4 words for Democrats to win White House

[Crowley]

Why isn't Osama dead?

[Sally Sensational]

Why isn't Osama dead?

What if he is and they haven't told us yet so that they can continue the "war on terror"?

Just a question.

Personally, I think the right question (as it relates to every damn thing right now) is:

Why am I paying $3 a gallon for gasoline?

[Crowley]

What if he is and they haven't told us yet so that they can continue the "war on terror"?

Just a question.[/B]
I agree, keeping the populace paralyzed in terror was/is the plan.

So it's time to call them on their bluff.

[Lester C.]

You scared me for a second there. I first read the sentence why isn't Obama dead yet? I thought you were going to make the point that if Obama, a black man, gets the nomination it's going to cost the Democrats state and local elections.

[darkhanamaru]

You scared me for a second there. I first read the sentence why isn't Obama dead yet? I thought you were going to make the point that if Obama, a black man, gets the nomination it's going to cost the Democrats state and local elections.

I had the same reaction!

[David Wharton]

Why isn't Osama dead?

4 words which mean that won't be a Democratic plan of attack.

Because Bill bottled it

Clinton had Osama located and all he had to do was authorise an air strike to kill the fanatic, but he decided no to.

If Hillary is the nominee they will NOT want to attack through this avenue as it will tar the Clintons at least as much as any Republican candidate.

[Lester C.]

4 words which mean that won't be a Democratic plan of attack.

Because Bill bottled it

Clinton had Osama located and all he had to do was authorise an air strike to kill the fanatic, but he decided no to.

If Hillary is the nominee they will NOT want to attack through this avenue as it will tar the Clintons at least as much as any Republican candidate.

You act like it was Clinton who was in charge on September 11.

[Crowley]

You scared me for a second there. I first read the sentence why isn't Obama dead yet? I thought you were going to make the point that if Obama, a black man, gets the nomination it's going to cost the Democrats state and local elections.

I think Obama is a great candidate... but like Hilary I'm uncertain whether the rest of the country is yet willing to elect a black man or a woman, but I think we're edging closer.

I think Obama would be smart to start getting more aggressive against Bush and Cheney, the war, and the fear Americans feel right now.

[Crowley]

4 words which mean that won't be a Democratic plan of attack.

Because Bill bottled it

Clinton had Osama located and all he had to do was authorise an air strike to kill the fanatic, but he decided no to.

If Hillary is the nominee they will NOT want to attack through this avenue as it will tar the Clintons at least as much as any Republican candidate.

Oh that's bullshit. At the time Clinton wanted to strike Afghanistan, the Republicans were busy investigating a blowjob.

Furthermore, if you believe Bush's rhetoric and 9/11 changed everything... and "Wanted Dead or Alive!" then where's Bin Laden?

He's had 7 years.

[Lester C.]

I think Obama is a great candidate... but like Hilary I'm uncertain whether the rest of the country is yet willing to elect a black man or a woman, but I think we're edging closer.

I think Obama would be smart to start getting more aggressive against Bush and Cheney, the war, and the fear Americans feel right now.

Race aside, I don't think Obama is ready yet. I truly feel that he can be a great American President, but he and the country need to evolve a bit before it happens. If that mutual evolution occurs Obama is by far and away the best chance black people have for seeing a member of their race in the white house.

[David Wharton]

You act like it was Clinton who was in charge on September 11.

I don't, that is Bush's cross to bear and he has to take responsibility for it.

Reminding everyone of Bill's decision not to kill Osama in 1995 is what will happen if the Dems decide to use that line to hurt the Republicans in the election.

That will hurt Hillary IMO at least as much as any Republican nominee so they won't use it in the campaign.

Why attack on an issue where you are open to such a savage counter punch. It just doesn't make political sense to me.

[Crowley]

I don't, that is Bush's cross to bear and he has to take responsibility for it.

Reminding everyone of Bill's decision not to kill Osama in 1995 is what will happen if the Dems decide to use that line to hurt the Republicans in the election.

That will hurt Hillary IMO at least as much as any Republican nominee so they won't use it in the campaign.

Why attack on an issue where you are open to such a savage counter punch. It just doesn't make political sense to me.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4PGmnz5Ow-o

It's not a savage counter punch... 9/11 happened AFTER Clinton had left the White House.

Trying to paint Clinton responsible for 9/11 is laughable especially when we have this from the 9-11 commission "Presidential Daily Briefing by the CIA from August 6, 2001, titled "Bin Laden determined to attack inside the US":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N7fQcQdMoxo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2HJ0jmGiiFs

[BnL]

What if he is and they haven't told us yet so that they can continue the "war on terror"?

Just a question.

Personally, I think the right question (as it relates to every damn thing right now) is:

Why am I paying $3 a gallon for gasoline?

I wouldn't be shocked if Bin Laden was "miraculously" found and killed on the eve of the election.

[Tyr]

What if he is and they haven't told us yet so that they can continue the "war on terror"?

Just a question.

Personally, I think the right question (as it relates to every damn thing right now) is:

Why am I paying $3 a gallon for gasoline?

Better, why are we still dependent on foreign oil?

[Crowley]

I wouldn't be shocked if Bin Laden was "miraculously" found and killed on the eve of the election.

I thought that was going to happen in 2004.

[Lester C.]

Better, why are we still dependent on foreign oil?

As much as I'd like to blame Bush, whose family is heavily invested in oil, the fact is that we've known for decades now that sooner or later oil was going to run out and we were going to go into crisis. Like social security every president has avoided nonrenewable resources slowly running out think that it's going to be the next guy's problem so why bother?

[bert]

I wouldn't be shocked if Bin Laden was "miraculously" found and killed on the eve of the election.

they don't need to.

the Republicans are going to allow the bill that the House just passed (to add "gay" to the Employment Protections), to fester. . and utilize that to get the Religious vote out.

