NationStates Jolt Archive

and why do I need to be afraid of them?

Please keep your answers to three or four sentences tops, as I don't want to read much.

The Democrats. They will raise your taxes, kill your babies, invite the terrorists for another attack, give drugs to your children, give your job to an illegal immigrant, and replace your favorite TV icons with gay Asian men. Well, not really, but they will have a detrimental effect upon the economy, personal freedom, and foreign policy.

The Democrats. They will raise your taxes, kill your babies, invite the terrorists for another attack, give drugs to your children, give your job to an illegal immigrant, and replace your favorite TV icons with gay Asian men. Well, not really, but they will have a detrimental effect upon the economy, personal freedom, and foreign policy.

I so thought you were being serious.

The Democrats. You should be afraid because in some respects, they are almost as bad as the Republicans.

and why do I need to be afraid of them?

Please keep your answers to three or four sentences tops, as I don't want to read much.

For a second I thought your title meant you conquered your midterm exams. I really need coffee.

So, Who Won the Midterms

Americans. :p ;) :D

Americans. :p ;) :D

Oh, really (http://www.theonion.com/content/node/54918)?

Oh, really (http://www.theonion.com/content/node/54918)?

You know, for a "liberal" victory, this could have gone alot worse for you. You should be thankful it wasnt a complete massacre of your ideals.

The Democrats. They will raise your taxes, kill your babies, invite the terrorists for another attack, give drugs to your children, give your job to an illegal immigrant, and replace your favorite TV icons with gay Asian men. Well, not really, but they will have a detrimental effect upon the economy, personal freedom, and foreign policy.

yeah, cuz republicans won't do any of those things. They've desecrated and pissed on more things America has stood for than any enemy could've ever done to America.

A bunch of greedy old men won. The people lost.

The pageant goes on.

You should be thankful it wasnt a complete massacre of your ideals.

The day my ideals are massacred will be the day the American people are massacred by Islamo-fascist extremists. Let's hope that the day of which you speak never comes.

A bunch of greedy old men won. The people lost.

A bunch of greedy old men marginally preferable to the bunch of greedy old men they replaced.

So, in a way, the people won.

A bunch of greedy old men marginally preferable to the bunch of greedy old men they replaced.

Conrad Burns -- a greedy old man? Well, I never. The old Republicans may have been avaricious, but at least they did what was in the best interest of the country, while accruing a little fringe benefits on the side. That's more than I can see for the new Democrats -- they may not be corrupt, but they'll corrupt the country.

A bunch of greedy old men marginally preferable to the bunch of greedy old men they replaced.
I fail to see how.

Most Republicans aren’t Neocons, they just role over for them. The Democrats can be convinced to do the same.

Really, raising the minimum wage won’t upset the Cheney’s of the world too much. In fact, it may just contribute to giving the government enough support to start another war.

The Democrats.
Crap. Could have been worse I guess.
They will raise your taxes
Raise your taxes. The US Government doesn't get money from me nor will it ever.
kill your babies
Good. I'm too young to be a father.
invite the terrorists for another attack
I may be misinformed, but weren't the Republicans were what pissed them off. Why would they attack you when you are no longer provoking them?
give drugs to your children
Kids need drugs. It gives them perspective.
give your job to an illegal immigrantPfft. My supervisors want to clone me. My job is nothing but secure. If you tried a bit, yours would be too.
and replace your favorite TV icons with gay Asian men.
Not Sun Ji Colbert!
Well, not really, but they will have a detrimental effect upon the economy, personal freedom, and foreign policy.
Hmm. Perhaps they will destroy your economy a bit more and repeal the damned tariff.

Looks like my profs did better than I hoped. I wish I'd have done better than a B on my PS 545 exam.

Conrad Burns -- a greedy old man? Well, I never. The old Republicans may have been avaricious, but at least they did what was in the best interest of the country, while accruing a little fringe benefits on the side. That's more than I can see for the new Democrats -- they may not be corrupt, but they'll corrupt the country.

