1876 replies to this topic

[Strangelove]

Oh I agree, it just more proof that the Republicans are Fascist

Not fascist...but corruption runs through the core of the GOP.

[Cloud]

Oh I agree, it just more proof that the Republicans are Fascist

So a Republican is Fascist now? A democratic party now rejects openness and doesn't allow freedom of speech? If Republicans were Fascists, I think you'd know by now.

Fascists "forbid and suppress openness and opposition to the fascist state and the fascist movement", not to mention the fact Fascism governments usually have ONE party. So yes, The United States of America is a Fascist movement.

Mind thinking before you type? Calling a single party Fascist is the most ignorant way to debate. It's like calling a regular Congress member a Nazi.

I'd hate to do this, but Shauna clearly labeled this topic as non-bashing.

1). There will be absolutely NO bashing of ANY political party, the politicians of any political party, or any member who is part of said political party.

Edited by Cloud, 28 November 2009 - 11:32 PM.

[Sakura Blossoms]

RyrineaHaruno, please stop upsetting people in this thread with your ill-thought out posts. If things keep up the way they are, I'm going to have to tell you to stop posting in this thread altogether.

[RyrineaHaruno]

RyrineaHaruno, please stop upsetting people in this thread with your ill-thought out posts. If things keep up the way they are, I'm going to have to tell you to stop posting in this thread altogether.

Ok Sorry, about that

[Nate River]

G.O.P. Considers 'Purity' Resolution for Candidates

Well Bush failed this test

Yet, he's offered up as far right wing? Second, Democrats are hardly one to talk given the complaining over Blue Dogs by many and Ned Lamont.

Anyway, this is a needless waste of time. While I believe much of the call for moderates to run in the party is made by people who don't have the parties best interest at heart (liberals and moderate republicans), I do understand why they did this.

This is response to what happened in NY-23 where the national party nominated and gave $900,000 to a Republican who was more liberal than the Democrat. They were also running adds against Hoffman up until Scozzafazza resigned from the race and only back him 3 days before the election. It was a royal screw up and ticked off the base.

However, the have more important issues and shouldn't be wasting their time with such crap.

[RyrineaHaruno]

Yet, he's offered up as far right wing? Second, Democrats are hardly one to talk given the complaining over Blue Dogs by many and Ned Lamont.

Anyway, this is a needless waste of time. While I believe much of the call for moderates to run in the party is made by people who don't have the parties best interest at heart (liberals and moderate republicans), I do understand why they did this.

This is response to what happened in NY-23 where the national party nominated and gave $900,000 to a Republican who was more liberal than the Democrat. They were also running adds against Hoffman up until Scozzafazza resigned from the race and only back him 3 days before the election. It was a royal screw up and ticked off the base.

However, the have more important issues and shouldn't be wasting their time with such crap.

I agree, that they shouldn't be wasting their time with such crap. Its in poor choice on Steels part at least.

[blindeye]

just another big government Republican

Ahhh... I miss the days when Republicans were actually conservatives, back when they pushed for smaller government. Republicans and Democrats are too alike now.

"Conservative," the media has given that word such an evil name, just like the word "Liberal" changed meanings during the Bush administration. I wish words like these would keep a constant meaning, it would make politics less ugly and hateful.

[Pite]

Ahhh... I miss the days when Republicans were actually conservatives, back when they pushed for smaller government. Republicans and Democrats are too alike now.

"Conservative," the media has given that word such an evil name, just like the word "Liberal" changed meanings during the Bush administration. I wish words like these would keep a constant meaning, it would make politics less ugly and hateful.

Overall politics has declined since accountability declined in the American society. People became more oblivious to politics, especially my generation that does not know who in the world is Joe Biden but can name the last 5 American Idol winnders and their newest singles. With the decline of non-partizan media and the rise of one position only meida outlets (FOX, MSNBC etc.) the people are cut off all the POV that would allow them to judge the politicians correctly.

For Radical "Neo-Conservatist" Obama is basically the next Lenin/Stalin and wants to put everybody identical jumpsuits working on a Idaho farm growing potatoes, because that's what they're fed with. They are only fed with one outlet that feeds their "Neo-Conservative" needs Glenn Beck and O'Reilly are such examples.

