NationStates Jolt Archive

Is it a GOOD thing that the Democratic party has the potential to take complete control of the Congress?
I say no....for many reasons
Ignoring the fact that the Democratic Party has no effective poliies, and their entire platform is based around 'Bush sucks" rather then actual issues, divided govt. in this dangerous era is a threat to national security. pointless tribunals will be held, the current administration will not be able to do a thing. Taxes will soar, military spending will plumet, action in Iraq will be frozen...the listgoes on and on.
Not to mention the immoral laws that will be passed by the liberals....

They had it for 40 years before 1994 . So whats your point ?

Its not the party its the people that make up the party that will determine if its a good or bad thing.

Depends on what they do with it..

For now I'm playing wait&see..

It will help turn Bush into a lame duck, or at least not rubber stamp everything he ever sends through.

I'll lay odds that within the next few months we'll see a reauthorization and expansion of the CAWB.

Other than that, I'm of mixed opinions.

As I said, I am very very scared for the furute of America, espescially if a Liberal Democrat takes office in 08....

I'm happy for the checks and balances that will be re-instituted in the government. The people have clearly--in fact overwhelmingly--spoken. Things have GOT to change, and the dems actually gave a real option, instead of, as many around here like to say, being repo-light.

Is it a GOOD thing that the Democratic party has the potential to take complete control of the Congress?
I say no....for many reasons
Ignoring the fact that the Democratic Party has no effective poliies, and their entire platform is based around 'Bush sucks" rather then actual issues, divided govt. in this dangerous era is a threat to national security. pointless tribunals will be held, the current administration will not be able to do a thing. Taxes will soar, military spending will plumet, action in Iraq will be frozen...the listgoes on and on.
Not to mention the immoral laws that will be passed by the liberals....

Nope. No policies. They said they would implement all of the 9/11 committee's recommendations, raise the federal minimum wage, and other things, but those certainly aren't policies. :rolleyes:

If the current administration can't do a thing it's an improvement. The current administration has fucked up everything it's touched.

Taxes won't soar for most folks. Pelosi has promised that taxes on the middle class will drop. If you're making several million a year you'll see your taxes go up, but you're under taxed anyway.

As for immoral laws, what's more immoral than discriminating against the gays, starting pointless wars, and banning research that can cure diseases and save actual human lives instead of preserving clumps of undifferentiated cells.

I'm looking foreward to the democrat congress investigating exactly what the Bush administration has been doing in secret. I'm sure there are loads of skeletons in their closet waiting to see the light of day. I can't wait to see exactly how criminal this administration is.

As I said, I am very very scared for the furute of America, espescially if a Liberal Democrat takes office in 08....

How many wars have been lost by Democrats compared to Republicans?
How many Democratic presidents have caused the nation to descend into massive debt?

Clue: Not many, if any.

I'm looking foreward to the democrat congress investigating exactly what the Bush administration has been doing in secret. I'm sure there are loads of skeletons in their closet waiting to see the light of day. I can't wait to see exactly how criminal this administration is.

You and millions of others:p

Where do I even start.....
OK, So you consider the Iraq war "pointless". So the crazy insane dictator who throws people into woodchippers is better then democracy. Alright, fine.
IT IS PART OF THE DEOMCRATIC PARTIES AGENDA TO PUSH DEMOCRATIC IDEALS. This means YES higher taxes, Clinton promised us the "most moral administration ever", we all know how that went...
If you trust the promises of ANY politicianm, you are a moron.
As for stem cell reasarch and gay marriage, well, that needs a thread of its own to explain....

How many wars have been lost by Democrats compared to Republicans?
How many Democratic presidents have caused the nation to descend into massive debt?

Clue: Not many, if any.

Vietnam was the product of many many Democratic presidents, need I say more?

Will the Democrats gaining Congress be a good thing? Depends what Republicans do about it.

