NationStates Jolt Archive

That's right. I said it. And I don't care what party is in the majority.

We hear an awful lot about the President, how much people hate him or that he's stupid or that he's power hungry yadda yadda yadda. We also hear alot about his historic low approval rating, which was around 28% last time I checked.

Well does anyone know what the Congressional approval rating is right now?

Anyone? Go on. Guess.

If you said "8%" you are right. That's right. Fewer than 1/10th of the population of the United States thinks the Congress knows what it's doing. Less than 1/3 of the number of people who like Bush like the Congress.

Why is that?

Because the Congress hasn't gotten SQUAT done since 2006. The current iteration of Congress has done NOTHING they promised to do for us.

And yet, in a recent interview, Nancy "I deserve my own Air Force One" Pelosi, Speaker of the House, had the nerve to sit and bash the President as getting nothing done and the Congress having to clean up his mess.

Excuse me? What mess has the Congress cleaned up? What, exactly, has it accomplished?

"But Neo Bretonnia," you might say, "How can you expect the Democrats in Congress to get anything done when the Republicans keep blocking their bills?"

Bullshit. This Congress has been the same since these reps and senators were voted in in 2006 and they knew back then what the proportion was going to be. That didn't stop the Democrat majority leaders from promising us, the American people, that they'd get a whole bunch of stuff done in their first 100 days in office. They knew what they were up against and made the promises anyway.

Now instead of action, we have a boatload of excuses. Oh yes, we have excuses in spades, don't we? "Blame the President!" "Blame the Republican minority!" "Blame the filibuster!"

Bull-Shit. These people get paid to get stuff done, not sit around and think up excuses for not doing it. (At voting themselves a raise, the Congress never fails.) These majority leaders promised to reach across party lines and find ways and compromises to get stuff done. The Congress has been divided like this before and gotten stuff done, and NEVER has had an 8% approval rating. Excuses, excuses, excuses.

We were supposed to have Social Security fixed. That's been swept under the rug.

We were told they'd force the President to end the war. It rages on. (To their credit, they did authorize the troop surge. Now they're trying to claim credit for that as if it were their idea in the first place.)

Now, nearly 3/4 of the American people favor expanding oil exploration and drilling and the Congress is looking to keep blocking it.

And NOW the Congress wants to INCREASE THE FEDERAL GASOLINE TAX at the pump.

Do these yuckapucks WANT to be unemployed?

I'm getting a little tired of our supposed elected representatives telling us, the people of the United States, that they don't give a shit what we want. I guess it becomes easy to slack off when you have a job with no real responsibility or oversight.

Watch for Republicans to gain a massive majority in Congress this year. Not so much because people like Republican policy, but because they won't vote for incumbents who either can't or won't do what they were elected to do.

I call upon the Americans on NSG to not vote for their encumbents unless they've proven themselves to be people of responsibility and action. I'm guessing that'll be a very small percentage. Don't vote for the opposing party if you don't want to, but at least don't vote for the fool who gets paid to ignore you. Write in Kermit the Frog if that's what it takes.

:soap:

You forgot to use the smilie: :soap:

I beg the American people:

Please write in Kermit the Frog!

You forgot to use the smilie: :soap:

Fixed ;)

I beg the American people:

Please write in Kermit the Frog!

The sheer awesomeness of that would rock forever.

Here is a solution for you - lets go to Mars and start over ;D

Interesting, interesting. Would you be willing to provide some evidence for you assertions?

Do these yuckapucks...
I like this term.

Watch for Republicans to gain a massive majority in Congress this year.
That's a great accompaniment to a Democratic president.

Wait, so the people who are actively preventing anything from being accomplished are the ones who would gain the majority in the coming elections? Seriously, how does that make sense?

I doubt Republicans will make gains in Congress this year. Too many people can't differentiate between Congress and President.

I wonder if congress actually passed anything worth it if Bush would actually sign it with something other than "Veto"....

I honestly fail to see what everybody's upset about. They knew what was coming.

This is the United States, people. Our very culture tells us to look at this with a careful eye.

I ran across this at Soda Head (http://www.sodahead.com/question/104590/) two weeks back.

The basic saying is true. "Since 'pro' is the opposite of 'con,' that makes Progress the opposite of Congress."

Welcome to America. If you're feeling sad, feel free to stop by Burger King. Satissfy your appetite as you eat your way to death. :D

whats new? (http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=kgnEZOnUOpc)

Interesting, interesting. Would you be willing to provide some evidence for you assertions?