Your campaign to defeat your trollish stigma is faltering...

aliens won the midterms.

you should fear them cuz they will turn you green. and gay. and canadian. and they will miraculously provoke muslim terrorists into attacking you by not poking them with pointy sticks.

I fail to see how.

Most Republicans aren’t Neocons, they just role over for them. The Democrats can be convinced to do the same.

Really, raising the minimum wage won’t upset the Cheney’s of the world too much. In fact, it may just contribute to giving the government enough support to start another war.

The Democrats are far less supportive of the Iraq War than the Republicans.

They will also be somewhat less willing to tolerate the violations of civil liberties that Bush wants to push through.

aliens won the midterms.

you should fear them cuz they will turn you green. and gay. and canadian.

Crap! I'm a third of he way there!

aliens won the midterms.

you should fear them cuz they will turn you green. and gay. and canadian. and they will miraculously provoke muslim terrorists into attacking you by not poking them with pointy sticks.

I think I have enough caffeine, alcohol and bile in my system to resist the aliens and their greenifying/gayifying/canadianifying rays.

A bunch of greedy old men won. The people lost.

but this bunch of greedy old men didn't just vote as a block to allow bush to disappear people. it's as close to a win for the people as was possible in the circumstances.

Conrad Burns -- a greedy old man? Well, I never. The old Republicans may have been avaricious, but at least they did what was in the best interest of the country, while accruing a little fringe benefits on the side.

You may find murderous imperialism and attacks on liberty and equality to be "in the best interest of the country," but I must confess that I do not.

That's more than I can see for the new Democrats -- they may not be corrupt, but they'll corrupt the country.

By allowing gay marriage?

The Democrats are far less supportive of the Iraq War than the Republicans.
They'll support whatever gets them reelected.
They will also be somewhat less willing to tolerate the violations of civil liberties that Bush wants to push through.
The new Democrats have all but sworn not to touch social issues, and only pass some minor economic and security reforms.
but this bunch of greedy old men didn't just vote as a block to allow bush to disappear people. it's as close to a win for the people as was possible in the circumstances.
Only because it isn't convenient for them to do so. If they could, they would, and they certainly won't be doing anything about it anytime soon.

Conrad Burns

I don't know why, but everytime I heard that name spoken on CNN, I heard "Comrade Burns." Combine that with the red backround and the Republican party affiliation and you have high hilarity.

For a second I thought your title meant you conquered your midterm exams. I really need coffee.

I did get 97% on the Physics midterm.

I did get 97% on the Physics midterm.

yeah yeah, gloat all you want. Physics is easy compared to say...English...

yeah yeah, gloat all you want. Physics is easy compared to say...English...

Didn't have a midterm.:p

So, Who Won the Midterms?

Terrorists and illegal immigrants.

Didn't have a midterm.:p

YOU LIE! :eek:

YOU LIE! :eek:

Now why would I do that?

Now why would I do that?

Because you're secretly in love with Bill Clinton.

According to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics, the price tag for this year’s election will reach at least $2.8 billion—about a 20 percent increase over the 2002 election cycle, the last midterm campaign. That total includes a conservatively estimated $30 million raised and spent by so-called 527 committees, issue-advocacy groups that are largely secretive about where they get their money and where they spend it. And those totals could climb higher since candidates, parties and political committees raised and spent funds at a record pace in the final days of the campaign.

What’s striking about the jump in 2006 fund-raising is that members of Congress said it wouldn’t happen. In 2002 Congress approved the McCain-Feingold campaign-finance reform bill, which was intended to close election loopholes that allowed national parties to take unlimited and unregulated “soft” money contributions from corporations and other entities. The idea was to block special-interest groups that contributed massive checks to the parties from having undue influence over elections. As a side benefit, lawmakers also hoped to slow the focus on fund-raising that had driven recent campaigns.