Where do I even start.....
OK, So you consider the Iraq war "pointless". So the crazy insane dictator who throws people into woodchippers is better then democracy. Alright, fine.
IT IS PART OF THE DEOMCRATIC PARTIES AGENDA TO PUSH DEMOCRATIC IDEALS. This means YES higher taxes, Clinton promised us the "most moral administration ever", we all know how that went...
If you trust the promises of ANY politicianm, you are a moron.
As for stem cell reasarch and gay marriage, well, that needs a thread of its own to explain....

I look forward to you explaining why my being gay makes me deserving of fewer rights than someone who's heterosexual.

All I'll say is that we never lost a planet under a Democratic President.

Where do I even start.....
OK, So you consider the Iraq war "pointless". So the crazy insane dictator who throws people into woodchippers is better then democracy. Alright, fine. You want to rid the world of injustice? Why didn't we go to war in Sudan? That's where mass rapes, mass murder and genocide is taking place. Life under Saddam was paradise compared to that. Hell, life under Saddam was better than the current situation in Iraq. Oh, and they democratically voted in a government that will side with Iran over the US as soon as we're out of there. It WAS a pointless war. Thousands of Iraqis and US troops have died for NOTHING. There is just as much death and torture in Iraq now as there was under Saddam. At least saddam wasn't a religious extremist. At least under Saddam the region of the world that provides oil to drive the global economy was stable.
IT IS PART OF THE DEOMCRATIC PARTIES AGENDA TO PUSH DEMOCRATIC IDEALS. This means YES higher taxes, Clinton promised us the "most moral administration ever", we all know how that went...
If you trust the promises of ANY politicianm, you are a moron.
As for stem cell reasarch and gay marriage, well, that needs a thread of its own to explain....Democratic ideals are American ideals. Taxes will go up for the richest among us. In every other advanced, modern nation they're much, much higher. The rich are under taxed. Taxes on the middle class will go down.

Sometimes politicians do keep their promises, democrat and republican. To generalize in such a manner that you think no politician ever keeps a promise is a mark of your own idiocy.

Clinton got a blowjob. Big deal. At least he hit al qaeda BEFORE 9/11.

What are you going to explain? How you're a homophobe and you value a clump of cells more than a sick human? Don't bother. I'm not interested in your immorality.

Vietnam was the product of many many Democratic presidents, need I say more?

I forgot that Nixon was a Democrat. Thanks for the heads-up!

If the current administration can't do a thing it's an improvement.

though anybody that still needs to have this pointed out is probably too far gone to ever understand it.

I forgot that Nixon was a Democrat. Thanks for the heads-up!

Well compared to Dubya he was.

Where do I even start.....
OK, So you consider the Iraq war "pointless". So the crazy insane dictator who throws people into woodchippers is better then democracy. Alright, fine.
IT IS PART OF THE DEOMCRATIC PARTIES AGENDA TO PUSH DEMOCRATIC IDEALS. This means YES higher taxes, Clinton promised us the "most moral administration ever", we all know how that went...
If you trust the promises of ANY politicianm, you are a moron.
As for stem cell reasarch and gay marriage, well, that needs a thread of its own to explain....

Oh. We went to war to oust Saddam? Because I thought there was something about weapons of mass destrucition or something. So, fine. The war wasn't "pointless," we were just unsure of the point before the war started. Thats good leadership, I don't see why the GOP got destroyed in the mid-terms.

Vietnam was the product of many many Democratic presidents, need I say more?

i approve of this counting system.

one = many, two = many many, three = many many many. when you get to five or ten, is there some sort of place-holding word? so that eleven would be lots many, maybe?

Well compared to Dubya he was.

I dunno, it's easy to forget the terrible presidents of the past compared to our current ones. Nixon did some unforgivable things.
That said, I suppose domestically he was better.

id just like to say
how is it a freaking threat to national security not to let a crazy stupid megalomaniac do anything he wants to with the most powerful country on the planet

No, we'll just replace Republican corruption and catering to special interests with Democratic corruption and catering to special interests. Six or twelve years from now we'll be hearing the same old complaints, and all I will have to say is "I told you so".