Sure. What part don't you like?

I like this term.
That's a great accompaniment to a Democratic president.

It would be an interesting social experiment. A republican President with a Democrat majority Congress like we have now, as compared to a Democrat President and a Republican majority Congress

Wait, so the people who are actively preventing anything from being accomplished are the ones who would gain the majority in the coming elections? Seriously, how does that make sense?

Now see, the part about the Republicans being at fault is one of those excuses.

The Democrats have failed, and since they're in the majority I expect few incumbents to get re-elected. The result will be a power shift.

*Note: I am neither a Democrat nor a Republican.

I wonder if congress actually passed anything worth it if Bush would actually sign it with something other than "Veto"....

Another of those excuses. Presidents have been veto happy before and who gets the ding on the approval rating? The President. That nonsense doesn't explain why the Congress gets 8%.

I honestly fail to see what everybody's upset about. They knew what was coming.

This is the United States, people. Our very culture tells us to look at this with a careful eye.

I ran across this at Soda Head (http://www.sodahead.com/question/104590/) two weeks back.

The basic saying is true. "Since 'pro' is the opposite of 'con,' that makes Progress the opposite of Congress."

Welcome to America. If you're feeling sad, feel free to stop by Burger King. Satissfy your appetite as you eat your way to death. :D

I'm in!

"But Neo Bretonnia," you might say, "How can you expect the Democrats in Congress to get anything done when the Republicans keep blocking their bills?"

Bullshit.

so is your claim that the republicans in the senate aren't fillibustering (well, technically, declaring that they would fillibuster) everything. really?

That's a great accompaniment to a Democratic president.

If you enjoy gridlock like is currently the case under a Democratic Congress and a Republican President that is.

The Democrats have failed, and since they're in the majority I expect few incumbents to get re-elected. The result will be a power shift

i bet you $100 you are dead fucking wrong. shit, make it $500 if you are up to it - though i'd want to more exactly specify a few of the terms, like 'few' and 'power shift'.

whats new? (http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=kgnEZOnUOpc)

That was awesome.

i bet you $100 you are dead fucking wrong. shit, make it $500 if you are up to it - though i'd want to more exactly specify a few of the terms, like 'few' and 'power shift'.

I don't think you want to bet me that. if I'm wrong then all of our taxes get jacked up and I won't be able to afford to pay you ;)

so is your claim that the republicans in the senate aren't fillibustering (well, technically, declaring that they would fillibuster) everything. really?

They're not filibustering EVERYTHING.

Let's keep it honest here, folks. The Republicans piss me off too but in this case they're not the ones generating excuse after excuse.

They're not filibustering EVERYTHING.

Let's keep it honest here, folks. The Republicans piss me off too but in this case they're not the ones generating excuse after excuse.

And when 2/3s of the Branch were Republican controlled there was no gridlock, and look where it took the nation.

Honestly, you people are all too willing to give Beloved Great Leader a pass even when his dance moves are starting to vaguely resemble the Mugabe Mambo.

Another of those excuses. Presidents have been veto happy before and who gets the ding on the approval rating? The President. That nonsense doesn't explain why the Congress gets 8%.

Really? You think so? Didn't he veto a kid's heath insurance bill that both sides liked rather well?

So again, if congress actually passed anything worth while, would it pass the veto?

Another of those excuses. Presidents have been veto happy before and who gets the ding on the approval rating? The President. That nonsense doesn't explain why the Congress gets 8%.


If their approval rating is so low, then how come over 90% get reelected?

And when 2/3s of the Branch were Republican controlled there was no gridlock, and look where it took the nation.

Honestly, you people are all too willing to give Beloved Great Leader a pass even when his dance moves are starting to vaguely resemble the Mugabe Mambo.

This is what I'm talking about. Every time someone goes to take the Congress to task for doing nothing you guys want to redirect the conversation to being about Bush.

Why so afraid to talk about the Congress' mistakes? Why is everything the "blame Bush" mantra? I'm not thrilled with him either but that doesn't mean the Congress gets a pass for their failures.

Really? You think so? Didn't he veto a kid's heath insurance bill that both sides liked rather well?

So again, if congress actually passed anything worth while, would it pass the veto?

That's nonsense. If the bill was as well liked as you're implying, it should have been able to override the veto.

Presidents and Congressional majority have been from opposing parties before and stuff gets done. You guys are still just making excuses for the Democrats.