I've already seen stories about how "this is going to open the door so that Christians will not be able to keep Bibles on their desks w/out being accused of creating a hostile work place".

[Lester C.]

they don't need to.

the Republicans are going to allow the bill that the House just passed (to add "gay" to the Employment Protections), to fester. . and utilize that to get the Religious vote out.

I've already seen stories about how "this is going to open the door so that Christians will not be able to keep Bibles on their desks w/out being accused of creating a hostile work place".

Not that I need to point this out to you Bert, but people using hatred of gays to further their political ambition and agenda is a global problem not limited to the Republican party.:(

[David Wharton]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4PGmnz5Ow-o

It's not a savage counter punch... 9/11 happened AFTER Clinton had left the White House.

Trying to paint Clinton responsible for 9/11 is laughable especially when we have this from the 9-11 commission "Presidential Daily Briefing by the CIA from August 6, 2001, titled "Bin Laden determined to attack inside the US":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N7fQcQdMoxo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2HJ0jmGiiFs

I didn't try to paint Clinton responsible for 9/11. I never once said that or even implied it. Too much happened between 1995 and 2001 for it to be laid at his door. But he had a chance to kill Osama and turned it down, if he knew 9/11 was going to happen he would have killed the fucker using the biggest nuclear bomb he had.

But he didn't and he had the chance, would it have prevented 9/11 probably not, but it might have done and that is why it would be politcally dangerous to use a "Why isn't Osama dead?" line in an election. Secondly they would have to bring him to justice in the opening term otherwise in 4 years time it would become a rallying cry for the Republicans.

It sucks as a politcal slogan like "Read my lips, no new taxes." did and would create more problems than it would solve for a Hillary administration.

They won't use it, IMO one way or another it would be political suicide.

[bert]

Not that I need to point this out to you Bert, but people using hatred of gays to further their political ambition and agenda is a global problem not limited to the Republican party.:(


but in the United States?

it's mainly the Republican Schtick.

Self hating faggots, most of them too (Republicans I mean. .the Dems have Barney Frank, out and proud).

[David Wharton]

Better, why are we still dependent on foreign oil?

Because you can't prodcue enough to satisfy domestic demand.

Use less or suck it up.

[Rik Levins]

Personally, I think the right question (as it relates to every damn thing right now) is:

Why am I paying $3 a gallon for gasoline?

Because you aren't paying $4 a gallon...yet.

But wait a few months.

[rick]

Am I the only one who would actually like to see Bin Laden go on trial?

I mean sure, execute him if that's the sentence, but being a good Constitutionlist, I just can't help but to be against just killing the guy on site.

I mean if that's the only choice, I would live with it and not lose too much sleep, but still a trial would be the proper and best thing to do.

[Thnikkaman]

4 words which mean that won't be a Democratic plan of attack.

Because Bill bottled it

Clinton had Osama located and all he had to do was authorise an air strike to kill the fanatic, but he decided no to.

If Hillary is the nominee they will NOT want to attack through this avenue as it will tar the Clintons at least as much as any Republican candidate.

After seven years of the most agonizingly incompetent administration in history, the whole "But CLINTON....!" excuse just plain stops working.

[BnL]

Am I the only one who would actually like to see Bin Laden go on trial?

I mean sure, execute him if that's the sentence, but being a good Constitutionlist, I just can't help but to be against just killing the guy on site.

I mean if that's the only choice, I would live with it and not lose too much sleep, but still a trial would be the proper and best thing to do.

No, you're not the only one. He'll be found guilty and executed anyway, so it's not like he'd be getting away with anything if he's given due process.

[Tyr]

Because you aren't paying $4 a gallon...yet.

But wait a few months.

Up to $3.50 from what I've been told.

[Pink Bat Max]

Why isn't Osama dead?

If that is their message, then seriously, any chance I'd be lured back into the fold would evaporate.

[Crowley]

If that is their message, then seriously, any chance I'd be lured back into the fold would evaporate.

Can you elaborate?

[lonewolf23k]

Why isn't Osama dead?

Because Bill Clinton didn't have him killed back when he was running things? ;)

[Pink Bat Max]

Can you elaborate?

Probably.



























....just kidding.

No, unless they can provide a clear message of what they're for, and what they plan, instead of just reacting to the failings of others, and unless they impress me with what they intend to do, I'm not voting for them. "They fucked up, but we're not them" isn't a platform that I can get behind.

And frankly, basing a political campaign on the idea of killing someone.... ANYONE.... makes me feel somewhat nauseated. 'Bring Bin Laden to Trial' would win a lot more favor with me.

[Sabrinaset]

Can you elaborate?

Speaking as someone who quit the Republican party, I can answer this easily.

If the only message the Dems have is "They didn't kill Osama", well, that immediately gets me thinking "Oh? And you would have? Lmee guess ... you would have sent Jimmah Carter over there to negotiate his surrender, right?"

I know I've said this before, but it seems to me all the Dems have is Bush Hatred. I don't see one positive thing in their message. Not one. Then again, it's filtered through a completely incompetent press, so who knows what the heck any of them are saying. Although I know Hillary stiffs waitresses. Well, I hated her anyways.

But "Vote the Democratic Ticket! Bush hasn't killed Osama!" just ain't gunna do it for me.

[Pink Bat Max]

Speaking as someone who quit the Republican party, I can answer this easily.

If the only message the Dems have is "They didn't kill Osama", well, that immediately gets me thinking "Oh? And you would have? Lmee guess ... you would have sent Jimmah Carter over there to negotiate his surrender, right?"

I know I've said this before, but it seems to me all the Dems have is Bush Hatred. I don't see one positive thing in their message. Not one. Then again, it's filtered through a completely incompetent press, so who knows what the heck any of them are saying. Although I know Hillary stiffs waitresses. Well, I hated her anyways.