I dunno, it's easy to forget the terrible presidents of the past compared to our current ones. Nixon did some unforgivable things.
That said, I suppose domestically he was better.

Funy, Nixon usually rates better on foreign policy, like the opening of relations with China. Domestically he implemented wage and price freezes and then there was the whole Watergate thing.

No, we'll just replace Republican corruption and catering to special interests with Democratic corruption and catering to special interests. Six or twelve years from now we'll be hearing the same old complaints, and all I will have to say is "I told you so".

So then we vote the Democrats out.

I won't be able to bitch as much. I'll miss that. But they'll probably screw up something. I think it'll be some improvement though.

So then we vote the Democrats out.

Yeah, wash, rinse, repeat ad infinitum.

At least we'll hopefully get some gridlock; that's the only good thing that could come out of a Democratic congress with a Republican president. They need to just stop doing things for a while.

No, we'll just replace Republican corruption and catering to special interests with Democratic corruption and catering to special interests.

When the Democrats pass legislation equivalent to the Military Commissions Act, or when they authorize a war of aggression against another country that kills tens of thousands of people, or when they sit back and watch as the chief executive ignores the rule of law, then you will have a point.

Until then, I could care less about "corruption and catering to special interests." They all do it, but there are more important things about which to be concerned.

The Democrats and Republicans have formed a symbiont cycle in the past. The Democrats come in with a whole bunch of ideas, throw all kinds of programs against the wall and see what sticks. In the process, they generally run up spending quite a bit. Then the Republicans come in when it gets too bad, cut everything, in theory leaving only the most viable programs, and bring things back under control. Unfortunately, they usually swing a little excessive on the control part, then the Dems have to come back and cut the nation loose and start the cycle again.

Lately, we have a Democrat who balanced the budget, and a Republican who buried the nation under a mountain of debt. of COURSE it's going to look like the Democrats are going to raise taxes, and they're going to have to cut spending in places as well. And the Republicans will be howling all along the way "I TOLD YOU SO!".

But when this happens, lets remember how the imbalance got started in the first place. The Bush administration has cut taxes, massively increased spending, and created ever larger government apparatuses. They lack a basic understanding of.. well... reality.

You can't have any more than you have, and you can't spend any more than you have. Income is finite, but they're acting like it isn't. Why? They'll leave it to the Democrats to sort out the horrid mess, then blame them for the pain of the sorting. Kinda makes it sound like the Democrats have become the party of fiscal responsibility.

I forgot that Nixon was a Democrat. Thanks for the heads-up!

Well, the Vietnam engagement technically started under JFK and the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution which escalated our involvement was under LBJ. Furthermore, a better counter-example to your original point is FDR. He descended the country into debt to save us from the Great Depression.

Sometimes debt is useful though, Alexander Hamilton and John Maynard Keynes taught us that.

Sometimes debt is useful though, Alexander Hamilton and John Maynard Keynes taught us that.

though one wouldn't have to think very hard to come up with a better way of creating it other than killing 600,000 people

Vietnam was the product of many many Democratic presidents, need I say more?

It was never teh US's intent to "win" the War in Vietnam. The US won by preventing Ho Chi Minh from being able to build a democratic socialist society in peace.

Well, the Vietnam engagement technically started under JFK and the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution which escalated our involvement was under LBJ. Furthermore, a better counter-example to your original point is FDR. He descended the country into debt to save us from the Great Depression.

Sometimes debt is useful though, Alexander Hamilton and John Maynard Keynes taught us that.

Open combat? Sure.

However, US involvement goes back to Truman. He allocated 10 mill or so for anticommunist stuff.
Eisenhower had advisor's and other things going on. In fact the first 2 casualties were two advisor's, I think in 1959.