Listen, I'm not giving Republicans a pass either. The fact is however, the Democrats control both houses right now and they would have taken ALL of the credit had there been success, therefore they rightly deserve the blame when there isn't.

The only reason they're not getting it is because people are too entrenched in this intellectually lazy "blame the Republicans" "blame the President" mentality.

Think of this: When Clinton was President there was a Republican majority in Congress. When Congress failed to get stuff done, nobody hesitated to blame THEM but at no time did their approval rating drop this low.

Why, I ask you, are people working so very hard to protect them now?

If their approval rating is so low, then how come over 90% get reelected?

I don't think that'll happen this time. I PRAY it won't happen this time...

Like I said, I don't care which party holds the majority this fall. I think it'll be the Republicans but I don't really care one way or the other. I just don't want the SAME idiots that are in there now to be re-elected.

I don't think that'll happen this time. I PRAY it won't happen this time...

Like I said, I don't care which party holds the majority this fall. I think it'll be the Republicans but I don't really care one way or the other. I just don't want the SAME idiots that are in there now to be re-elected.

And to think, these people constantly vote themselves pay-increases.

This is what I'm talking about. Every time someone goes to take the Congress to task for doing nothing you guys want to redirect the conversation to being about Bush.

Why so afraid to talk about the Congress' mistakes? Why is everything the "blame Bush" mantra? I'm not thrilled with him either but that doesn't mean the Congress gets a pass for their failures.

You're thrilled with him but you're more eager to blame Congress for his obstinancy. Look at the vetoing of the SCHIP Bill as one prime example.


Presidents and Congressional majority have been from opposing parties before and stuff gets done. You guys are still just making excuses for the Democrats.

Partisan bickering didn't really come into an artform until the 20th Century. And you're making excuses for Bush.

Listen, I'm not giving Republicans a pass either. The fact is however, the Democrats control both houses right now and they would have taken ALL of the credit had there been success, therefore they rightly deserve the blame when there isn't.

The only reason they're not getting it is because people are too entrenched in this intellectually lazy "blame the Republicans" "blame the President" mentality.

Think of this: When Clinton was President there was a Republican majority in Congress. When Congress failed to get stuff done, nobody hesitated to blame THEM but at no time did their approval rating drop this low.

Why, I ask you, are people working so very hard to protect them now?

The biggest reason the Republican Congress during Clinton's terms got raked over the coals rightly was that they focused obcessively on the Whitewater hearings, which turned into a character assassination using Monica Lewinkski when Twinkle Twinkle Kenneth Star couldn't find any solid proof of criminal behavior on the Clintons' part.

Here is a solution for you - lets go to Mars and start over ;D

I vote the moon.

You're thrilled with him but you're more eager to blame Congress for his obstinancy. Look at the vetoing of the SCHIP Bill as one prime example.

LOLwut?

Wait... so let me see if I can get a handle on what's happening here... In your world, one either blames the President OR the Congress, so in keeping with your philosophy you've chosen to hate the President and will now plug your ears and go "LALALALALALALALALALALA" when someone comes along and criticizes Congress. (Presumably only as long as there's a Democrat majority, am I right?)

In the meantime you're completely unable to fathom that I can think the Congress sucks bigtime and yet not be a Bush fanboy.

Well I guess in that world where it's all one or the other I can see why you think that. Me, I prefer reality where I can see quite clearly that they're both screwing up.


Partisan bickering didn't really come into an artform until the 20th Century. And you're making excuses for Bush.


Excuses for what? Bush isn't the issue here. You want to debate the President by all means start a thread. I'm talking about the Congress with the miserably low approval rating and the bucket of excuses.


The biggest reason the Republican Congress during Clinton's terms got raked over the coals rightly was that they focused obcessively on the Whitewater hearings, which turned into a character assassination using Monica Lewinkski when Twinkle Twinkle Kenneth Star couldn't find any solid proof of criminal behavior on the Clintons' part.

That's one reason, yes.

So what?

If their approval rating is so low, then how come over 90% get reelected?

because everybody likes their guy, and thinks most of the other ones fucking suck.

I don't think you want to bet me that.

i do. are you in?

LOLwut?

Wait... so let me see if I can get a handle on what's happening here... In your world, one either blames the President OR the Congress, so in keeping with your philosophy you've chosen to hate the President and will now plug your ears and go "LALALALALALALALALALALA" when someone comes along and criticizes Congress. (Presumably only as long as there's a Democrat majority, am I right?)

In the meantime you're completely unable to fathom that I can think the Congress sucks bigtime and yet not be a Bush fanboy.