Before the new rules went into effect in late 2002, the parties went on a final spree. In March 2002, the Democratic National Committee got the largest single federal campaign contribution ever: a $7 million check from Haim Saban, a major Democratic donor best known as the creator of the kids' TV show “Power Rangers.” Steve Bing, a Los Angeles film producer, wrote a single $5 million check.

Today, it’s illegal for someone to contribute more than $101,400 in total to federal parties, PACs and candidates each campaign cycle—but the days of the $7 million check aren’t entirely over. Instead of giving that money to the national parties, donors are writing megachecks to 527s. Take Bob Perry. Best known for initially funding the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth attacks against John Kerry in 2004, the Houston home builder has contributed more than $10 million to 527 groups in 2006—making him one of the largest political donors of the year. His money has funded attack ads against Tennessee Democratic Senate candidate Harold Ford and New Jersey Democratic Sen. Bob Menendez. In New Jersey, an anti-Menendez ad spoofed “The Sopranos” when talking about a federal investigation into a nonprofit group with which Menendez has had financial dealings. (Menendez denies any wrongdoing.)


The number of contributors this year is in line with 2002—but each person is giving more. (In 2002 lawmakers doubled federal contribution limits to make up for checks the parties would miss with a soft-money ban: individuals can now give candidates $4,000 per election, up from $2,000.) According to the CRP, more than 603,000 Americans have given a campaign contribution of $200 or more in 2006. Of that total, 71 people have given the maximum $101,400. The list that includes lawyers and lobbyists from both sides of the aisle, energy executives and other business types.

Where’d the money go? Republicans have been the main beneficiaries of federal campaign contributions this year, raising about $1.2 billion, according to the Federal Election Commission. But Democrats have something to smile about. While they didn’t raise as much—just more than $1 billion—Democratic candidates and party committees entered the final weeks of the campaign with slightly more cash in the bank than Republicans. (Democrats had about $294 million, while the GOP had about $290 million, according to the CRP.) The cash-on-hand stats are most positive for the Democrats when looking at the House and Senate party committees. As of Oct. 18, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee reported $36 million cash in the bank, compared to $18 million for the National Republican Congressional Committee. The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee reported having nearly double the cash of its Republican counterpart with $23 million in the bank compared to $12 million for Senate Republicans.

The biggest success story for Democrats: they’ve competed financially. Party officials have chalked this up to the support of the grass roots, but that’s not the only reason. With a possible leadership shake-up in Washington, business interests that have typically supported Republicans have been hedging their bets in recent months, making friends with Dems just in case. Possible leaders like Nancy Pelosi—House Speaker if the Democrats win the majority—have seen an uptick in campaign contributions from business PACs representing banks and securities brokers. Ditto for the DCCC.


The DCCC’s most recent FEC filing included a $5,000 contribution from Valero Energy, one of the nation’s top oil companies. Valero is a big GOP booster, contributing more than 80 percent of its contributions to Republicans. But this year, as Democrats have pledged to roll back oil-company tax breaks if elected to the majority, Valero has contributed $25,000 to the DCCC.

This was an expensive year for political donors, who will have to wait and see whether their money has made a difference.

Because you're secretly in love with Bill Clinton.

Secretly?

Secretly?

secretely, openly, same difference. At least you're not in love with GWB. Now that's just creepy.

secretely, openly, same difference. At least you're not in love with GWB. Now that's just creepy.

You could be in love with Karl Rove.

You could be in love with Karl Rove.

I just threw up a little,:p

I just threw up a little,:p

Then my job here is complete. :)

*vanishes into the night*

The day my ideals are massacred will be the day the American people are massacred by Islamo-fascist extremists. Let's hope that the day of which you speak never comes.But your ideals are not in danger when American people massacre others?
.

The Democrats. They will raise your taxes, kill your babies, invite the terrorists for another attack, give drugs to your children, give your job to an illegal immigrant, and replace your favorite TV icons with gay Asian men. Well, not really, but they will have a detrimental effect upon the economy, personal freedom, and foreign policy.

