|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
 Posted - 11/07/2006 : 08:36:19 [Permalink]
|
OI said:
quote:
If the problem is the concentration of power contrary to checks-and-balances, which I agree there is, then the short-term solution is moot, as both sides are either trying to gain power, or push responsibility off. The powers given Bush were a stroke of genius for the Congress. They got to let the President declare war, and can pass the blame. If it went well, they could smirk and say what a good job they did.
There is a well constructed plan being carried out to centralize as much power in the hands of the president as possible.
It is utter naivety to think that both parties are responsible for this.
Only the republicans are to blame. It has been the goal of the neocon think tanks that support Bush, they created the plan, and they implemented it. Cheney, Rumsfeld, et.al. are members of those think tanks (i.e. Project For A New American Century) and have been instrumental in the push for power consolidation and the expansion of the authority of the federal government.
The democrats had nothing to do with this, and it is wrong of you to claim they did.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
 |
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 11/07/2006 : 09:44:59 [Permalink]
|
It might be helpful to think of it this way. The neo-cons are a new party, in a way. But they identify as republicans. For the sake of party unity, I bet many republicans have gone along with the program even though much of what the neo-cons are about goes against the traditional republican agenda.
The damage they have done is out there for everyone to see. No point in making yet another list of the wrong headed decisions that is the hallmark of the disaster that the Bush administration has been. That has been done several times on this forum.
Short-term solutions are never best case. But this administration needs to be forced to compromise or have their worst offerings rejected. As a matter of practicality, a democratic congress is the only choice in the current situation.
Shit happens…
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Fripp
SFN Regular
USA
727 Posts |
Posted - 11/07/2006 : 10:01:39 [Permalink]
|
This election cycle would be humorous if it weren't so sad. Here in PA, other than the Santorum/Casey election (which it looks like Santorum wil lose...YIPPEE!), my Representative race is between incumbent Jim Gerlach and Lois Murphy. The local ads run by the RNC against Murphy are amazing: "Lois Murphy is too extreme. An example of her 'extremeness'? Well, for one, she'd vote for Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House!"
I mean, "GASP!". Somehow, this scares people.
I still can't figure out how Pelosi got so demonized. I have no doubt that if I asked the Joe Six-pack public what exactly was soooo liberal and extreme about Pelosi, they couldn't name one thing. Or, at least, one accurate thing. |
"What the hell is an Aluminum Falcon?"
"Oh, I'm sorry. I thought my Dark Lord of the Sith could protect a small thermal exhaust port that's only 2-meters wide! That thing wasn't even fully paid off yet! You have any idea what this is going to do to my credit?!?!"
"What? Oh, oh, 'just rebuild it'? Oh, real [bleep]ing original. And who's gonna give me a loan, jackhole? You? You got an ATM on that torso LiteBrite?" |
|
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
Posted - 11/07/2006 : 10:20:00 [Permalink]
|
| Pelosi = woman, west coast, against bush, against war = raging liberal and death to america. |
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
|
|
|
Fripp
SFN Regular
USA
727 Posts |
Posted - 11/07/2006 : 10:48:45 [Permalink]
|
Wow. Thanks Pleco. It's just so crystal clear now. She IS evil! And a vote for Lois Murphy is, in fact, a vote for Nancy Pelosi, which emboldens the terrorists (who are undoubtedly watching CNN and hoping that Murphy and Casey win over Gerlach and Santorum), which, in turn becomes a vote to clear the way for Satan's return. Yikes!
The scary thing is, I am sure that many many devout Republicans probably think this way.
|
"What the hell is an Aluminum Falcon?"
"Oh, I'm sorry. I thought my Dark Lord of the Sith could protect a small thermal exhaust port that's only 2-meters wide! That thing wasn't even fully paid off yet! You have any idea what this is going to do to my credit?!?!"
"What? Oh, oh, 'just rebuild it'? Oh, real [bleep]ing original. And who's gonna give me a loan, jackhole? You? You got an ATM on that torso LiteBrite?" |
|
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
Posted - 11/07/2006 : 10:53:37 [Permalink]
|
Glad I could help! 
I agree - I know some republicans (in my family) that think this way...when pressed they can't give clear reasons other than what I put. |
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
|
|
|
Original_Intent
SFN Regular
USA
609 Posts |
Posted - 11/07/2006 : 13:05:14 [Permalink]
|
OK, actual discourse. Thank you too......
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox
Original Intent wrote: quote:
And they cry fear-mongering..... Or has she given up hope for a Democratic President in 2 years already?