Well I guess in that world where it's all one or the other I can see why you think that. Me, I prefer reality where I can see quite clearly that they're both screwing up.

Hate implies I have a personal grudge against him. I don't. He's an incompetent and stubborn fratboy who's running the country into the ground the same way he did every company he was put in charge of before. It's common business sense.

And you're also dismissing the observation that before the November elections where the Democrats took Congress, Bush probably couldn't even spell the word 'veto'.

Excuses for what? Bush isn't the issue here. You want to debate the President by all means start a thread. I'm talking about the Congress with the miserably low approval rating and the bucket of excuses.

Your thread is a Kimchi-esque apology on behalf of Bush, where you make a hasty generalization that "Congress has a lower approval rating than Bush, therefore it's Congress's fault more than it is Bush's." I would like to point out Bush probably thought 'veto' was the name of The Godfather before the November Elections came about.

That's one reason, yes.

So what?

So grinding the government to a crawl and wasting taxpayer money on a character assassination witch hunt is A-Okay with you then?

because everybody likes their guy, and thinks most of the other ones fucking suck.

Absolutely right. And I'm hoping that this year the situation is sever enough to get people to actually look closer at whether or not their incumbent was doing their job.

Needless to say, such a low overall approval rating is fertile ground for a challenger for their seat to get campaign ads from.

i do. are you in?

Hell no. If I lose I gotta save the money to pay taxes on! :D

Nobody will do anything. Chris Dodd lets Bank of America write legislation for him. Any outrage? Anyone... Anyone...?

Nope he'll be voted right back in, because, Iraq or civil rights or something.

It's all very corrupt. And until there is some kind of successful campaign to vote in people outside of the current party system, absolutely nothing will change.

Hate implies I have a personal grudge against him. I don't. He's an incompetent and stubborn fratboy who's running the country into the ground the same way he did every company he was put in charge of before. It's common business sense.

And you're also dismissing the observation that before the November elections where the Democrats took Congress, Bush probably couldn't even spell the word 'veto'.


See, you're stuck in a rut. How am I defending the President? Just because I don't auto-blame him for every Congressional screwup doesn't mean I'm defending him. That's irrational, and why I say it's hate.

Why are you afraid to talk about Congress? Why do you keep turning it back on Bush? Why so defensive? Bush is what he is I'm talking Congressional failure and your ONLY defense is to toss out Bush-defending strawmen.

This tells me you can't defend them and you know it. Why is that such a bad thing?


Your thread is a Kimchi-esque apology on behalf of Bush, where you make a hasty generalization that "Congress has a lower approval rating than Bush, therefore it's Congress's fault more than it is Bush's." I would like to point out Bush probably thought 'veto' was the name of The Godfather before the November Elections came about.


How is it an apology for Bush? Are you insane? Show me where I've said "Bush is good because..."

GWB is a red herring and a scapegoat and one of his biggest failures is allowing it to happen.


So grinding the government to a crawl and wasting taxpayer money on a character assassination witch hunt is A-Okay with you then?

Uh no... When did I say it was?

Nobody will do anything. Chris Dodd lets Bank of America write legislation for him. Any outrage? Anyone... Anyone...?

Nope he'll be voted right back in, because, Iraq or civil rights or something.

It's all very corrupt. And until there is some kind of successful campaign to vote in people outside of the current party system, absolutely nothing will change.

That's right. And the worst part about that is even when something like that happens it won't make a dime's bit of difference unless it's on an election year and then MAYBE.

What we learn from this is: If you're voted into office, make all your mistakes early. They'll be forgotten by the time re-election comes up.

See, you're stuck in a rut. How am I defending the President? Just because I don't auto-blame him for every Congressional screwup doesn't mean I'm defending him. That's irrational, and why I say it's hate.

Why are you afraid to talk about Congress? Why do you keep turning it back on Bush? Why so defensive? Bush is what he is I'm talking Congressional failure and your ONLY defense is to toss out Bush-defending strawmen.

This tells me you can't defend them and you know it. Why is that such a bad thing?

Name a Congressional Failure that doesn't involve a bill being vetoed by Beloved Great Leader. Name one.


How is it an apology for Bush? Are you insane? Show me where I've said "Bush is good because..."

GWB is a red herring and a scapegoat and one of his biggest failures is allowing it to happen.

Because you're attributing all of the blame for Congress's inability to get bills passed solely on Congress.

Uh no... When did I say otherwise?

When you implied it wasn't such a big deal with "So what?"