But "Vote the Democratic Ticket! Bush hasn't killed Osama!" just ain't gunna do it for me.

You know, you're to the right and I'm to the left, and yet as someone who quit the Democratic party, I agree with you 100% here.

Well, except I'm fond of Ol' Jimmy.

[Magneto X]

Iraq Enron Schiavo Katrina

Greenhouse Craig Healthcare Stemcell

Speaking as someone who quit the Republican party, I can answer this easily.



Why'd you quit the party?

Good answer BTW.

[Sabrinaset]

Why'd you quit the party?

Good answer BTW.

It's more like I felt the party quit me. I'm still a conservative, but the Rwepuiblican Party doesn't represent conservative beliefs. I care about these things: I'm pro-life, pro-gun, for gay rights, for lower taxes, less government, and vaguely pro-death penalty and anti-illegal immigration. W has supported 1 1/2 of the things I want ... which is better than the Dems, who would have done zero of them, but still, the GOP doesn't stand for what I stand for.

As far as your list ... as of this moment (since none of them are that terribly important to me politically)

Iraq: Bad idea going there, but since we're there ... might as well stay until the place is standing on it's own two feet.

Enron: Didn't see it as a political issue. More of a greedy CEO's issue.

Schiavo: Should not have been allowed to die.

Katrina: See it as more an indictment of local Louisiana politics, incompetance, and corruption.

Greenhouse: Don't see it as a big an issue as the dems do. Strongly suspect it's more an issue for dems to soak big business for more taxes.

Craig: I'll see you and raise you a Ted Kennedy.

Healthcare: Like the dems would do any better fixing it. In fact, I'm SURE they's only make things FAR worse. Hillarycare was a disaster, and we dodged a bullet with that one.

Stemcell: Honestly do not care.

[Crowley]

Probably... just kidding.

No, unless they can provide a clear message of what they're for, and what they plan, instead of just reacting to the failings of others, and unless they impress me with what they intend to do, I'm not voting for them. "They fucked up, but we're not them" isn't a platform that I can get behind.

And frankly, basing a political campaign on the idea of killing someone.... ANYONE.... makes me feel somewhat nauseated. 'Bring Bin Laden to Trial' would win a lot more favor with me.

Holy shit...

I'm going to have to wait until tomorrow to post a response to this... but please research:

what's been done to:
Habeus Corpus
CIA Black Sites
The Torture bill
The bill of Rights
FISA


Not to mention:
NSA wiretapping
BlackWater
Alberto Gonzalez

[Crowley]

Katrina: See it as more an indictment of local Louisiana politics, incompetance, and corruption.

I'll get to the others later... but the Governor declared a State of Emergency on August 26th a friday, the 27th FEMA was authorized to respond.

So it was the Federal Government's failure.

Remember... after 9/11 FEMA was moved into the Department of Homeland Security so that if another disaster like 9/11 happened... the government would be prepared.

AND THEY FAILED.

So let's recount:

1. Osama still at large.
2. Another disaster happened and they were unable to handle it.

Do YOU feel safer?

[Kyuubi]

Don't taze me, Bro.

[Kyuubi]

What are 4 words for repubs?

[Pink Bat Max]

Holy shit...

I'm going to have to wait until tomorrow to post a response to this.

Don't bother.

A difference of opinion isn't a call to arms. Neither of us are about to change our opinions. I have better things to do with my time then yet another internet pissing contest, don't you?

[Sean Walsh]

I could go realistically and say No more rich people

But let's be comedic and literal and say Kill all the Republicans

[beetlebum]

What is it with people around here wanting to kill other people as of late?

Honestly now, come on. I know quite a few Republicans and although we may share differing philosophies and we may quibble over just how far the influence of the State should extend and whether or not policies based on faith violates the objective rights of an individual, they are some of the nicest people you will ever know. They volunteer to go over seas to places like war torn Kosovo in order to show the people there mercy and to help them rebuild their lives. And they raise money and collect canned goods which they in turn distribute to the homeless. They showed me kindness and helped me get through some of the toughest moments of my life.

Seriously. We have all uttered performative statements from our mouths, but some statements are just more appalling regardless of illocutionary intent.

[KevinTBrown]

I'll get to the others later... but the Governor declared a State of Emergency on August 26th a friday, the 27th FEMA was authorized to respond.

So it was the Federal Government's failure.

Remember... after 9/11 FEMA was moved into the Department of Homeland Security so that if another disaster like 9/11 happened... the government would be prepared.

AND THEY FAILED.

So let's recount:

1. Osama still at large.
2. Another disaster happened and they were unable to handle it.

Do YOU feel safer?

Do I feel safer? Hell, no.

But that's the world we live in unfortunately......

[Ninja Kris]

I could go realistically and say No more rich people

But let's be comedic and literal and say Kill all the Republicans

Bree said this site would turn me into a conservative.

See what she meant.

[Rattlehead]

The Dems won't run on a "Where is Osama" platform because they have no desire to stop this war. As long as the public lives in fear of phantom enemies, the Government can continue to take away our civil rights, and continue to stockpile money and power for themselves. The Democrats are going to want a slice of that pie as well, and it's just going to be another 4 years of the same old, same old. Democrats taking control of Congress has changed nothing, and they really don't want to change anything. Both parties are a bunch of crooks, and have a lot more in common with one another than they would have you believe.

[Crowley]

Don't bother.

A difference of opinion isn't a call to arms. Neither of us are about to change our opinions. I have better things to do with my time then yet another internet pissing contest, don't you?

It's not about a difference of opinion or changing yours... it's what's happened to our Constitution during the last 7 years as result of the fear of Osama Bin Laden.

