[QUOTE=duffer]
Nope. We’d have Viet Nam, double digit inflation, oil crises. 40 years of Democratic Congresses (with occasional Democratic Presidents) to take care of that pesky prescription drug annoyance.
A Democrat in charge of New Orleans responsible for the known hurricane risk, a Democrat governor responsible for state emergencies. You think it’s reasonable to blame someone in Washington for what the local government should have done?
They were elected to manage the local stuff. Washington (Bush could have done better), is not the first line of help. The Federal government is the last line of defense to protect people.
Where was Congress over the last 20 years to help out with dikes and flood mitigation? Where was the President over the last 20 years to help out with known flaws?
Why are the Pols in LA given a pass when they were elected to help protect citizens from such a massive disaster?
Why is Clinton (you’re blaming the President for a natural disaster) given a pass on the flood of '97 in Grand Forks? The flood that allowed Al Gore to stand in a hanger at the GFAFB preaching Global Warming to displaced residents as the cause of the flood? Nice posturing.
Guess what? Not a single lost life. Know why? Yes, you do. It’s because our local government was prepared for such a rare occurance and mobilized.
Our small town hick government prevented a single death, while the big time leaders of a city that knew a hurricane was likely to destroy much of the city sat on their asses and decided to deflect blame to those they thought should save them from themselves.
Yep. Democrats have the magic bullet. Good luck with that.
And when you grow up, maybe you’ll understand that neither party is the cure. It comes down to locality and your leadership.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=duffer]
This isn’t really a Pitting of the Democrats
[/QUOTE]
If not Iraq, then some ME country awfully damn close, and maybe more dangerous. A ME conflict is/was bound to happen sooner than later, no matter the party in charge. I don’t agree with why we’re in Iraq, now that the truths appear to be out, but I think it was a festering scab that we would have eventually picked.
[QUOTE=duffer]
In a sense, this boils down my whole OP. As I’ve stated previously in other threads, politics in the US are more about cheering on your team like in sports, not about what is “good” for the country.
[/QUOTE]
duffer, you’re completely wrong. There are real differences between the Repubs and the Dems. Overall, the Dems are considerably less corrupt than the Repubs, though they are still corrupt.
But the really telling point is this: if we had elected Al Gore in 2000 and then 9/11 had happened, he would have invaded Afghanistan, just like Bush did, because that’s where the Taliban and Al-qaeda were. But you know what? Gore would NEVER have invaded Iraq. The PNAC didn’t have his ear, like they had Bush’s, and Gore doesn’t have Bush’s weird “daddy” thing going wrt Iraq.
And since Gore wouldn’t have INVADED Iraq, we wouldn 't be STUCK in Iraq.
It really does make a difference whether you elect Democrats or Republicans.
[QUOTE=Evil Captor]
duffer, you’re completely wrong. There are real differences between the Repubs and the Dems. Overall, the Dems are considerably less corrupt than the Repubs, though they are still corrupt.
[/QUOTE]
Well, now that we have that cleared up. :rolleyes:
At times like this, I pause to wonder: is it worth it? To endure months of slander and abuse at the hands of our political enemies…the putrid innuendos about our loyalty and patriotism, the self-righteous blather, the lies…only to watch as they roll about on the floor, pissing and moaning about the Gucci jackboots of an itty-bitty Italian granny, gnashing their teeth and barking impotent threats of vengeance…can it possibly be worth it?
[QUOTE=duffer]
Well, now that we have that cleared up. :rolleyes:
[/QUOTE]
So you think that just because the government is likely to be corrupt to some extent no matter who is in power, that makes the Bush administration’s behaviour acceptable? :rolleyes:
[QUOTE=Bricker]
I don’t agree at all that the Democrats’ ideas are better. I believe that the Republicans are the better choice for steering the country.
[/QUOTE]
Then you must have been very happy with the way America was run during the past four years.
I don’t see how that can be so, but from what you say, it must be so.
[QUOTE=Powder Blue]
So you think that just because the government is likely to be corrupt to some extent no matter who is in power, that makes the Bush administration’s behaviour acceptable? :rolleyes:
[/QUOTE]
Yup, unless you think the President is in any way in control of how Congress acts. :rolleyes:
[QUOTE=Powder Blue]
So you think that just because the government is likely to be corrupt to some extent no matter who is in power, that makes the Bush administration’s behaviour acceptable? :rolleyes:
[/QUOTE]
And of course, you show that your hatred for Bush is in no way indicitive of your clear-headed opinion of what Congress does.
[QUOTE=duffer]
In a sense, this boils down my whole OP. As I’ve stated previously in other threads, politics in the US are more about cheering on your team like in sports, not about what is “good” for the country.