I don't think you want to bet me that.
A lot of us would like to, actually.

A lot of us would like to, actually.

No doubt ;)

Name a Congressional Failure that doesn't involve a bill being vetoed by Beloved Great Leader. Name one.

If I do, will you concede the point?


Because you're attributing all of the blame for Congress's inability to get bills passed solely on Congress.


Actually no. I'm not blaming ALL of it. I"m saying the blame isn't ALL elsewhere and that yes, the vast majority of the crap lies squarely in their lap. They're the ones that made the promises, remember? They were gonna reach across the aisle. The first 100 days of this Congress were gonna go down in history as a shining example of stuff getting done.

feh. I'm amazed you aren't as disgusted as I am.


When you implied it wasn't such a big deal with "So what?"

No. You completely misread that. What I'm getting at is that yes, a lot of it was time being wasted on idiocy, but so what? There were other failures that had nothing to do with Lewinsky or Starr or any of that nonsense. To say it was ONLY that issue would be inaccurate.

If I do, will you concede the point?

He won't.

He won't.

Yeah I know. The brainwashing is clearly at an advanced stage.

Hey, look at it this way: their energy plans so far have been:

1. Nothing

2. Gas tax holiday (sure, it would obliterate 500,000 jobs and drive the dollar down even further, pushing up oil prices...but hey, we can all save a few cents while driving on roads that Zimbabwe would mock)

3. Nothing

Hey, look at it this way: their energy plans so far have been:

1. Nothing

2. Gas tax holiday (sure, it would obliterate 500,000 jobs and drive the dollar down even further, pushing up oil prices...but hey, we can all save a few cents while driving on roads that Zimbabwe would mock)

3. Nothing

Out of curiosity, why would a gas tax holiday eliminate all those jobs?

Name a Congressional Failure that doesn't involve a bill being vetoed by Beloved Great Leader. Name one.

The $29 Billion dollars they handed Paulson in March? The retarded stimulus package? That's two off the top of my head.

Bush has actually vetoed fewer bills than any other president in modern times. This is not a defence of bush, but rather to point out that congress problem's are its own.

Oh, I dont know, it seems there's a good chance of ACTA going through.
Oh, wait, nobody actually gets to vote on that. Silly me.

...Fewer than 1/10th of the population of the United States thinks the Congress knows what it's doing...


That's because most people confuse "Doing what I want", with "knows what it's doing".


Because the Congress hasn't gotten SQUAT done since 2006.

That's what it's supposed to do. That's what it was designed to do. That's actually a mark that it's not failing.

Tell me, how is congress supposed to get something done when the Neocon Messiah vetos anything short of military spending budgets in the Trillions?


Look up everything congress has passed. Especually all the domestic bills. Then look up how many were vetoed by Dear Leader, who then proceeds to cry about how Congress is "irresponsible" while asking for more money to bomb brown people.


Useless indeed. You know why Bush gets all the bashing? Because he deserves it.

because everybody likes their guy, and thinks most of the other ones fucking suck.

not true, its because the incumbent has the implicit and explicit backing of lots of donors, and political groups (like lobbyists, unions, w/e). I think a lot of people may not think their guy is the best, but the longer you have a senator the more stuff he can do for you (or so it seems, I think seniority has some standing in congress).

Also, to those who keep asking what failing, how about the irresponsibility of congress for not pushing ahead with an offshore drilling/ANWR plan, or the tremendous debt? If you didn't know Bush doesn't just get to spend whatever he wants, it has to be passed by congress.

I don't mind a congress who doesn't get anything done, but one that only does the bad stuff (spend money), without getting anything productive done, is a bad congress.

hey just thought I'd let you know...my bro spent the last 5 months as a house page in the US house of representatives. and he wholeheartedly agrees with everything you just said in the first post basically.... When he left he was kinda mediocre republican. he came back hating democrats with a hate borne of seeing them break campaign promises. literally. he saw them go back on something that had helped them get elected. firsthand. end of story.
so yeah congress sucks...but there are people who buckle down and get work down...both minority and majority leaders are pretty good tom latham is kewl...etc.
pelosi is an idiot who has no idea what to do. again coming from his 5 months of experience. she almost never acts as speaker of the house cause she. cant. speak. and has no idea what to do.
the democratic clerk of the house made an error that cost us 6 million dollars...not to much for government but still...
so yeah...meh.