[Crowley]

The Dems won't run on a "Where is Osama" platform because they have no desire to stop this war. As long as the public lives in fear of phantom enemies, the Government can continue to take away our civil rights, and continue to stockpile money and power for themselves. The Democrats are going to want a slice of that pie as well, and it's just going to be another 4 years of the same old, same old. Democrats taking control of Congress has changed nothing, and they really don't want to change anything. Both parties are a bunch of crooks, and have a lot more in common with one another than they would have you believe.

I'm trying to be more optimistic than this... but I don't disagree with you here. I do think that a Democrat in office could at least balance the power.

But man, this President has pulled us so far past the line that the next President will need to be AMAZING.

Just to give you an idea how bad things are going to get:
http://brillig.com/debt_clock/

Our National Debt is past 9 trillion.
Bush tries to invade Iran... China can stop us by calling in our debt.

[Infra-Man]

Given how the Republican party is trying to find a candidate that is Ronald Reagan-esque, the Democrats ought to just throw this back at them (if they haven't already):

"Are you better off than you were eight years ago"?

[Magneto X]

Iraq: Bad idea going there, but since we're there ... might as well stay until the place is standing on it's own two feet.

We will get back to that when you get to taxes.

Enron: Didn't see it as a political issue. More of a greedy CEO's issue.

You're wrong if you think the two parties don't differ on oversight and regulation. The GOP, of whom the Enron criminals were friends and fundraisers for, did the deregulation and lack of supervision that made Enron possible.

Schiavo: Should not have been allowed to die.

Fair enough. But, by demanding that federal judges take over, the GOP reversed their whole local decision philosophy.

Katrina: See it as more an indictment of local Louisiana politics, incompetance, and corruption.

You agree with: "Heckuva job, Brownie"? Anyway, it was the GOP's philosophy that FEMA's functions should be given to the states. No state can cope with the largest environmental disaster in US history, especially not a low tax state like Louisiana.

Greenhouse: Don't see it as a big an issue as the dems do. Strongly suspect it's more an issue for dems to soak big business for more taxes.

Then the Dems have certainly duped a lot of other nations and a lot of career scientists. And, if you're right, big businesses pay those taxes that you would like to save them. But if you're wrong, we march further into econological disaster. Which risk will your grandkids wish you had taken?

Craig: I'll see you and raise you a Ted Kennedy.

Fair enough ... if you need to dig deep into the last century.

Healthcare: Like the dems would do any better fixing it. In fact, I'm SURE they's only make things FAR worse. Hillarycare was a disaster, and we dodged a bullet with that one.

So, in terms of nationalizing health care, these countries have it wrong? England, Canada, Japan, Australia, Germany, France, Spain, Italy and the rest of Europe? And the U.S. has it right? We are smart on that?

And we are similarly the genius country on taxes? Less taxes is relative to what you need to spend, right? Right now you're okay with paying billions a week to try to fix Iraq when all it seems to be doing is creating a new generation of terrorists in a nation where all the educated and skilled people are fleeing by the millions and the leadership just took a month's vacation. Hundreds of billions later we'll admit it was another Vietnam boondogle.

Meanwhile, all those countries I mentioned above have higher taxes than the U.S. Like the lack of universal health care and other social safety nets, the lack of regulation, and the death penalty, the U.S. is an outlyer, on the far fringe, when it comes to how low our taxes are compared to every other post-industrial nation on Earth. And one of your priorities is to go lower? If no other post-industrial country on Earth has taxes as low as we do now and it's your priority to make them even lower, doesn't that make you not so much a conservative, but kind of an experimenter? I though conservatives were cautious, not extreme.

[Alex L]

The Dems won't run on a "Where is Osama" platform because they have no desire to stop this war. As long as the public lives in fear of phantom enemies, the Government can continue to take away our civil rights, and continue to stockpile money and power for themselves. The Democrats are going to want a slice of that pie as well, and it's just going to be another 4 years of the same old, same old. Democrats taking control of Congress has changed nothing, and they really don't want to change anything. Both parties are a bunch of crooks, and have a lot more in common with one another than they would have you believe.

I still take issue with "Dems take control of Congress" when it's a 51%/49% split... 52/48 at best.

If congress-type people fall strictly on opposing party lines, it'll be just about impossible to get anything done.

Trade out a handful of Democratic Congresspeople for Republican ones, make it 48/52 instead, and the same amount of nothingness will happen.

[Sabrinaset]

Of the ones here I feel like discussing, and even then, I don't really care about most of these issues, as they're not on my major beliefs list ...

You're wrong if you think the two parties don't differ on oversight and regulation. The GOP, of whom the Enron criminals were friends and fundraisers for, did the deregulation and lack of supervision that made Enron possible.

Uhm ... not quite accurate (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/jan02/2002-01-12-enron-politicians.htm). Enron did quite a bit of donating to the dems as well.

You agree with: "Heckuva job, Brownie"? Anyway, it was the GOP's philosophy that FEMA's functions should be given to the states. No state can cope with the largest environmental disaster in US history, especially not a low tax state like Louisiana.

Hmm ... A major belief of mine I previously stated? Shrink the government. Probably should have flat-out said "at the federal level," but I thought it was obvious. Heck yeah ... make FEMA more state-controlled. I'm almost an anarchist when it comes to the federal government.

Then the Dems have certainly duped a lot of other nations and a lot of career scientists. And, if you're right, big businesses pay those taxes that you would like to save them. But if you're wrong, we march further into econological disaster. Which risk will your grandkids wish you had taken?

Well, I certainly wouldn't be the only one who believes as I do ... (http://groups.google.com/group/alt.global-warming/browse_thread/thread/e5f23b4b90d1e40b)

Most believe politicians are not sincere on green taxes

When asked what they thought the primary motivation was for new green taxes, 63 per cent agreed with the statement: “Politicians are not serious about the environment and are using the issue as an excuse to raise more revenue from green taxes.” Only 20 per cent thought that “Politicians are serious about the environment and are bringing in new green taxes to change people’s behaviour to help reduce carbon emissions.”


