NationStates Jolt Archive

Here's a good first step (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/27/us/politics/27civil.html?ex=1324875600&en=1908a7bc51c2d834&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss). Of course, what's probably going to happen out of it will just be a GOP who will still piss and moan about whatever they can come up with. Let's hope this new civility will serve to expose the infantile nature of congressional repbulicans.

If you think democrats are just nice sweet little angels you need to read up on history a bit better and stop taking a liberal newspapers word on it. Being bitter in defeat goes both ways.

Here's a good first step (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/27/us/politics/27civil.html?ex=1324875600&en=1908a7bc51c2d834&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss). Of course, what's probably going to happen out of it will just be a GOP who will still piss and moan about whatever they can come up with. Let's hope this new civility will serve to expose the infantile nature of congressional repbulicans.

You're just kidding, right?

You're just kidding, right?

No he's not.

serve to expose the infantile nature of congressional repbulicans.

it needs exposing?

If you think democrats are just nice sweet little angels you need to read up on history a bit better and stop taking a liberal newspapers word on it. Being bitter in defeat goes both ways.

You know, I find you to be a New Mittani breed of troll, the kind that actually annoys me, and your claims of liberal newspapers is rather idiotic, but you do have a good point for once. Democrats are not angels. Quite frankly, they are barely different from Republicans. Both parties have spin machines going full cycle 24/7/365 to make people think they're on opposite sides of the political spectrum, when they're not.

"has promised to restore House and Senate practices to those more closely resembling the textbook version of how a bill becomes law: daylight debate, serious amendments and minority party participation."

Oh! And all this time I thought the "textbook version of how a bill becomes law" was; back room deals, back scratching, and sucking up to lobbyists. :eek: So, let's keep this article in the archives and see how they measure up to their promises over the next two years.

Personally I'm more inclined to believe that the democrats will treat the resmuglicans with more respect than they got from the for the last 12 years, over anything the resigned masses of NSG have to say.

And, just for you Celty...

link :D (http://simplythebest.net/sounds/WAV/sound_effects_WAV/sound_effect_WAV_files/baby_cry.wav)

Arguably, the Democrats haven't achieved a victory yet. They still only possess a majority if you discount Cheney's vote and if you consider Leiberman to be a solid democrat vote. They're victory will hopefully be complete in 2008 when they put a president in office.

"playing politics" for the democrats this term should be exactly what the article says, cleaning up congress, less pork, fewer partisan goodies, full work weeks, fulfilling promises

if the democrats can do that, they will win the presidency AND congress in '08. it would be by far the smartest trick they could ever play on the republicans.

if they dont, they are screwed.

Arguably, the Democrats haven't achieved a victory yet. They still only possess a majority if you discount Cheney's vote and if you consider Leiberman to be a solid democrat vote. They're victory will hopefully be complete in 2008 when they put a president in office.

While the votes, when you include Vice Prez Prick, and Joe "kissy face" Liberman, are a dead heat. The important thing, in the senate, is control of the comittees, and even with the slim majority they have, the dems get that control.

Arguably, the Democrats haven't achieved a victory yet. They still only possess a majority if you discount Cheney's vote and if you consider Leiberman to be a solid democrat vote. They're victory will hopefully be complete in 2008 when they put a president in office.
Cheney only gets to vote if there's a tie, so Holy Joe's the only one you have to really worry about.

Here's a good first step (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/27/us/politics/27civil.html?ex=1324875600&en=1908a7bc51c2d834&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss). Of course, what's probably going to happen out of it will just be a GOP who will still piss and moan about whatever they can come up with. Let's hope this new civility will serve to expose the infantile nature of congressional repbulicans.

Democrats will be gracious in victory, lol, LOL.

Democrats will be gracious in victory, lol, LOL.

Oh, do elaborate. Otherwise check the link I left for Celty and STFU.

Democrats will be gracious in victory, lol, LOL.
Frankly, I'll be disappointed if they are. Payback should be a bitch, and the Republicans deserve a shitload of it.

Frankly, I'll be disappointed if they are. Payback should be a bitch, and the Republicans deserve a shitload of it.

And so will the Democrats one of these days, lol, LOL.

And so will the Democrats one of these days, lol, LOL.

You're probably right. But for now, the Republicans deserve to eat a lot of shit, and the only way they'll learn is if it's served up on a big steaming platter.

And so will the Democrats one of these days, lol, LOL.