It would be an interesting social experiment. A republican President with a Democrat majority Congress like we have now, as compared to a Democrat President and a Republican majority Congress

Think 1994 with Clinton and Gingrich. Contract with America and all that. The Republican party was at its obstructionist best. They forced Clinton into some pretty decent legislation.

Something the present day Democrats just can't seem to do...

Think 1994 with Clinton and Gingrich. Contract with America and all that. The Republican party was at its obstructionist best. They forced Clinton into some pretty decent legislation.

Something the present day Democrats just can't seem to do...

"Obstructionist best"... "forced Clinton into some decent legislation"...

In other words, the Clinton administration was actually open to compromise? And yet - you see the current stagnation as a fault in the Democrats?

This, I believe, is called 'seeing what you want to see'.

(1) Congress is *ALWAYS* less popular than the presidency (except maybe the last couple years of nixon, I'd have to check)
(2) Everytime congress produces a good bill, bush vetos it and his cronies refuse to override the veto.

"Obstructionist best"... "forced Clinton into some decent legislation"...

In other words, the Clinton administration was actually open to compromise? And yet - you see the current stagnation as a fault in the Democrats?

This, I believe, is called 'seeing what you want to see'.
Less legislation is always better legislation.

But y'all forget the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform, the McCain-Kennedy educational reform, the Democratic sponsored (Obama excepted) Medicare prescription drug supplement... And many more that have served to start the country down the road to bankruptcy. Looks to me like Bush was more than happy to work with anyone that was willing to spend billions of dollars on pointless projects. Unlike the Gingrich Republicans...

(1) Congress is *ALWAYS* less popular than the presidency (except maybe the last couple years of nixon, I'd have to check)
(2) Everytime congress produces a good bill, bush vetos it and his cronies refuse to override the veto.

But 8% vs 30 something? Give me a break.

However, it's always someone else's Senator or Representative that's the problem. My(in a generic sense you literalists) elected representatives don't ever make big mistakes.

But y'all forget the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform, the McCain-Kennedy educational reform, the Democratic sponsored (Obama excepted) Medicare prescription drug supplement... And many more that have served to start the country down the road to bankruptcy. Looks to me like Bush was more than happy to work with anyone that was willing to spend billions of dollars on pointless projects. Unlike the Gingrich Republicans...

So, two McCain projects helped bankrupt the country.... Bush authorised other projects that bankrupted the country (amusingly, you didn't show how these three or four agenda items stack up in the national-debt-tripling). And yet, despite all this spending by the Bush regime - it's the Democrats fault?

I can't believe it took me this long. You must have got a helluva laugh out of me. I only just realised you're a parody.

And what of it? Personally I agree that the Democrats should have done more, but there's a certain amount of truth to the argument that Bush has been blocking them at every turn. For all the "checks and balances" in the US Constitution, the President always had way to much power, when you realize that he can override two thirds of the legislature and the entire justice system (pardon) at his discretion. The most effective counter to abuse of power on the level of what Bush and his cronies have done is impeachment, since it cannot be pardoned(I think). They should have done that 2 years ago, but there's probably not much point now.

The problem is that the Democrats have bought the Great Lie, that America is so heavily conservative that the only way they can win is to be centrist. The Republicans play this game with the media too, ranting on and on about the "liberal media". While Liberals piss on their base to appear unbiased (as if being unbiased is inherently a good thing, regardless of the issue), the Conservatives suck up to their base for all its worth. Because the American right is so far right, the Liberals have ended up quite to the right of a lot of the western world's center. But the Conservatives will never stop flinging accusations of bias, not unless you agree with them one hundred percent.

This is the scam the Conservatives have been using for years, corrupting journalism and de-balling the American Left. All the Big Democrats in office seem to have bought into this lie, evan to some extent Obama, as evidenced by his hippocrisy and spinelessness on the wiretapping vote. Listen buddy, its not going to help you. After you betray your principles to pander to the right, they'll just turn around and call you a flip-flopper, the final part of the Great Republican Scam. And in the end, you will appear weak and dishonest, while they, constructors of perhaps the greatest machine of deceit and manipulation in this nation's history, will appear strong and principled in the eyes of the voters who's trust they have so utterly betrayed.

But even if the Democrats betray everything they've promised and fought for in a futile attempt to pander to the right, what choice do we liberals have? The only alternative is generally to sit it out, give up our right to vote, and let a Republican win by default, or to vote Republican, and get someone who's actively screwing us over rather than simply being a spineless collaberator. Great choices there.:headbang:

The best solution would be more independents running, but independents in American politics tend to be

1. fringe nut jobs, and

2. utterly unviable as candidates.

so is your claim that the republicans in the senate aren't fillibustering (well, technically, declaring that they would fillibuster) everything. really?