For Radical "Liberals" Republicans and G.W.Bush are creationists philistines who want to see poor people starve on the streets, homosexuals neutered, and pot possession and usage made a capital offense. As the people from the other side, they are fed with very one-sided view from MSNBC.

The decline of non-partizan media came with people becoming lazier and being able to pick the path of least resistance. Isn't it easier to listen to a person you agree with than not? But that's why our society is declining, we only see one point of view refusing to listen and consider the other side, in the past you had to read 2-3 newspapers to understand and state your position without being called out to be ignorant. Now you watch a TV station and can easily state your myopic and defensive stance.

Back to the definition of "conservative". It used to mean that you believe that a nation is better off with less Government, not, as now, better off with old-school beliefs. Being "conservative" meant that you'd rather had less regulation than regulation about abortion. I know I sound Libertarian as of now but it seems I don't have a choice, neither of the political parties really are what people need. Both of them are frankly a bunch of bickering children wanting only to be re-elected next year or whenever, agreeing only when their pay raises are up for ballot. (Who besides Cogressmen and women are allowed to vote for THEIR OWN pay raises. Tell me because I want that job!)

What is needed now is a radical reform of the system, not from either of the parties because they rather to preserve the status-quo than to make this a better place for "The People". So it has to come from "The People" to come up with a way to change Washington, we need to change the idea that politics is for an interest group not for "The People". If the power to govern comes from "The People" for "The People" by "The People", maybe then "The People" should decide. But "The People" don't know anything, if "The People" don't want to know anything, if "The People" are not willing to participate, then we cannot have a true democracy, for Democracy is not a spectator sport, it is not a sport where only 61% people participate (Voter Turnout for 2008 elections).

[Strangelove]

Let me get this straighten up, has anyone realized why we need a 60 majority, and not a 51 in the Senate? Well for one part, the United States of America is not a direct democracy. It is a representative democracy. This was done so that the 51% of people don't take the civil liberties of the other 49%, but as far as i can see, its becoming ever clearer, that were moving far away from that idea.

Also, i see people clinging towards the left, or clinging towards the right.

http://www.theadvoca...uizp/index.html take this quiz.

Your PERSONAL issues Score is 100%.
Your ECONOMIC issues Score is 100%

My score

Edited by Strangelove, 01 December 2009 - 03:57 PM.

[RyrineaHaruno]

Let me get this straighten up, has anyone realized why we need a 60 majority, and not a 51 in the Senate? Well for one part, the United States of America is not a direct democracy. It is a representative democracy. This was done so that the 51% of people don't take the civil liberties of the other 49%, but as far as i can see, its becoming ever clearer, that were moving far away from that idea.

Bush got every thing passed, he wanted with 51 votes. The Republicans are the one who supported this new rule, so they would not be blamed for not getting anything done. . They are acting like spiteful little children, and sore losers.























I love this man, he a democrat with some balls to fight.

Edited by RyrineaHaruno, 01 December 2009 - 04:31 PM.

[Nate River]

Bush got every thing passed, he wanted with 51 votes. The Republicans are the one who supported this new rule, so they would not be blamed for not getting anything done. . They are acting like spiteful little children, and sore losers.

The 60 vote rule for cloture is something that developed hisotrically and is a procedural rule for the Senate. The Senate could remove it any time if it wants to.

Nobody will do it because each side knows they will need it when they are in the minority. If they remove it now, it's gone for them when they are in the minority.

He picks 55 votes? BWAHAHA! I'd bet money that number is directly correcelated with the number of people he thinks he can't peal off to vote for the thing. 55 votes has no root in anything and it's not just a random number.

The 51 votes refers to Budget Reconilliation. The constitution mandates that Congress pass a budget every year. So in the Senate there is a rule that Budget related items can pass with only 51 votes instead of the 60 normally required for cloture. The Health Care Bill does not qualify as such and everyone knows it. Reid may try to cram it through using this anyway, but there is reluctance by some Dems for a variety of reasons, including the knowledge that they are going to catch holy hell for ramming through something unpopular by using a procedural trick and the knowledge that if they do this Republicans will remember it and will be more than happy to stick it to them when they are the majority party again.

As to Bush, the issue really came up for judicial nominations when Republicans tried to eliminate the filibuster for judicial nominess because Democrat obstruction was so bad that they were unable to fill a large number of judicial vacanies that really needed to be filled. The Gang of 14 prevented this so it never happened.