Then of course JFK, LBJ, Nixon, Ford.....

I can see why America should go Independent rather than going for either side of the Party.

1. Democrats have progressed America a lot in the last 50 years, but in the last 6 I've noticed that most of what they believe is the exact opposite of the the Republicans believe, and their campaigns revolve around the fact that "Bush sucks, the Republicans suck, we're intelligent because everything we do is more progressive than the Republicans, but never mind we're the same party!"

2. For the Republicans...... Iraq and 9/11. And Katrina. Need I say more?

3. For the last 230 years America has been a two-party system, if you could call a country being run by basically the same party a two-party system.

4. Everything is so "Reps vs. Dems" that every issue isn't about the people, it's which half of the Party has the better chance in the Senate and House.

:mad: Hopefully we get an Independent president in 2008. It would make such a nice change.

Is it a GOOD thing that the Democratic party has the potential to take complete control of the Congress?
I say no....for many reasons
Ignoring the fact that the Democratic Party has no effective poliies, and their entire platform is based around 'Bush sucks" rather then actual issues, divided govt. in this dangerous era is a threat to national security. pointless tribunals will be held, the current administration will not be able to do a thing. Taxes will soar, military spending will plumet, action in Iraq will be frozen...the listgoes on and on.
Not to mention the immoral laws that will be passed by the liberals....

I think the only way any good will come from the Democrates is if they have the balls to impeach Bush. I really have given up on politics but it would be nice to see Bush Impeached. If the Republicans can impeach Slick Willy for a blow job the Democrats can sure as hell impeach GWB for starting an unnecessary war on a false pretense.

though one wouldn't have to think very hard to come up with a better way of creating it other than killing 600,000 people

FDR killed 600,000 people?

It will be both good and bad, and it will be neither. National politics are too vast to be summarily judged in so simple a fashion. Hell, even local politics are too complex for that.

It was never teh US's intent to "win" the War in Vietnam. The US won by preventing Ho Chi Minh from being able to build a democratic socialist society in peace.
We didn't lose, we tied.

Bush for the first time has suggested he needs to work with everybody, including the Democrats. So instead of fearing the loss of King George's totalitarianism, think of it as a balancing of powers. And anyways, as conservatives (or at least anti-liberals) on these threads keep forgetting, the last terrorist attack in the US before 9/11 was McVeigh, who, incidentally, was a registered Republican. So if you want to spout nonsensical propaganda, that's my little piece: Republicans are inherently more dangerous to national security.

Now, for those who know me, I am a social conservative-lite (not quite a moderate-leaning-right, but not a social extreme conservative, either), and an economic classical liberal, and a Calvinist.

Thank God the Republicans lost the House.

You see, I like what the Republican stands for. However, no one stands for that anymore. The Republican party was out of touch with it's voter base, and, more so, with this thing called "reality." the Republican party got too comfortable in its power and started abandoning what it stands for.

Now that Nancy Pelosi is Speaker of the House (This is one of the scariest things I have ever experienced, and I shudder every time I say it), the Republicans will shape up.

I've always wanted a purge of the Republican Party. I got it, and now, the Party can be revitalized after getting it's very strong reality check.

I don't know if the new Congress will be better or worse. Time will tell. I just want the Iraqi people to have a better life than they had under Saddam. They are good people with a bad history of dictatorship. Do ya'll think the Democratic Congress will see the job through?

Is it a GOOD thing that the Democratic party has the potential to take complete control of the Congress?
I say no....for many reasons
Ignoring the fact that the Democratic Party has no effective poliies, and their entire platform is based around 'Bush sucks" rather then actual issues, divided govt. in this dangerous era is a threat to national security. pointless tribunals will be held, the current administration will not be able to do a thing. Taxes will soar, military spending will plumet, action in Iraq will be frozen...the listgoes on and on.
Not to mention the immoral laws that will be passed by the liberals....

Will it be?