[/QUOTE]
Gee don’t think it’s just a US thing. All 2 party political systems worldwide produce the same sort of sectarian “thinking” that isn’t all that far removed from non-democratic sectarianism except for the method of enforcing it. In our societies you have the rule of law and rich backroom boys - no need for open warfare. Here in Australia we have the same mentality - if the Liberals say “white” Labor says “black”.
Nearly everyone I know is a Labor party supporter. During the last decade or more the party has been a joke. It has no coherent policies, it has had ineffective leadership, the internal politics of the party are far from democratic and they will happily reverse their philosophy on any given subject to culture votes. Even the Labor party supporters I know recognise these things…but they still vote for them because they aren’t the Liberals.
Because 2 party politics necessarily ends up with “sides” to be on I’m pretty sure that bi-partisanship is just a dream and non-partisanship is the only hope. Every man and woman their own political party. But how to impliment it? Draw representatives names from a hat? Have referendums for major decisions?
[QUOTE=duffer]
BTW, care to address any of the quotes that seem to, subtly, indicate that the talk of working together was horseshit?
[/quote]
I’m still looking for *your * quotes from actual Congressional *Democrats * actually *making * the promise you claim they are breaking. You do have some, don’t you? Right? :dubious:
*My * hatred, you say? A Freudian would call that projection.
As your very own new House *minority * leader puts it:
That is not your conclusion but your premise. :rolleyes:
[QUOTE=Pochacco]
You’re wrong. There’s a real difference between the Democrats and the Republicans. If the Democrats had controlled the government over the last 6 years would we be running record deficits? Would we be mired in Iraq? Would the prescription drug plan be such a fuck-up? Would New Orleans have been left to rot?
[/QUOTE]
1: Probably, and without a corresponding tax cut to keep the economy going. SPENDING is the problem, and neither side can stop doing that.
2: Probably not. Would this be good or bad? I dunno, I can see it either way.
3: I don’t know what you mean here. Before we had no Rx plan. This is better than that. MOST things that government do are generally fucked up. A Democratic plan would no doubt be different, but it would also undoubtedly be just as fucked up. I’m not even completely sure that this plan is a total fuck up, because most people seem to think “Hey, this plan doesn’t pay for 100% of anything I want”= “Fucked up”. I don’t buy that line of reasoning.
4: Definitely. The faults in NO lie mostly with the primary and secondary responders, in this case the city and state. I find it hard to imagine that even the most spendthrift Democrat could pour more money into that black hole than this administration has.
Well, that’s what everyone expected. I was referring to the bullshit the Dem’s were peddling regarding “bridge-building” and “reconcilliation”.
Be it GOP or Dems, the attrition is expected. It’s a given.
Regardless who won, the same is expected. Partisanship. Rhetoric that the opposition is out to kill babies and kick puppies.
The GOP used the same tactics the Dems have and now will use. It’s a game of one-upsmanship. One party uses what the previous used when in the minority.
The GOP used what the Dems used against them for 40 years. The Dems now use what was used against them for the past 12 years.
If you think any of them are looking out for you, have at it.
[QUOTE=duffer]
Well, that’s what everyone expected. I was referring to the bullshit the Dem’s were peddling regarding “bridge-building” and “reconcilliation”.
[/QUOTE]
By going this far without a cite I have to agree with **Elvis1ives ** that you are bullshitting.
I would not be surprised some democrats said something like that, but looking at the overall campain I think your position here is mostly a big straw man.
[QUOTE=GIGObuster]
By going this far without a cite I have to agree with **Elvis1ives ** that you are bullshitting.
I would not be surprised some democrats said something like that, but looking at the overall campain I think your position here is mostly a big straw man.
[/QUOTE]
Yup. I made it all up. It was all a figment of imagination. Good to see you were paying attention to the “campain”. Good to see someone such as yourself was paying attention.
So, are we still waiting around for duffer to provide some of the supporting evidence for any of his claims? Or are we just laughing at him, since he’s probably not planning on doing so (especially since the vast majority of his claims would require seeing far into the future)?
If the Dems pull all the bullshit the Republicans pulled, maybe then you’d have a point duffer. But so far, the best you can manage to do is some lame overblown PR from Republicans about how they are going to lose votes on the main agenda instead of being able to derail it right off the bat with a hundreds votes on whether Jesus should be given the Congressional medal of honor, or putting riders like “pedophilia is awesome!” on campaign finance reform bills.
[QUOTE=GIGObuster]
I rarely do this, but this deserves to be repeated, and you all really need to check the cartoon **Bosda Di’Chi of Tricor ** linked to.
[/QUOTE]
