time, no matter who is in charge. And there may be very big price for some change or for knowledge. But I'm not concerned that I or others won't grow more knowledgable in four years. I'm concerned about what price we will pay in that time. Four years may result in too high a price for all of us. Hopefully and probably not, but I'd prefer not to take that chance.
The best reason to change, then, is to change what is not good. If something is good, then why change to something that isn't? |
|
|
|
| Author |
| Posted on 2006-12-07 04:54:18 |
|
|
| Nickthebassist |
|
|
|
|
I'll make the point that if you want to call partial-birth abortion, "late term", then that's fine. It doesn't change what it is. Specifically, the legislation is referring to baby that is partially delivered through the vagina. In most cases, the baby's head is still inside the mother and the head/brain is punctured at that time - killing the baby. Thus the term - "partial-birth abortion".
I concede the point that this an uncommon procedure, nevertheless, if it saves the lives of a few defenseless babies, then I'm all for it.
|
The issue that people should be taking with this whole matter is the people who are doing the legislating on this particular issue. The majority of the people voting on this issue are older, white, male and reasonably affluent. Those are the majority stats of the people voting on this issue. The issue of legal abortion does not directly affect the lives of these people save as an election year issue.
Now if you look at the people who have to resort to these procedures, you will find very different circumstances. You will find them to be much less well off financially and in most cases when this procedure is done at this late stage it is to protect the health of the mother. The people who are using this procedure as birth control? Well you can come to your own moral conclusion about that. And I would guess that a fair number of Doctors would be opposed to that type of procedure as well.
What disturbs me about this is that the Congress is taking it upon themselves to inject their morality into the issue. The whole point of choice is that people should be permitted to have the choice to make this decision. You are going to find that the majority of people in these circumstances are going to make a well reasoned decision whether you agree with it or not. The point here is that you should have the freedom to exercise your own morality. But taking away that choice via legislation is effectively stripping women of their reproductive freedom, and I find any such infringement on freedom to be very much against the best ideals of America. |
|
|
|