So, you're willing to let things go on the way they were? No respect, and only thinly veiled hatred between the two parties. Why are you willing to accept that kind of politics? Why can't you give people a chance to try and fix it before you go and flippantly laugh it off? Why act like a dick when someone proposes the very idea that restoring the rights of the minority party?

EDIT: Because you ARE, in fact, being a dick

So, you're willing to let things go on the way they were? No respect, and only thinly veiled hatred between the two parties. Why are you willing to accept that kind of politics? Why can't you give people a chance to try and fix it before you go and flippantly laugh it off? Why act like a dick when someone proposes the very idea that restoring the rights of the minority party?

EDIT: Because you ARE, in fact, being a dick

Here's why the Republicans should be forced to eat at least a modicum of shit--because we've never made them do it before, and they've never had to experience it. And because you can bet that if they win back the House in the next few years, they'll be making us eat it in heaps. Sometimes you can reason with a group of people, and sometimes you have to punch them in the mouth first. The Republicans in the House need to be popped a good one. Not so much the case in the Senate, but in the House, Boehner and company need to be bitched around a bit.

So, you're willing to let things go on the way they were? No respect, and only thinly veiled hatred between the two parties. Why are you willing to accept that kind of politics? Why can't you give people a chance to try and fix it before you go and flippantly laugh it off? Why act like a dick when someone proposes the very idea that restoring the rights of the minority party?

EDIT: Because you ARE, in fact, being a dick

I just dont think the Democrats are going to be gracious in victory as they claim, as in your probably right by The Nazz.

In fact, I think the House and Senate should have fair set rules on legislation and debates that no political partys' can change when they have the majority.

In fact, I think the House and Senate should have fair set rules on legislation and debates that no political partys' can change when they have the majority.
Sorry, but the Constitution says that the Houses of Congress get to make their own rules on how they'll handle their business, so unless you can sell a Constitutional amendment on it...

Sorry, but the Constitution says that the Houses of Congress get to make their own rules on how they'll handle their business, so unless you can sell a Constitutional amendment on it...

Well that is kind of my point, it is ridiculous to have a rules committee that makes rules and changes rules according to which political party is in the majority, this is a constitutional fuck-up, that we in our NS democratic Nations should not have.

I understand your post Nazz, thanks for posting it.

Democrats also supported a severance package for senior Republican aides, but the spending was blocked in the last hours of Congress by conservative Republicans.

Wow.

Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out. :rolleyes:

“We know we won in part because they got so nasty and unlikable,” said Representative Barney Frank, Democrat of Massachusetts.

Precisely...with all the reasons to vote for the Dems last election, I think the utter stench coming from the 109th Congress was the biggest reason for their win.

Republicans are already accusing Democrats of backsliding by not guaranteeing them hearings and amendments on legislation to be considered in an initial 100-hour legislative program that Democrats view as a showcase for their new majority.

Waaaaa!!!!!!

Honestly...you had two years (more actually) of some of the shadiest and most corrupt legislative policies in this nation's history, and your going to bitch about four days?

This is the kind of bitching that lost the Republicans the election...bitching without cause!

Democrats are developing a proposal to guarantee that lawmakers have at least 24 hours to examine legislation. They have also called for “an end to the two-day work week” and the beginning of a “predictable, professional, family-friendly schedule that allows the legislative process to proceed in a manner that ensures timely and deliberative dispensation of the work of Congress.

Well, I'd prefer 48 hours, but it's a start.

...and Congress sure as hell should be working five days a week! :mad:

Republicans said that Democrats exaggerated the degree to which they were excluded from legislative operations and that the Republican majority was less oppressive than House Democrats had been in the latter part of their 40-year majority before losing power in 1994.

From everything I've read, Democrats were understating the degree to which they were excluded.

The bolded part is just more of the same bitching that lost the Repubs the election. "They used to do it, so it's OK for us to do it to!" :rolleyes:

Frankly, I'll be disappointed if they are. Payback should be a bitch, and the Republicans deserve a shitload of it.

Normally, I would agree. In this instance, however, I think the general populace is sick and tired of "politics as usual". We've got a lot of serious problems in this country, and the party that takes those problems seriously will be entrenched in power for decades to come.

The Republicans had their chance, and they BLEW it. Let's see how the Democrats do.

You know, I find you to be a New Mittani breed of troll, the kind that actually annoys me, and your claims of liberal newspapers is rather idiotic, but you do have a good point for once. Democrats are not angels. Quite frankly, they are barely different from Republicans. Both parties have spin machines going full cycle 24/7/365 to make people think they're on opposite sides of the political spectrum, when they're not.