Fair enough ... if you need to dig deep into the last century.

Hm? Teddy quit in 2000? The guy got away with murder. Honestly, I'll put that a little higher than a sexual hypocrite. The point is, if you're going to use one republican as a reason why you shouldn't vote for them, the dems have plenty of others who are good reasons not to vote for their party either.

So, in terms of nationalizing health care, these countries have it wrong? England, Canada, Japan, Australia, Germany, France, Spain, Italy and the rest of Europe? And the U.S. has it right? We are smart on that?

And we are similarly the genius country on taxes? Less taxes is relative to what you need to spend, right? Right now you're okay with paying billions a week to try to fix Iraq when all it seems to be doing is creating a new generation of terrorists in a nation where all the educated and skilled people are fleeing by the millions and the leadership just took a month's vacation. Hundreds of billions later we'll admit it was another Vietnam boondogle.

Meanwhile, all those countries I mentioned above have higher taxes than the U.S. Like the lack of universal health care and other social safety nets, the lack of regulation, and the death penalty, the U.S. is an outlyer, on the far fringe, when it comes to how low our taxes are compared to every other post-industrial nation on Earth. And one of your priorities is to go lower? If no other post-industrial country on Earth has taxes as low as we do now and it's your priority to make them even lower, doesn't that make you not so much a conservative, but kind of an experimenter? I though conservatives were cautious, not extreme.

Did you see the charts on how Hillarycare was to have operated? It would have at least tripled the governmental red tape and garbage we deal with now. It really would have made matters worse. hey, remember Gore's Reinventing Government plan? Here's a thought: apply it to Health Care.

I stated that going into Iraq was a bad idea. On the other hand, if we pull out, I believe we'll only get MORE chaos when we do. I think they'll be able to pull it off. Geez, how long were we in Germany?

Taxes? Heck yeah, lower them. I'd rather have the hoi polloi spending their own money than the government spending their money for them.

[Sabrinaset]

I still take issue with "Dems take control of Congress" when it's a 51%/49% split... 52/48 at best.

If congress-type people fall strictly on opposing party lines, it'll be just about impossible to get anything done.

Trade out a handful of Democratic Congresspeople for Republican ones, make it 48/52 instead, and the same amount of nothingness will happen.

Heh. Government gridlock? Isn't that a GOOD thing? The less they're doing to us, the less they're screwing us. :p

[Infra-Man]

Heh. Government gridlock? Isn't that a GOOD thing? The less they're doing to us, the less they're screwing us. :p

To be fair, though, this gridlock also means that Congress is about as useful as a third nipple.

[Alex L]

Heh. Government gridlock? Isn't that a GOOD thing? The less they're doing to us, the less they're screwing us. :p

In theory, I suppose? Sure, why not!

It was a reduced government role, though, that led to the media consolidation we love oh-so-much.

Hmm ... A major belief of mine I previously stated? Shrink the government. Probably should have flat-out said "at the federal level," but I thought it was obvious. Heck yeah ... make FEMA more state-controlled. I'm almost an anarchist when it comes to the federal government.

I respectfully disagree, in that sometimes (with the world getting as small as it is) things that you leave in the hands of states, HAVE to end up back in the federal level.

Example: Gay marriage. Left in the hands of states, some would say yes and some would say no. But what if you move from one state to another?

I stated that going into Iraq was a bad idea. On the other hand, if we pull out, I believe we'll only get MORE chaos when we do. I think they'll be able to pull it off. Geez, how long were we in Germany?

I don't know my history that well. How long were we in Germany post-WWII, and did we have Germans shooting at us during the reconstruction part?

As for Iraq, *shrugs* I can see why people want us to stay, and I can see why people want us to leave.

The best idea I can come up with, is to let Iraqis vote on it.

If 2/3 or 3/4 majority want us out, we make plans to leave within the next couple of years. If not, we stay. Democracy in action!

Taxes? Heck yeah, lower them. I'd rather have the hoi polloi spending their own money than the government spending their money for them.

Personally, I don't care about local taxes too much as long as the money gets spent back in the community.

Up here, we did have a period where fire departments had to shut down for random days here and there because of budget cuts.

And I rather like the idea of a full-time fire department. And decently paved roads to drive on. Well-stocked libraries, the whole bit.

As for federal? Uh... have to get back to you on that.

[Infra-Man]

I stated that going into Iraq was a bad idea. On the other hand, if we pull out, I believe we'll only get MORE chaos when we do. I think they'll be able to pull it off. Geez, how long were we in Germany?

That does raise the question, though: How many troops were in Germany after World War II and what was the political situation that Allied forces faced during the rebuilding of Germany at the end of the war? Are the two situations comparable?

Further, if post-WW2 Germany was a more ideal situation and one worth emulating here, what steps should the American government take now (i.e., after debaathification, after disbanding the Iraqi military, after poor planning and other post-invasion screw ups) in order to maintain stability in that region? Further, how can they be enacted effectively when there is the specter of war with Iran looming in the distance?

EDIT:
I should add that I think that an immediate withdrawal is a horrible idea and will just make things worse. I also think that administration is not helping with the development of a viable political solution in Iraq, though the reason for this escapes me. Then again, I haven't kept up with the news for the last week, so maybe something happened I'm not aware of.

[Crowley]

Teddy quit in 2000? The guy got away with murder. Honestly, I'll put that a little higher than a sexual hypocrite.