Well that's a pathetic comparison. The Republicans hyping up fear of terrorism is a bit higher on the charts than Nancy Pelosi's inspiring fear that the USA will be involved in Iraq for 10 more years.
Terroism is a real issue. I don't think there is enough fear of it. Too many ants, not enough grasshoppers. Too much wasted on issues on both sides, not enough for the people.
quote:
quote:
Freak show.... I thought that was the Democrat National Convention with Sharpton, Jackson, and Dean........
Yeah, having black politicians who are well accepted by blacks and rigorously try to put black concerns regarding urban poverty in the limelight - real freak show. Jesse Jackson is a civil rights leader and strong voice for the religious Left, something noble and badly needed to help counter the religious Right. Sharpton has shown he's willing to personally progress in his values by now working to get rid of homophobia in black religious communities, and supporting gay marriage. God forbid the Democrats showcase political figures who are actually in touch with most black Americans! And Dean, exactly how is he a freak show? He was one of the minority Dems who actually voted against the war. The man has strong principles that he's willing to fight like a pitbull for - good! So, what, he's a freak show because for a second he displayed emotion in an unattractive way during a primary that he otherwise might have won? Give me a break, man. If you are going to criticize these people, actual criticize them for something substantial.
The defence of Dean is good. I just threw him in their for the test. You are the first to approach each "rant" point-for-point. Dean's biggest problem is his big mouth.
The problem with Jackson and Sharpton is that they want their issues above all else, no matter what the problems it causes They shoot of their mouths when they should shut the hell up, and keep quiet when they should speak out. Sharpton is a scumbag. He can act like he is reformed and what not, but I still have not seen a condemnaton or apology for his past actions.
quote:
quote:
She dosen't need any help from Bush to make her liberalism a national issue.
No issues or sentiments mentioned by Pelosi in that article were radically liberal. She criticized tax breaks for the rich and screwing over of the middle class. She mostly criticized the war with Iraq. Other issues mentioned: raise the minimum wage (something many states have already done on their own, so not exactly a big controversial issue), cut interest rates on student loans (oooo, real controversially extremist liberal there!), roll back subsidies to oil companies (what, not subsidize oil companies that are making record-breaking profits! That commie-bitch!), boost stem cell research (commie-bitch murderess!) Oh, wait, most Americans support that issue too. So how is she flaunting her radical liberalism?
Whoa, chill out... More logos, less pathos.
Pelosi is stace on abortion and gun-control, both of which I disagree with were not mentioned, but still obvious.
States raising the minimu wage is good. The Feds have no place in it.
I hope they roll-back subsudues on all the corporations, and welfare on the individual as well. However, I do not like her, or anyone, wanting to place an excess profits tax. There are rules in place about price-gouging that need to be followed when needed, but no new law needed here.
Stem-cell research...... That is something I cannot argue about at this time.
quote:
quote:
Integrity of the count??? Or again, do the dems cheat better with the electronic votes........ Or.... "If we lose, we'll cry foul."
Perhaps she is referencing the evidence of mostly Republican-favored fanagling with the vote in Ohio that was written about extensively in Rolling Stone magazine last year. Or that in 2000, elderly Jews in Florida screwing up their ballets were denied a recount and the Supreme Court gave the election to Bush despite Gore winning the popular vote and the electoral being a little too close for comfort.
Yes, the Dems will cheat if they can when they are in power. In and around Philly they have done tons of gerrymandering. But I don't see how Pelosi is being especially liberal in this accusation when the Republicans are the ones in power, and lately, the ones being more corrupt about the vote. Pelosi isn't being uber-liberal here, she's being a good politician.
Cheating is cheating, is cheating. They all did it, they all broke laws to do it. Unlike many people who only want to harrass and condemn one side, I want to punish each and every individual that is involved, regardlees of party affiliation.
quote:
quote:
Diplomacy, yeah right. Real diplomacy I could go for, but appeasment is her brand.
Appeasement to who? Iraqis want us out. Americans more and more want us out. I want us out! Good for Pelosi for making Iraq pull-out a priority!
Lets just abandon them? We screwed it up, so run from the responsibility?
quote:
If I were to "game my vote" (which is abhoring to me), I would have to vote for a Republican to stop this women cold.[/quote] Stop her from getting us out of Iraq, promoting stem cell research, raising the minimum wage, etc.? Um, and why would you want to stop her from doing those things?[/quote][/quote |
| Edited by - Original_Intent on 11/07/2006 13:10:37 |
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 11/07/2006 : 13:26:48 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Lets just abandon them? We screwed it up, so run from the responsibility?
According to polls 61% of the Iraqis approve of attacks on Americans.