I told the truth, both sides are immature asses and thats a fact. Your claim the NYTimes is not a Liberal paper is rather retarded. The OP was buying into this whole Democrats are sweethearts deal when they are not. This whole when you disagree with someone just call them a troll is annoying and trollish in itself. So just knock it off.

STFU troll. I told the truth, both sides are immature asses and thats a fact. Your claim the NYTimes is not a Liberal paper is rather retarded. The OP was buying into this whole Democrats are sweethearts deal when they are not. This whole when you disagree with someone just call them a troll is annoying and trollish in itself. So just knock it off.

So, what proof do you offer that the dems will do what you say? They haven't been in any position of power for years. Who are you to say that they won't change things? Are you that jaded? Do you have that low an opinion of anyone but resmuglicans?

Personally, I don't think conservatives deserve any quarter for what they've wroght. None. But, that the offer is even there should be a good sign that, at least our government, is trying to move past the pettyness that has so preoccupied the entirety of GOP control.

You know, I've always found it funny that for 12 years, this is how it went:

Democrats: Why don't we try and have some bi-partisanship in Congress
Repubs: HELL NO!
Dems: How about that Bi-partisanship?
Repubs: HELL NO!
Dems: Purty please?
Repubs: HELL NO!

Now we get into after the 2006 Elections:

Repubs: How about that bi-partisanship you were talking about?
Dems: ...

Really, I hope there is bi-partisanship. I hate two-party politics, and very little gets done when one party does what it wants all the time, unchecked. The past six years were especially bad for this, and it's good that we at least have some balance again.

You know, I've always found it funny that for 12 years, this is how it went:

Democrats: Why don't we try and have some bi-partisanship in Congress
Repubs: HELL NO!
Dems: How about that Bi-partisanship?
Repubs: HELL NO!
Dems: Purty please?
Repubs: HELL NO!

Now we get into after the 2006 Elections:

Repubs: How about that bi-partisanship you were talking about?
Dems: ...

Really, I hope there is bi-partisanship. I hate two-party politics, and very little gets done when one party does what it wants all the time, unchecked. The past six years were especially bad for this, and it's good that we at least have some balance again.There's a difference between bipartisanship and divided government--the second I'm roundly in favor of, since much of the last six years is a result of one party rule. Bipartisanship--if it's two parties working together for the common good as opposed to two parties working together in order to fuck the average person--can be a good idea. Obviously, it can be a piece of crap too--the bankruptcy bill, after all, was bipartisan inasmuch as some asshole Dems voted for it.

Here's a good first step (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/27/us/politics/27civil.html?ex=1324875600&en=1908a7bc51c2d834&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss). Of course, what's probably going to happen out of it will just be a GOP who will still piss and moan about whatever they can come up with. Let's hope this new civility will serve to expose the infantile nature of congressional repbulicans.
Your faith in the goodness of the Democrats is pathetic.

I'm happy that the Republicans got beaten too, but let's not fool ourselves, both the parties suck.

Really, I hope there is bi-partisanship. I hate two-party politics, and very little gets done when one party does what it wants all the time, unchecked. The past six years were especially bad for this, and it's good that we at least have some balance again.

I hope so also, but the chances of it happening is slim. If the Dems do it they will improve their chances in 08. I for one would love to see a good strong third party, but....it probably isn't going to happen so we will be stuck with "poliics as usual. :(

I hope so also, but the chances of it happening is slim. If the Dems do it they will improve their chances in 08. I for one would love to see a good strong third party, but....it probably isn't going to happen so we will be stuck with "poliics as usual. :(

The thing is, the crap the Republicans in the House pulled over the last six years was unusual--the way they abused the conference committee, the way DeLay set it up so that nothing came to the floor unless it had a majority of Republicans supporting it, the holding open of votes beyond the time deadlines--that's the reason why there's so much bad blood between the two parties. The Republicans who supported that behavior need to get a taste of it, realize just how bad it sucks to be completely marginalized as a party. Then maybe, just maybe, when the pendulum swings again, they'll think twice about it. DeLay may have really believed in the idea of a permanent Republican majority--he seems to be stupid enough at times--and he ran the House as if that was going to happen. It's just too bad that he's not still there to be on the other end of the stick.

I hope so also, but the chances of it happening is slim. If the Dems do it they will improve their chances in 08. I for one would love to see a good strong third party, but....it probably isn't going to happen so we will be stuck with "poliics as usual. :(
You fools. The last two years since Bush won re-election has been the perfect chance to work on building up support for third parties.