No he didn't. That's a myth.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chappaquiddick_incident

On July 18, 1969, Ted Kennedy attended a party on Chappaquiddick Island, Martha's Vineyard, which was intended to be a reunion of those who had worked on his brother Robert's 1968 presidential campaign. Kennedy drove away with party guest Mary Jo Kopechne as a passenger in his mother's 1967 Oldsmobile Delmont 88. According to Kennedy, he made a wrong turn onto an unlit dirt road that led to Dike Bridge (also spelled Dyke Bridge), a wooden bridge angled obliquely to the road with no guardrail, and drove over its side. The car plunged into tide-swept Poucha Pond (at that location a channel) and came to rest upside down underwater. Kennedy was able to swim free of the vehicle, but Kopechne was not. Kennedy claims he tried to swim down to reach her several times, then rested on the bank for several minutes before returning on foot to the Lawrence Cottage, where the party attended by Kopechne and other "Boiler Room Girls" had occurred.

Joseph Gargan (Kennedy's cousin) and party co-host Paul Markham then returned to the pond with Kennedy to try to rescue Kopechne. Although there was a telephone at the Lawrence Cottage, nobody called for help. When their efforts to rescue Kopechne failed, Kennedy decided to return to his hotel. However, the Edgartown-Chappaquiddick ferry (which connects Chappaquiddick to the rest of the island) had shut down for the night. Kennedy swam across the 500-foot channel, back to Edgartown. Kennedy reported nothing for over 24 hours and claimed he suffered a concussion which made him unable to help.

The next morning, the police recovered Kennedy's car and the body of Mary Jo Kopechne. Kennedy discussed the accident with several people, including his lawyer and Kopechne's parents, before discussing it with the police the next morning. Her death was ruled an accidental drowning, and no autopsy was performed.

[Sabrinaset]

No he didn't. That's a myth.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chappaquiddick_incident

Well, okay, I'll give you that it wasn't first-degree murder. Probably more like manslaughter. But Mary-Jo is still dead, Teddy's hands were on the wheel, and he could have saved her or called for help ... instead of calling for a lawyer much, much after the fact.

For a few other details about Chappaquiddick ... (http://www.ytedk.com/intro.htm)

... and really, this is so far down on my list of things I care about, it's just not even ... what was I talking about?

[Crowley]

Well, okay, I'll give you that it wasn't first-degree murder. Probably more like manslaughter. But Mary-Jo is still dead, Teddy's hands were on the wheel, and he could have saved her or called for help ... instead of calling for a lawyer much, much after the fact.

For a few other details about Chappaquiddick ... (http://www.ytedk.com/intro.htm)

... and really, this is so far down on my list of things I care about, it's just not even ... what was I talking about?

He no more attempted to kill her than Cheney attempted to kill his bunting buddy... and that site you posted is as reliable as "9/11 truther" sites.

[Sabrinaset]

He no more attempted to kill her than Cheney attempted to kill his bunting buddy... and that site you posted is as reliable as "9/11 truther" sites.


Uhm ... gunna disagree with you on that last one.

But okay ... given I said "Okay, I'll say it was manslaughter", we still have Ted's hand on the wheel, the car in the water, Teddy (going by the Wiki) doing this ..."Although there was a telephone at the Lawrence Cottage, nobody called for help" and "Kennedy reported nothing for over 24 hours and claimed (yeah, right!) he suffered a concussion which made him unable to help. ... and " Kennedy was criticized for failing to save Kopechne, for failing to summon help immediately, and for contacting not the police but rather his lawyer first." The woman is dead, and it's Teddy's fault ... and he got away with it. Leaving out the stuff in the other site, still looks bad for Teddy.

Now maybe it's just me, but how long after Cheney used the Force ... I mean, shot the lawyer, was help summoned? I'd say Laura Bush offing someone is a closer analog.

And it still is missing my point ... that if you wanna bring up Craig, there's certainly dems out there that can be used as a reason not to vote for them. Well there is the other point that Ted Kennedy, just as Craig, is about as significant a reason to vote one way or another as is what color car they drive.

[Tyr]

Actually the 4 words the democrats need to use to win are these.

Free ______ for everyone. I'll let you fill in the blank. ;)

Bree your being serious, serious Bree scares me. :eek:

[Sabrinaset]

Actually the 4 words the democrats need to use to win are these.

Free ______ for everyone. I'll let you fill in the blank. ;)

Bree your being serious, serious Bree scares me. :eek:

Well, if the dems wanna win, the four words to do so are ...

"We won't nominate Hillary!"

And you do know I made 31 serious posts in a row and won a bet, right?

[KevinTBrown]

Well, if the dems wanna win, the four words to do so are ...

"We won't nominate Hillary!"

And you do know I made 31 serious posts in a row and won a bet, right?

It's still too early to say who may or may not win.

Interesting little article from 1999 here:

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/timespoll/la-991121prespoll-432pa1an,1,392267.htmlstory?coll=la-news-times_poll-nation&ctrack=1&cset=true

Base those percentages of who was in the lead then and compare them to who is in the lead now. It might give us a very, very general idea of how things play out a year from now.

Here's that link: http://www.latimes.com/media/acrobat/2007-10/33426628.pdf

[The Xenos]

If either side takes up the Osama Bin Laden argument, they're screwed. Both the Clinton and Bush administrations had their failures in catching him. Then again I think Bush's government only made him a stronger figure in the world by making a name out of him anyway.

Anyway, personally, there's no way in hell I want another Clinton in the White House. Sure I want a female president, but THIS is who we have for a canidate? Just say NO to Lady MacBeth.

[Magneto X]

Enron did quite a bit of donating to the dems as well.

Dem's are not for the deregulation of basic needs like energy and lack of oversight that allowed the Enron fiasco.

Hmm ... A major belief of mine I previously stated? Shrink the government. Probably should have flat-out said "at the federal level," but I thought it was obvious. Heck yeah ... make FEMA more state-controlled. I'm almost an anarchist when it comes to the federal government.