Lets just keep up the killing until we teach them the meaning of freedom....
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
Original_Intent
SFN Regular
USA
609 Posts |
Posted - 11/07/2006 : 13:45:50 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox
OI wrote: quote:
Once again, you defend rottenes because it is not as rotten as the current situation.
I didn't have all that much of an opinion on Nancy Pelosi until recently because of so much talk about her being a potential Speaker of the House. I checked out her record on Wikipedia, and I loved what I saw. She is a strong liberal, and fights for all the issues I care about most (good health care, church-state separation, and civil rights especially for gays and immigrants), but she is hardly an extremists. She does frequently draw the line and is willing to compromise. For example, “she voted for the Unborn Victims of Violence Act in 2001 that makes it a federal crime to commit violence against a pregnant woman that interrupts or terminates her pregnancy but voted against it in 2004 when it was reintroduced with a new definition of a violent attack on a pregnant woman as two distinct crimes: one against the woman herself, and the other against her fetus.” Another example, while she favors a lot of gun control, “she did vote against the bill that would make background checks at a gun show mandatory and she did vote against the Gun Ban Real Act that sets the mandatory minimum prison sentence for possession of a firearm to 5 years in prison for possession of a firearm while committing a crime and 10 years in prison for brandishing a firearm while committing a violent federal crime or drug trafficking.”
(References: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nancy_Pelosi#Record)
Most of which is why I think she, and a lot of others suck......
Universal Health Care is a pipe-dream. Show me where you think that the leaders are going to raise the lower class to a higher standard of care, or lower the middle-class to meet halfway in-between. The money is there for health care, it just needs to be spent more wisely. The system they want is just another layer of beuracracy to waste more of the dollars when too much of it is already wasted. If they can fix what we have under the current system, which they can, then why change to a new system that will not improve health care for everyone?
Jefferson's "Wall seperating church and state" is a leftist myth. If he meant a solid, inpenitrable wall, why then was there not a cry from the founding fathers when one of Washingtons' first moves as a president was to appoint a national chaplin. Why would Jefferson mean a wall like that when, as president, he gave federal money and land to Christian Chirches?
Congress shall make no laws in regards to ESTABLISHING a religion, nor free exercise thereof.----- If a law establishes a reigion, or inhibits free exercise thereof, it is unconstitutional. Can't say Christianity is the national religion, can't say Isalam is outlawed.
My biggest issue however, is the Second Amendmnet, as it gives the people the power to protect themselves and the rest of the amendments. Although I do not envision an armed revolution, (unless things got a whole lot worse), the threat of it could help deter things getting a whole lot worse. Sure, tons of people will turn them in, but just 1% of them keepng them, and starting armed resistence would be enough to screw things up to bad for the powers as not to be worth it.
I am not a one issue voter either, nor a one-party voter, although it would be really hard for me to vote for someone wanting to limit the second amendment. I always try to vote for the best man I can, and rant out my pissing points before going to the polls to prey to Logos.
I hope to send my blue-dog Democra |
|
|
|
Original_Intent
SFN Regular
USA
609 Posts |
Posted - 11/07/2006 : 14:51:50 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dude
OI said:
quote:
If the problem is the concentration of power contrary to checks-and-balances, which I agree there is, then the short-term solution is moot, as both sides are either trying to gain power, or push responsibility off. The powers given Bush were a stroke of genius for the Congress. They got to let the President declare war, and can pass the blame. If it went well, they could smirk and say what a good job they did.
There is a well constructed plan being carried out to centralize as much power in the hands of the president as possible.
It is utter naivety to think that both parties are responsible for this.
Only the republicans are to blame. It has been the goal of the neocon think tanks that support Bush, they created the plan, and they implemented it. Cheney, Rumsfeld, et.al. are members of those think tanks (i.e. Project For A New American Century) and have been instrumental in the push for power consolidation and the expansion of the authority of the federal government.
The democrats had nothing to do with this, and it is wrong of you to claim they did.
That is nieve and short-term thinking. If that is the case, then the concentraters, and the ones that allow the concentration are both openly conspiring to do so. Why would they do that, knowing they could very well hand the power back?
It is just like the legislation from the bench. It is only good when your side wants it, bad when the other side wants it.
It takes both parties to usurp the constitution. The Democrats allowed it by either voting for it, or not screaming loud enough and not bringing enough lawsuits to stop it.
Or maybe they are just going to pick up the game when Bush is done.
I would probably have a heart attack if President Gore/Clinton/Whoever said "Oh, this is too much power, and I am not supposed to have it.....