Speaking of which, it's amusing that Alan Grayson isn't complaining about the filibuster when Democrats were using it during Bush's second term. Then it was characterized as a necessary procedure. Now, when it stops their ambitions if this horrible obsutruction that needs to go. Please.

If anyone is acting like a child its Grayson.

However, the reality is politicians of every stripe will whine when it obsturctions what they want to do and praise it when it prevents someone else from doing what they want to do.

My position is what it has always been, either you're stuck with it and you take your lumbs when its used on you or it's elimanted all together. No limits to pet issues (like judicial nominees) and none of this reduction garbage to the point where you think you need to be in order to get your pet projects passed.

You don't get to have your cake and eat it too, and that is what Grayson wants.

[Sakura Blossoms]

The entire world is sinking faster and faster into financial debt, and the United States is just racking up our own debt even higher and higher -.-

How do we stop government excessive spending D8

[RyrineaHaruno]

The entire world is sinking faster and faster into financial debt, and the United States is just racking up our own debt even higher and higher -.-

How do we stop government excessive spending D8

Where were the debt hawks during the bush's years. Oh that right, Obama is a left winger, and he is AN BIGER SPENDER.



But with all honesty Obama has, add to that budget of the debit with every bill he tries to get passed, and puts into law. In my Opinion, Reagan's with his defect don't matter polices gave the president a green light to spend what ever amount of money he or she wants. Then bush went and up the budget even higher..


I think the debit does matter, and I want them to go down, but with Presidents that do nothing about the debit,and such it does get depressing. I think we need to audit the federal bank, myself to see were all of our money was spent.

Edited by RyrineaHaruno, 01 December 2009 - 08:40 PM.

[Strangelove]

Where were the debt hawks during the bush's years. Oh that right, Obama is a left winger, and he is AN BIGER SPENDER.



But with all honesty Obama has, add to that budget with every bill he tries to get passed, and puts into law. In my Opinion, Reagan's with his defect don't matter polices the president mottos to spend what ever amount of money he wants. Then bush went and up the budget even higher..


I think the debit does matter, and I want them to go down, but with Presidents that do know nothing about costs,and such it does get depressing. I think we need to audit the federal bank, myself to see were all of our money were spent.

Lol, what?

[RyrineaHaruno]

Lol, what?

Tell me what you don't understand, and I can explain it.

[Dark]

Obama orders 30,000 more troops for Afghanistan.

I like that we actually have an exit plan, and that we seem to be pulling out a little more out of Iraq and going into Afghanistan, the war we should have been fully concentrated on in the first place.

[Yakatsu]

Obama orders 30,000 more troops for Afghanistan.

I like that we actually have an exit plan, and that we seem to be pulling out a little more out of Iraq and going into Afghanistan, the war we should have been fully concentrated on in the first place.

And he's dragging Europe into this.

Thanks for paying my pay check you guys!

[Strangelove]

I think the debit does matter

You mean the deficit >.>?

[Pite]

The deficit has to be taken the secondary seat. It is like having a debt in when your company has problems in a purely Libertarian country. You won't start cutting down on psending that's keeping this company afloat and you need more to keep R&D running to be able to dig yourself out of the problem. I think at the moment one has to get the economy back on track and them maybe deal with the deficit by, well, kill spending in all ways.

Raise Medicare and Social Security age limits to at least 70 (65 was established when people kicked the bucket at 69, now they live till 85 that 20 years on Uncle Sam's tab).

Cut military spending and increase accountability of the Politicians towards porking bills. etc.

[Nate River]

Obama orders 30,000 more troops for Afghanistan.

I like that we actually have an exit plan, and that we seem to be pulling out a little more out of Iraq and going into Afghanistan, the war we should have been fully concentrated on in the first place.

I know why he did so, but I still cannot understand, from a strategic or pratical perspective, why you would actually announce your withdrawl date before seeing if this actually worked or why you would openly announce your enemy when you plan to get the hell out of dodge.

Even if has a time-table personally, it makes no sense to announce one unless you're trying to appease someone else. In this case, his base.

Ideally, you stay until the job is done, but Obama hasn't been clear on defining what that means either.