Knowing MTAE, I coulda accepted this post without that part. That actually sounds similar to some stuff he has actually claimed to actually believe.

Over here in the indefatigable United Kingdom, it seems like you chaps are rather blind to what's going on in your own country.

The amount of gerrymandering, vote-rigging and numerous other forms of electoral fraud that you all ignore would cause national uproar and rioting, over here. We simply cant understand how you can let your hard-earned freedoms be stolen away from you as they are at the moment.

The whole two-party system is completely flawed, and it seems you have a choice between bad (Democrats) and damnably awful (Republicans).

The fact that 1 in 3 black americans cant vote because they've been through the (institutionally racist) "justice" system is absurd.

Your president's behaviour is tantamount to that of a crackpot dictator, just with a wafer-thin veneer of "democracy".


Here, in Britain, there is a massive wave of "anti-Americanism", at the moment: the British public are massivly disenchanted with our American "allies", and the ordinary Brit just cant understand how it is you people can be so complacent, idle, apathetic and ignorant to the massive injustices going on around you.

Wake up.

The fact that 1 in 3 black americans cant vote because they've been through the (institutionally racist) "justice" system is absurd.


Where'd you find that stat from?

Where'd you find that stat from?

You mean you've never heard that before? Well that just about proves my point. It's common knowledge, here.

You mean you've never heard that before? Well that just about proves my point. It's common knowledge, here.

Care for a source?

EDIT: And to insinuate that Britian is so highly "above" the US is to only fool yourself, my friend. :) Also bear in mind your distance from the situation (the political situation within the US); it rarely provides a better view or understanding. Foreigners hear sound bytes and are, in my experience, far more willing to believe arrogant blowhards with agendas (ie Michael Moore).

Terrorists and illegal immigrants.

MTAE's already tried that line.

Knowing MTAE, I coulda accepted this post without that part. That actually sounds similar to some stuff he has actually claimed to actually believe.

I do believe some of that stuff (they're obviously itching for another tax increase to halt economic growth), but I'm trying to cut down on my more outlandish ideas so that I'm not thought to be a troll. It was with a heavy heart that I refrained from posting what I really thought of the Democrats.

The Democrats. You should be afraid because in some respects, they are almost as bad as the Republicans.

I soooo hate this line of reasoning.

It's like missing your exit on the highway and saying, "why should I turn around? If I turn around I'm just as far away from my exit, and on the same side of it," as if I keep facing this direction."

The Republicans were wrong, so we've replaced them. Now we have to pay attention to what they're wrong on and make sure that they know that we're watching the primaries. CT did that with Lieberman. Sure, some of you are saying, "but he still won." Yes, but he had to change his position to be much more like what Lamont's was. He's more a Democrat now as an independent than he was as a Democrat.

The problem with Republicans is not that they didn't hold to their principles. Its that their principles themselves are evil and destructive.

What is more important is who did not win. Republicans lost because of their power-drunk corruption and sloppiness.

I think the American people are the winners. The Republicans quit listening to what the people want and the people said, "We are in charge, not you." and voted the bums out.

Will the Democrats do some things that will upset the people? Hell yes, but if they are smart they will not quit listening to the people and really piss them off. After all, they want to keep Congress and gain the White House in two years.

The Republican will learn to start listening again and try to give the people what they want by moving to a more centrist position. Hopefully they will nominate someone who is more of a centrist for president.

If we are very lucky, there will be a good, strong, and electable third party candidate on 08 who will be elected.

That's more than I can see for the new Democrats -- they may not be corrupt, but they'll corrupt the country.

They may not have been caught at being corrupt yet. I will not believe that all Democrats who are in office are as "pure as the driven snow" nor do I believe that all the Republicans who remain in Washington are pure either.

Crap. Could have been worse I guess. ...SNIP...

ROFLMAO. :p I love that North of the Border perspective.

I soooo hate this line of reasoning.

It's like missing your exit on the highway and saying, "why should I turn around? If I turn around I'm just as far away from my exit, and on the same side of it," as if I keep facing this direction."