I look forwad to a long life.
Peace
Joe
|
|
|
|
Original_Intent
SFN Regular
USA
609 Posts |
Posted - 11/07/2006 : 14:56:48 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Fripp
This election cycle would be humorous if it weren't so sad. Here in PA, other than the Santorum/Casey election (which it looks like Santorum wil lose...YIPPEE!), my Representative race is between incumbent Jim Gerlach and Lois Murphy. The local ads run by the RNC against Murphy are amazing: "Lois Murphy is too extreme. An example of her 'extremeness'? Well, for one, she'd vote for Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House!"
I mean, "GASP!". Somehow, this scares people.
I still can't figure out how Pelosi got so demonized. I have no doubt that if I asked the Joe Six-pack public what exactly was soooo liberal and extreme about Pelosi, they couldn't name one thing. Or, at least, one accurate thing.
That would be easy for Joe-six pack 'round here:
She don't like my guns.... I ainta votin' fer her......
Lotsa rural Joe six-packs around here and elsewhere who don't like the thought of gun-control in anyway.
Actually, that is only half true. Democrats in general want there guns, and they woudn't believe it if they said and voted for them......
Typical right-wing nieve pollity.
Peace
Joe
Peace
Joe |
|
|
|
Original_Intent
SFN Regular
USA
609 Posts |
Posted - 11/07/2006 : 15:01:09 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by furshur
quote:
Lets just abandon them? We screwed it up, so run from the responsibility?
According to polls 61% of the Iraqis approve of attacks on Americans.
Lets just keep up the killing until we teach them the meaning of freedom....
I haven't seen these polls, or the polls claiming the oppissite. I don't care much for polls. I am sure something can be done, short of bailling out on them to be slaughtered. That is the compromise that the winners of this and the next election need to work on. How the hell do we disengage without abandonment?
If the poll is correct then we abandon a third of the people?
Peace
Joe |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 11/07/2006 : 20:00:09 [Permalink]
|
House Minority Leader Hastert... It's sad, sad, sad......
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 11/07/2006 : 23:04:20 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Original_Intent
OK, actual discourse.
Hey! I thought I was trying to engage in "actual discourse!" Don't I count?!
Really, if Pelosi is just another part of the overall problem as you see it, OI, then her stance on any individual plank in any party's platform is irrelevant - unless the plank is Federalism. Abortion, health care, the poor, immigration, Iraq (etc.) are all meaningless so long as the Feds have so much power, right? So why bother going "point by point" in response to your OP?
Does that pass your test? 
I don't have a lot of time right now - and I will back up to respond to other stuff later - but I wanted to address one other item of yours:quote:
My biggest issue however, is the Second Amendmnet, as it gives the people the power to protect themselves and the rest of the amendments.
I think if things get so bad as to require an armed response to our own government, the Amendments (and the whole Constitution) are at that point moot. I mean that I can't envision that there would be an armed response unless our "elected leaders" decide to nullify the Constitution, or at least huge slabs of it. At which point, even the Second Amendment would be worthless.
And so far as I'm aware, the only people who equate "gun control" with turning in firearms are knee-jerk reactionaries who buy into the slippery-slope arguments that any amount of gun control inevitably leads to Hitler's Germany (and it's funny that fascism isn't an extreme of liberalism, it's an extreme of conservatism - leftists are commies, after all, and the Russians fought with us against Hitler). |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 11/07/2006 : 23:07:22 [Permalink]
|
OI said:
quote:
It takes both parties to usurp the constitution. The Democrats allowed it by either voting for it, or not screaming loud enough and not bringing enough lawsuits to stop it.
That, Joe, is complete bullshit.
The republicans had a majority in the house, senate, and they control the executive. They can do anything they want, and they proved they were petty enough about getting their own way that they treatened to eliminate unlimited debate from the senate if they were thwarted.
You are just in denial. You're pretty obviously not a democrat, and are having problems admitting that the dems are an obviously superior choice this year.
quote:
I would probably have a heart attack if President Gore/Clinton/Whoever said "Oh, this is too much power, and I am not supposed to have it.....
Power willingly surrendered to the government almost always has to be won back with blood. Obviously no exec is likely to give up any power willingly.
But the republicans are to blame.
They are also to blame for the largest expansion of the federal government since the depression, for doubling the national debt (from 4T to 8T) in six years, for the greatest expansion of federal power, and reduction in states power, EVER, for stripping a group of people of their right to habeus corpus and due process, and for policies and laws passed that shit all over conservative values.
But I'd bet my last dollar that you voted republican today.
Denial, not just a river in Egypt.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