The thing is, the crap the Republicans in the House pulled over the last six years was unusual

I agree with you on this. The Republicans also spent money like there was no limit to the amount of money the government can take in. They did nothing to stop pork spending and ignored things that turned out to be scandals that ended up biting them in the ass. Bah, all in Washington are professional politicians. We really need to set term limits for the House and Senate. I don't think the drafters of the Constitution ever expected there would be professional politicians.

I don't think the drafters of the Constitution ever expected there would be professional politicians.
The founding fathers of the United States were obviously not the Godlike supergenii they're often deified as.

They failed to predict
a) abuse of the system as you highlight
b) abuse of gun rights
c) abuse of laissez-faire capitalism

and many more

The founding fathers of the United States were obviously not the Godlike supergenii they're often deified as.

They failed to predict
a) abuse of the system as you highlight
b) abuse of gun rights
c) abuse of laissez-faire capitalism

and many more

By abuse of gun rights are you referring to gun control in some states that illegally limits the right of citizens to have weapons?

By abuse of gun rights are you referring to gun control in some states that illegally limits the right of citizens to have weapons?

That, and the ignoring of the "well-regulated militia" bit.

Your faith in the goodness of the Democrats is pathetic.

I'm happy that the Republicans got beaten too, but let's not fool ourselves, both the parties suck.

I beleive you mean to say all parties suck. See, there's nothing special about the Dems or the 'Pubs, they just happen to be moderate enough that most Americans are willing to vote for them. All political parties are essentially dirty political machines who are ideologues and depend on silly populistic nonsense.

Don't think that just because you support third parties you have any moral superiority.

I agree with you on this. The Republicans also spent money like there was no limit to the amount of money the government can take in. They did nothing to stop pork spending and ignored things that turned out to be scandals that ended up biting them in the ass. Bah, all in Washington are professional politicians. We really need to set term limits for the House and Senate. I don't think the drafters of the Constitution ever expected there would be professional politicians.They foresaw them enough to warn against them, but they didn't make it a constitutional issue, probably because they saw the contradiction between outlawing political parties and freedom of both speech and assembly.

By abuse of gun rights are you referring to gun control in some states that illegally limits the right of citizens to have weapons?
No, I'm talking about America's ridiculously high gun murder and injury rates. The founders were foolish not to foresee that.

I beleive you mean to say all parties suck. See, there's nothing special about the Dems or the 'Pubs, they just happen to be moderate enough that most Americans are willing to vote for them. All political parties are essentially dirty political machines who are ideologues and depend on silly populistic nonsense.

Don't think that just because you support third parties you have any moral superiority.
I didn't mean that at all. I have no doubt that the Libertarians, etc, would be just as bad if they were given the chance.

Here's a good first step (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/27/us/politics/27civil.html?ex=1324875600&en=1908a7bc51c2d834&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss). Of course, what's probably going to happen out of it will just be a GOP who will still piss and moan about whatever they can come up with. Let's hope this new civility will serve to expose the infantile nature of congressional repbulicans.

I was looking for the crossword this morning and I noticed Mallard Fillmore. It was a little rant about how Pelosi is going to be really childishly partisan after having been spoiled by a really conciliatory GOP.

That's the sort of thing I'm talking about when I say that Conservative efforts at humor are doomed to failure.

I love that one faction of the political class is being so generous with taxpayer money (severance packages, office space) to the other faction of the political class. It's an absolutely heart-warming Christmas story. Maybe they'll kiss and make up and get back to work plundering everybody else on behalf of their supporters like good little politicians should.

Quite honestly, I'd rather have partisan rancor and conflict than bi-partisan cooperation. The notion that in a bipartisan environment politicians work for the "good" of the nation is mistaken; the political class only works for its own benefits. The only variable is whether they cooperate in their avarice or bicker and fight with one another and thus don't have time to bother the rest of us; I'll have a heaping portion of the latter, thank you.

Democrats suck!

Democrats suck!

With such a well-reasoned and backed up argument as that one, you're sure to fit in well.

Quite honestly, I'd rather have partisan rancor and conflict than bi-partisan cooperation. The notion that in a bipartisan environment politicians work for the "good" of the nation is mistaken; the political class only works for its own benefits.
Vive le revolution!

I was wondering about you; are you actually an Austrian, or do you merely like their economists?

I was wondering about you; are you actually an Austrian, or do you merely like their economists?

Wouldn't you like to know?

... Nah, I just like the Austrian school of economics. :)

Oh no, I intend to be quite smug.