In reality, it is no different when the Democrats do it. Both sides do it and thus...

So, two McCain projects helped bankrupt the country.... Bush authorised other projects that bankrupted the country (amusingly, you didn't show how these three or four agenda items stack up in the national-debt-tripling). And yet, despite all this spending by the Bush regime - it's the Democrats fault?

I can't believe it took me this long. You must have got a helluva laugh out of me. I only just realised you're a parody.
You aren't paying attention. It's not the Democrats fault -- not entirely --- It's Bush's fault almost entirely. It's the present day Democrats fault that they can't force Bush to yield on policy issues in the same way that Gingrich forced Clinton.

And what of it? <SNIP!>.

lol, I feel the same way, just replace democrats with republicans, and visa versa.

also, I agree with your next post.

At the end of the day, I think most of us can agree that both parties suck. The only difference is who we think sucks a little less.

You aren't paying attention. It's not the Democrats fault -- not entirely --- It's Bush's fault almost entirely. It's the present day Democrats fault that they can't force Bush to yield on policy issues in the same way that Gingrich forced Clinton.

So... what you're saying is, Clinton was a much better president than Bush?

So... what you're saying is, Clinton was a much better president than Bush?

Largely because Clinton, after being forced by a Republican Congress, took credit for Republican goals:

Ending Welfare As We Know It (Clinton took that as his mantra, and the original statement came from Gingrich).

Balancing the budget (yes, the original Gingrich idea)

It's why Clinton is jokingly referred to as "the best Republican President since Reagan".

Largely because Clinton, after being forced by a Republican Congress, took credit for Republican goals:

Ending Welfare As We Know It (Clinton took that as his mantra, and the original statement came from Gingrich).

Balancing the budget (yes, the original Gingrich idea)

It's why Clinton is jokingly referred to as "the best Republican President since Reagan".

And, of course, Reagan was a Democrat in every respect but the letter next to his name.

I'm not entirely sure Gingrich can claim to be the original mind behind the concept of 'balancing the budget' to be honest.

So - Clinton was a good president, because he took initiatives from both sides of the spectrum, and managed to get stuff done. Bush has been a bad president because he's partisan, except when it comes to blowing cash.

Got it.

I never thought you,, Myrmi and I would get to agree on something so easily.

And, of course, Reagan was a Democrat in every respect but the letter next to his name.

I'm not entirely sure Gingrich can claim to be the original mind behind the concept of 'balancing the budget' to be honest.

So - Clinton was a good president, because he took initiatives from both sides of the spectrum, and managed to get stuff done. Bush has been a bad president because he's partisan, except when it comes to blowing cash.

Got it.

I never thought you,, Myrmi and I would get to agree on something so easily.

Actually, during his tenure, Clinton was decidedly unfriendly to Democratic ideas.

It's not that he took initiatives from both sides. He took credit for the success of the Republican Congress.

Clinton is the kind of man who rules by looking at the polls every time he has to make up his mind. Republicans were wildly popular at the time, especially those who were ending welfare and balancing the budget (ah, the days).

He read the polls, and went with it, taking credit so he could boost his popularity.

If cheese had been wildly popular, he would have been on TV eating it every night.

In reality, it is no different when the Democrats do it. Both sides do it and thus...

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1161/873046617_1aa6eb72d5_o.jpg


that's from last summer. we're at 116 now, so we're more or less on par with it's prediction.

anyway, notice anything different recently?

Actually, during his tenure, Clinton was decidedly unfriendly to Democratic ideas.

It's not that he took initiatives from both sides. He took credit for the success of the Republican Congress.

Clinton is the kind of man who rules by looking at the polls every time he has to make up his mind. Republicans were wildly popular at the time, especially those who were ending welfare and balancing the budget (ah, the days).

He read the polls, and went with it, taking credit so he could boost his popularity.

If cheese had been wildly popular, he would have been on TV eating it every night.

So - he also used Republican strengths to the advantage of the country? What a bastard. I can see why so many 'republicans' hate him.

Balancing a budget, good thing. Ending welfare - well, rather depends on whether you think the US becoming a communist state would be an improvement. We're in recession now, possibly heading towards depression - and consecutive US presidencies have kowtowed to policies no more fiscally responsible than 'it's my money, and I want it now". So - little or no safety net, a massive swing towards encouraging everyone to instead embrace a market mentality... and a future where factories shut down, commodities sit on shelves, and unemployment figures march into double digits.

