I guarantee that’s exactly what will happen.
- Control of Congress — Just 42% of Americans say their representative deserves to be re-elected, while a 45% plurality calls it time for someone new. When Americans are asked which party they want to control Congress after the 2006 elections, Democrats hold a 47%-40% edge — the party’s best showing since the Journal/NBC survey began asking that question in 1994.
Thanks to the Incumbent Protection Program, also know as redistricting and gerrymandering, this will never happen. Many incumbents will actually run unopposed in 2006.
Thats a pretty good bet, considering that the opposite is happening right now. People who think there is any appreciable difference between the tactics of the Republicans and the tactics of the Democrats are idiots.
You’re an idiot.
It’s not tactics, it’s intent. Democrats don’t intend to lead this country by the laws of the Bible. Democrats don’t start illegal wars over–what? Oil, revenge, long bout of constipation making Bush cranky?-- Democrats don’t intend to leave us centries behind in scientific research because some big, scary man in the sky tells them it’s wrong.
What a minute, I take that back-- it is tactics. Democrats don’t trample over the Constitution or remove the checks and balances built into our system just so they can get their way. Because it’s God’s way, so fuck 200 plus years rules.
Hmmmm…maybe, maybe not. He’s a little more upfront than december was. The latter used to post op-ed pieces then leave us guessing as to what he was trying to imply, usually layered upon layers of spin.
Reeder threads lack that oh so subtle twisting of words-it’s mostly just “bush sux!!!” Kinda boring. At least december’s were kind of like puzzles to work out.
Pubbies, Repugs, Dummycrats :rolleyes: Whatever. Reasoned debate and discourse doesn’t involve 5th grader-style name calling. Meh.
I’ve met you and you can’t be that stupid. You don’t like Republican programs. Fine. Republicans don’t like Democrat programs. Regardless, both sides use the same tactics of obstructionism and the politics of hate to oppose the other. The Repubs did it all throughout Clinton’s terms, and now the Dems are teaching them a thing or two with Bush in office. If you don’t like the agenda of the radical right that’s your choice, but injecting that dislike into a discussion of the tactics both sides use is completely irrelevant.
Refresh my memory on the last time the Dems used a bogus ‘constitutional’ argument to unilaterally alter senate rules. I grow weary of these false claims of equivalency. When the bastards do something wrong, it is they who do something wrong, not them plus some other purely theoretical group of bastards that make the wrongs being done all right.
I’ve met you in real life too and you didn’t seem that much of an idiot to me either. No they do NOT use the same tactics. Show me when and where the Democrats used the same tactic of lying about intelligence so they can start a war of revenge for Daddy. Show me the last time a Democrat used the Crybaby Option or the Nuclear Option?
And even if they did, what the fuck does that have to do with the big pile of stinking shit the Republicans have made of this country? Ignore North Korea in favor of bombing the crap out of some tiny-assed country who couldn’t hurt a fly-- Hey! The Democrats would have lied to us about intelligence too, so stop complaining. Buy journalist and plant them in news conferences? Why not? The Democrats would have done that too, so shut up about it. Cut stem cell research off at the knees because God tells you to-- Don’t critisize-- a Democrat would have used that same tactic to for that result.
I am not an idiot for thinking that there is an appreciable difference in tactics, you are an idiot for persisting on giving the Republicans a pass when they do use bad tactics for idiotic ends.
And you opened a Reeder thread in the Pit expecting reasoned debate?
Am I missing something? I don’t recall any “politics of hate” coming from the Democrats during the “Clinton era”. I don’t remember any philosophical equivalents of the Coulter/Dobson/Falwell/Robertson/etc types having such a big say in public opinion or policy either. We didn’t have Santorum, DeLay, Rove, etc openly attacking entire groups of people with that president’s blessing either.
No, I think the current bunch cornered the market on hate. But that’s OK, I fucking hate them right back.
This is the pit you know.
No call for reasoned debate here.
BTW…congrats on your new job.
Live long and prosper.
Unless you were a gun owner, logger, miner, rancher, or energy worker. Because there was plenty of bunnyhugging, treehugging, and gungrabbing going on based strictly on patronizing the hate mongerers in the animal rights, enviromental, and anti-gun movements.
From Clinton? I don’t recall him taking any of my guns, and I had a “nice little collection” back then. The only bunny hugging I remember was when the one with the “big sharp nasty teeth” tried to kick Carter’s butt (hilarious). I don’t remember any calls by his people to round up all the liberal traitors and kill them (like Bush’s pal Coulter), or pundits trying to convince us the “methods” in Abu Graib are OK (his other buddy Limbaugh), or demands that we all be put under the thumb of theocrats. I don’t remember any theocratic hypocrites pushing our science back to the dark ages. I also don’t remember us getting stuck in protracted wars for oil and cash, based on lies (Iraq anyone?). I don’t remember a bunch of draft dodging chickenhawks sending other people off to these wars, while also cutting their benefits and compensations, and doing nothing to ensure they are properly equipped. Compared to Bush and company, Clinton was a real Mister Rogers.
Well, there was Janet Waco.
Waco was planned by Bush Sr. and begun before Janet Reno ever became AG. She came into it in the middle of the siege and took the advice of veteran federal law enforcement. The scapegoating of Janet Reno for Waco is really unwarranted. She didn’t kill those idiots, they set those fires and killed themselves.
Fine by me. I’m willing to accept that she was lying or covering up for someone else when she claimed full responsibility.
BBC News, Thursday, August 26, 1999, Published at 17:43 GMT 18:43 UK
I think it’s pretty stupid to call them idiots.
Waco Tribune-Herald. June 27, 2000, Document ID: 105E59CC6DAC28B0
Then you wouldn’t scapegoat Bush Jr for the suicide bombing that goes on in Iraq, right?
Can I still give her crap for the whole Elian Gonzales thing?