It already is. It demonstrates that Americans are so sick of the monstrous behavior of the nation's conservatives that despite all their efforts at fraud, they still lost, because you can't steal a landslide.

Your accusation of Democrats being wrapped up in the idea that "Bush Sucks," is idiotic. Yes, it's a big rallying point, but the fact that it's all you see means that you just don't understand the rest. Although, Bush sucking is enough. You see, I oppose people kicking me in the balls because it hurts. I don't feel it is my obligation to provide alternate uses for the time of those feet that would otherwise be kicking me in the balls. If a foot is directed towards my balls I will chop it off. If a mouth accuses my feet of not having a better purpose I will not use my mouth to argue with it, I will use that recently acquired severed foot to stuff the mouth that questions my non-ball kicking feet.

The Bush administration is a giant 8-year kick in the balls. All republicans can say to defend him is "well the democrats aren't doing any kicking of anyone's balls," and "well if they democrats don't like ball kicking, then they should just let us keep kicking you in the balls."

Getting kicked in the balls is a bad thing. Dems wanting to put a stop to it is a good thing. You thinking that Dems are insufficient for trying to put a stop to the cause of all the country's problems... Bad Thing.

FDR killed 600,000 people?

Um, Bush did. I hardly think you can lay the blame for all WWII's casualties on FDR.

Is it a GOOD thing that the Democratic party has the potential to take complete control of the Congress?
I say no....for many reasons
Ignoring the fact that the Democratic Party has no effective poliies, and their entire platform is based around 'Bush sucks" rather then actual issues, divided govt. in this dangerous era is a threat to national security. pointless tribunals will be held, the current administration will not be able to do a thing. Taxes will soar, military spending will plumet, action in Iraq will be frozen...the listgoes on and on.
Not to mention the immoral laws that will be passed by the liberals....
I notice that you like quoting Popes.


War is always a defeat for humanity.

I notice that you like quoting Popes.

I like quoting popes too.

http://i14.tinypic.com/4e1geva.jpg

Um, Bush did. I hardly think you can lay the blame for all WWII's casualties on FDR.

Maybe I misread the post.

I like quoting popes too.
http://i14.tinypic.com/4e1geva.jpg

Who doesn't like to quote the pope? (http://freeplay.unaligned.org/popenoob.jpg)

It will be a superlatively good thing.

I just have to say "thank god." A Republican Executive and Democratic Legislative will hopefully cancel each other out and very little harm will be done to the nation. Then again...

It will only be good if the dems join the Ellsberg club and try to impeach Dubya:) If not it will still be fun to see them launch all sorts of nice investigations in Republicans with their new powers.

Also people seem to be saying that the dems will be bad because their campaign was based around bagging Dubya rather than actual policies, I would put foward that this is the direct reaction of Dubya backing the whole country into a corner over stupid decisions about Iraq and the ME.

So therefore the mid terms turned to be a plebiscite on the war, and many voters such as those in Rhode Island liked their Repub rep but voted him down, going for the party instead of the man, which in US politics it's usually the other way round. So moreover therefore in my opinion the midterms have become more about lodging a protest rather than a vote.

It still though remains to be seen what Dubya will react to this, he could go back to the 'old Bush' that actually worked with the Dems in Texas, but I think that maybe unlikely, in such a case he'll be a lame duck pres for the next 2 years. Especially when you have a far leftist as the speaker of the House, it really shows how much Dubya has just plainly enraged so many voters, and also the Dems.

FDR killed 600,000 people?
Yup. Most of them with his bare hands, too.

Yup. Most of them with his bare hands, too.

I thought he stomped them to death.

I thought he stomped them to death.
Until he wore out his legs. Then he ran them over with the chair.















Conscience: "Oh, Muravyets, that's insensitive!"

I love how people denounced the President winning handidly in 2004 as not being a "public mandate," but the '06 Democrats' win is "clearly a mandate." :p

// is not a Republican //