The Republicans were wrong, so we've replaced them. Now we have to pay attention to what they're wrong on and make sure that they know that we're watching the primaries. CT did that with Lieberman. Sure, some of you are saying, "but he still won." Yes, but he had to change his position to be much more like what Lamont's was. He's more a Democrat now as an independent than he was as a Democrat.

The problem is that we have not turned around; we are still going in the same direction, just perhaps at a slower pace and without some of the more egregious idiocies.

The problem with Republicans is not that they didn't hold to their principles. Its that their principles themselves are evil and destructive.

Agreed.

According to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics, ...BIG SNIP...

NEWS FLASH: The major corporations in the US have just announced a 10% price increase in their products. A spokesman for McDugals Pork Burgers said, "This increase was necessary to recover the expense we incurred for 2006 contributions." He went on to say, "This ain't nothin. We will probably have to raise prices by 20-30% in 2009." :eek:

ROFLMAO. :p I love that North of the Border perspective.

I was rooting for the Socialist and the Libertarians. *nod*

...SNIP...would cause national uproar and rioting,

Last time we did that here was 1776. :D

You mean you've never heard that before? Well that just about proves my point. It's common knowledge, here.

Comon knowledg is not always correct knowledge so if you would provide a source for that "common knowledge" it would be greatly appreciated. It is true that in some states, if you are convicted of a felony you lose your right to vote, it depends on the state law, not federal law and has nothing to do with race.

The problem is that we have not turned around; we are still going in the same direction, just perhaps at a slower pace and without some of the more egregious idiocies.

With the Republicans in power, we were inexorably heading on a bridge to nowhere. After the Democrats seized power, we slammed on the gas, began yapping on our cell phone while driving, had sex with other car passengers while still attempting to manoeuvre the car adequately, and threw money out the window to the less fortunate while steering the car with our feet.

With the Republicans in power, we were inexorably heading on a bridge to nowhere. After the Democrats seized power, we slammed on the gas, began yapping on our cell phone while driving, had sex with other car passengers while still attempting to manoeuvre the car adequately, and threw money out the window to the less fortunate while steering the car with our feet.

What is wrong with this?

Comon knowledg is not always correct knowledge so if you would provide a source for that "common knowledge" it would be greatly appreciated. It is true that in some states, if you are convicted of a felony you lose your right to vote, it depends on the state law, not federal law and has nothing to do with race.

I read it in THe Guardian. Therefore it must be true - the Guardian does not make up statistics.

Anyway, i think that by querying my statistics you are missing the point, which is that your country is NOT democratic, regardless of what you people say.

Conrad Burns -- a greedy old man? Well, I never. The old Republicans may have been avaricious, but at least they did what was in the best interest of the country, while accruing a little fringe benefits on the side. That's more than I can see for the new Democrats -- they may not be corrupt, but they'll corrupt the country.

Oh yes. Which is why Independents should be in control, Independent isn't really a party so therefore nobody would have to worry about how much power their party has over the country. Politics would vary a lot more and they would be ten times as interesting, ergo, the people would win an election for once. I admit I have no clue who Conrad Burns is, but if he's such a good guy he's probably not a "real" Republican anyways.

And I didn't know the second post was yours. ;) Good job, MTAE.

What is wrong with this?

We were steering the car with our feet. Which may or may not be a bad feat, depending on if we survived. :nod:

The Democrats. They will raise your taxes, kill your babies, invite the terrorists for another attack, give drugs to your children, give your job to an illegal immigrant, and replace your favorite TV icons with gay Asian men.

hell yes.

Which is why Independents should be in control

Which Independents?

I doubt that anything will really change.

With the Republicans in power, we were inexorably heading on a bridge to nowhere. After the Democrats seized power, we slammed on the gas, began yapping on our cell phone while driving, had sex with other car passengers while still attempting to manoeuvre the car adequately, and threw money out the window to the less fortunate while steering the car with our feet.

Might as well go out in style.