Sure. Even though a major earthquake, hurricane or tornado might strike each state once in a hundred years, it's most efficient if all 50 states prepare 50 seperate plans and save tax revnenues just in case. It would be ridiculous to have the federal government respond to enormous natural disasters.


Well, I certainly wouldn't be the only one who believes as I do ... (http://groups.google.com/group/alt.global-warming/browse_thread/thread/e5f23b4b90d1e40b)

That's not directly about global warming. You like the GOP position on that?

Hm? Teddy quit in 2000?

Isn't the sexual misconduct you're talking about several decades old?

It would have at least tripled the governmental red tape and garbage we deal with now. It really would have made matters worse. hey, remember Gore's Reinventing Government plan? Here's a thought: apply it to Health Care.

The GOP passed an equally convoluted drug benefits plan that's costing hundreds of billions. Bush and the GOP leaeders were quite proud of it, though not as happy as the pharm lobbyists were. What Hillary proposed to a GOP controlled Congresss is a reason to be against that particular plan or perhaps Hillary's new plan. It's not a good reason to be against universal health care altogether.

I stated that going into Iraq was a bad idea. On the other hand, if we pull out, I believe we'll only get MORE chaos when we do.

It's far from clear that leaving will make it worse than it is becoming now. What we do know is how many hundreds of billions we will continue to spend there in a country whose educated has fled and they're being replaced by terrorists. How many allies do we have left anyway? Every other country on the planet dumber than us again? Maybe you're a gambler instead of a conservative after all. Otherwise: know when to fold em.

Taxes? Heck yeah, lower them. I'd rather have the hoi polloi spending their own money than the government spending their money for them.

Better motto than a plan. Since the U.S. is already the lowest, how do you know we aren't taxing low enough already? Unless you're only measure is that taxes should keep going lower until they are zero?

[The Zapper]

Because Bill bottled it

I almost peed myself laughing at this.

[LtMarvel]

Well, I wonder if the country can truly recover from the current leadership.

Thanks to the states moving up the primaries* we'll likely know who clinched the nominations by Valentine's Day.

*Interesting side effect: some of those states are so early that most of the TV ad time leading up to election day was long bought up by those promoting holiday shopping season...

[The Xenos]

I stated that going into Iraq was a bad idea. On the other hand, if we pull out, I believe we'll only get MORE chaos when we do.

It's far from clear that leaving will make it worse than it is becoming now. What we do know is how many hundreds of billions we will continue to spend there in a country whose educated has fled and they're being replaced by terrorists. How many allies do we have left anyway? Every other country on the planet dumber than us again? Maybe you're a gambler instead of a conservative after all. Otherwise: know when to fold em.

I'm torn. I still think leaving Iraq, a mess we rather started or at least unbottled, might make things worse. While I'm not against widthdrawl, it bothers me that critics want to leave Iraq immediately and don't even think of consequences. Even Ron Paul, who I like, seems too hasty to leave Iraq. Damn. Iraq was wrong, it was a mess, and we should leave. Yet HOW we leave it is very very important. It kills me to see candidates, especially Dems, just wanting to flat out leave immediately.

[Gail Simone]

Speaking as someone who quit the Republican party, I can answer this easily.

If the only message the Dems have is "They didn't kill Osama", well, that immediately gets me thinking "Oh? And you would have? Lmee guess ... you would have sent Jimmah Carter over there to negotiate his surrender, right?"

I know I've said this before, but it seems to me all the Dems have is Bush Hatred. I don't see one positive thing in their message. Not one. Then again, it's filtered through a completely incompetent press, so who knows what the heck any of them are saying. Although I know Hillary stiffs waitresses. Well, I hated her anyways.

But "Vote the Democratic Ticket! Bush hasn't killed Osama!" just ain't gunna do it for me.

Really?

Tolerance, accountability, intelligence, science, diplomacy?


None of those messages are positive?

Gail

[Sabrinaset]

Really?

Tolerance, accountability, intelligence, science, diplomacy?


None of those messages are positive?

Gail

I either haven't heard them (incompetent press, remember?) or ... well, in the case of "intelligence" it's more like "Bush is stupid!" ...which is not convincing me that any of them are smarter. I keep getting back to it ... the guy flew a jet aircraft. Stupid people don't do that. Now, is he wrong, yeah, but the fact that you have so many people getting THAT incorrect isn't convincing me the other side is any better. Both major parties are just two tribes who have convinced their followers to follow their own particular brand of voodoo. The democrat zombies are really no better than the republican ones.

Well okay, I have heard the accountability chant.

What's really funny is that Kris said she'd turn me into an Independant ... and instead, I've almost become an Anarchist! Meanwhile, she quit the Democrats and just stopped voting completely.

[Charles RB]

Our National Debt is past 9 trillion.
Bush tries to invade Iran... China can stop us by calling in our debt.

And that'd probably be a good thing, because I don't want to see the US army trying to fight another war and another occupation while still dealing with Afghanistan & Iraq. That sounds like a great way to get a lot more soldiers killed because there aren't enough of them and not enough money & equipment to go around.

Also, you could almost certainly count out the United Kingdom joining in that one - we're already overstretched and there's no political, public or military will to get involved in another theatre.


Did you see the charts on how Hillarycare was to have operated? It would have at least tripled the governmental red tape and garbage we deal with now.

America's got a lot of smart people in it, I'm sure it'd be possible to come up with a national health service that'd be better than one Hilary proposed.

[Phoney Bone]

I think the Dems could win if they remember five words instead of four...

John F. Kennedy, not Teddy.

JFK was a hawk and big on cutting taxes while being a strong social liberal. He was a far cry from the global socialists, like his brother Ted, that have taken over the Democrat party from the true liberals (much the same way the global economists have taken over the Republican party from the true conservatives).

In the debates all of the Democrat front-runners keep going on about all of the failures of "this president", and rightfully so. But... that isn't going to win any of them the White House because of another five words.

Bush isn't running in 2008!

If the Democrat nominee keeps campaigning against the current president after the convention and not whoever the GOP nominee happens to be, they don't have a chance in hell next November.

People voted for Ronald Regan's ideas, not against Carter.

People voted for Bill Clinton's ideas, not against Bush the elder.

People are going to vote for the next president's ideas Dem. or Rep., not against a lame-duck.

[Sabrinaset]

America's got a lot of smart people in it, I'm sure it'd be possible to come up with a national health service that'd be better than one Hilary proposed.

My little bratty brother could come up with a better plan than what Shrill came up with. Of course, it would involve lots of porn.

[CutterMike]

Frankly, I'm thinking of running for President, this year.

I figure that my qualifications are as good as those of anyone who's currently running:

• I have Thomas Jefferson's hair;
• I have James Garfield's beard;
• I'm built somewhat on the lines of William Howard Taft;
• I can't keep my checkbook balanced;
• I've rarely held any one job for more than four years at a stretch;
• I don't know a damned thing, and I'm willing to speak on it at length, and most of all;
•*I can guarantee to unite the Republicans and Democrats in Congress – because I will propose solutions to our problems that will cheese BOTH of them off!!

Now, Iraq is tricky for a couple of reasons: I believe that we shouldn't have gone in. Period. I'm convinced that the neo-Cons who were upset that George, Senior didn't fulfill their view of "Manifest West-iny" by taking Hussein out in '91 decided to convince George the Third that this was the best way to prove to the world that his 'nads were bigger than his Daddy's.

The current problem is that, IMO, the insurgents (and if WE'RE the ones counting on "The Surge" to solve our problems there, the who are the "InsSURGEnts"...? But I digress...) have differing sets of goals: I believe that the street-level insurgents - the "sandals on the ground" as it were - truly want us out, and all the rest of it.

I suspect, however, that at least some of their LEADERS (both within and without the elected government) would dearly love for us to stay - for their people to shoot at and get shot by, in return - since we provide a ready, easily identifiable, supply of "thems" to paint as the cause of all evil.

Now, those who TRULY want us out, could have us out within, probably, a year - but it is not to the advantage of those who NEED us as a boogeyman in order to maintain their positions. All they have to do is STOP @#$%^&* SHOOTING AT EVERYBODY ELSE FOR SIX MONTHS! Stop bloiwng things up and help us BUILD for six months. That's all I ask. At the end of six peaceful months, we start pulling out. Keep it up and, within another six, we're gone. Take this as a chance to pot-shot one of our troops while our numbers are down and we come down on you like the proverbial ton of bricks - cruise missiles, B-52s, and every other variety of "you'll never see us coming"s in the arsenal - and the whole thing.

That seems fair, doesn't it?

In the meantime, Blackwater (Hmmm... the Clintons had the - non-violent - Whitewater to deal with and the Bushies have Blackwater... funny ol' world, innit...?), and all other private security forces WILL follow the U.S. military's rules of engagement, they WILL be subject to the U.S. Universal Code of Military Justice, and, in ANY cases where they find themselves in contact with a Coalition military unit, they WILL take orders from the senior coalition trooper onsite; and if that's an Iraqi PFC, then they take orders from an Iraqi PFC and like it, or get the hell out of country.

I think that that's a start, anyway.

And, in the words of Major Dennis Bloodnock "And there's more where that came from!!"

[Pink Bat Max]

I think the Dems could win if they remember five words instead of four...

John F. Kennedy, not Teddy.

JFK was a hawk and big on cutting taxes while being a strong social liberal.

But at the same time, he got forth a message that nobody else has ever been able to energize the nation on: That progress means individual sacrifice. That we should think about the good of society over the good of ourselves as individuals. Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.

We need these messages more than ever today. There can be no progress as a nation without individuals biting the bullet and pitching in. But uttering them is political poision for either major party. It's a damn shame, and a reason I have little hope for progress through the electoral process.

[Tyr]

And you do know I made 31 serious posts in a row and won a bet, right?

Yeah I know, but I never saw the post where the bet was made, thats the problem with doing forums, unless you read every thread you miss something. In any case your still scary when your serious Bree. ;)

[rick]

Bush isn't running in 2008!

If the Democrat nominee keeps campaigning against the current president after the convention and not whoever the GOP nominee happens to be, they don't have a chance in hell next November.

People voted for Ronald Regan's ideas, not against Carter.

People voted for Bill Clinton's ideas, not against Bush the elder.

People are going to vote for the next president's ideas Dem. or Rep., not against a lame-duck.


I don't agree.

The Bush Presidency is a failure of such colossal proportions that it has damaged the credibility of the entire Republican Party. And the Democratic candidate, no matter who it winds up being, would be a fool not to pound whoever the Republicans pick with the failures of the last eight years and do their very best to link the new candidate with the current administration whenever and wherever they can.

Sure they need to run on ideas and yes they need to run against the weaknesses of whoever the Republicans pick. But the truth is that the greatest weakness the Republicans are facing right now is their own immediate past.

[Crowley]

I don't agree.

The Bush Presidency is a failure of such colossal proportions that it has damaged the credibility of the entire Republican Party. And the Democratic candidate, no matter who it winds up being, would be a fool not to pound whoever the Republicans pick with the failures of the last eight years and do their very best to link the new candidate with the current administration whenever and wherever they can.

Sure they need to run on ideas and yes they need to run against the weaknesses of whoever the Republicans pick. But the truth is that the greatest weakness the Republicans are facing right now is their own immediate past.

This is precisely my point. I would peg every single failure of this administration on the GOP candidate.