History will look back at the rightwing in these last twenty years and ask 'what the fuck we're you on?'

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1161/873046617_1aa6eb72d5_o.jpg


that's from last summer. we're at 116 now, so we're more or less on par with it's prediction.

anyway, notice anything different recently?

It'd be funny if they hadn't simultaneously been crying about a lack of up-or-down votes on their own issues...

Less legislation is always better legislation.

trivially false - it requires legislation to undo the damage of previous bad legislation, for example. thus less legislation can lead to worse legislative outcomes.

trivially false - it requires legislation to undo the damage of previous bad legislation, for example. thus less legislation can lead to worse legislative outcomes.

It doesn't even take that - if, for example a society lacks a rape law - less legislation would not be better legislation. Except - perhaps - from the point of view of those that were pro-rape.

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1161/873046617_1aa6eb72d5_o.jpg


that's from last summer. we're at 116 now, so we're more or less on par with it's prediction.

anyway, notice anything different recently?

That what I said was indeed true? Also, you have a projected number. In reality...nothing is different.

That what I said was indeed true? Also, you have a projected number. In reality...nothing is different.

I think you're confusing two sets of numbers. The 153 (or whatever it was) is projected - the 116 are actual, at-this-date.

Out of curiosity, why would a gas tax holiday eliminate all those jobs?

Because when the highway trust fund doesn't have enough money to meet all of its obligations, the fund cancels or delays projects. Unlike other parts of government, its deficits are real and have to be dealt with through increased revenues (higher gas taxes) or reduced spending. And it's the reduced spending that leads to fewer jobs as construction projects are canceled and delayed.

McCain's genius solution was to move it to the general treasury fund, thereby piling ever-increasing billions on to the deficit as the fund sinks deeper and deeper in to insolvency.

I'd agree with you...if the democrats HAD a majority, which they don't.

Now, maybe a 'majority' means something different in the United States, but in Canada, it's generally accepted you have a majority when you can pass bills while giving the other parties the finger, and at 53%, democrats fall short of the 2/3s majority needed to ignore the other party, and override the president. while giving the finger to the Republicans.

Tell me, how is congress supposed to get something done when the Neocon Messiah vetos anything short of military spending budgets in the Trillions?


Look up everything congress has passed. Especually all the domestic bills. Then look up how many were vetoed by Dear Leader, who then proceeds to cry about how Congress is "irresponsible" while asking for more money to bomb brown people.


Useless indeed. You know why Bush gets all the bashing? Because he deserves it.

Yeah I know. The brainwashing is clearly at an advanced stage.

He may deserve it, but so does congress.

Sure. What part don't you like?

!

All of it.

So... what you're saying is, Clinton was a much better president than Bush?

No. Gingrich was a much better Speaker than Pelosi.

Liberal democracies are made so they don't work and therefore don't change the basis of private bourgeois property. Only by violent revolution and overturning the Ruling Class can this dynamic be changed.

Liberal democracies are made so they don't work and therefore don't change the basis of private bourgeois property. Only by violent revolution and overturning the Ruling Class can this dynamic be changed.

Despite the fact that nothing will ever change even with said revolution.

Liberal democracies are made so they don't work and therefore don't change the basis of private bourgeois property. Only by violent revolution and overturning the Ruling Class can this dynamic be changed.

How to make an Andaras quote in THREE EASY STEPS!

1.Say the words: bourgeois, revolution, proletariat, and oppressor a lot.

2. Make sure to mention how private property is theft.

3. Deny all evidence to the contrary that workers are not being oppressed, including your own life style.

You know why pollings on congress are useless? Because if I, for example, was asked "Are you satisfied with the job the US congress is doing?" I would say no, because I am dissatisfied with the Republicans in congress who prevent overriding of vetos.


So you see, that question is too vague. And as such, useless.

You know why pollings on congress are useless? Because if I, for example, was asked "Are you satisfied with the job the US congress is doing?" I would say no, because I am dissatisfied with the Republicans in congress who prevent overriding of vetos.


So you see, that question is too vague. And as such, useless.

And I would say no because of the fact that democrats continue with useless regulations.

You know why pollings on congress are useless? Because if I, for example, was asked "Are you satisfied with the job the US congress is doing?" I would say no, because I am dissatisfied with the Republicans in congress who prevent overriding of vetos.


So you see, that question is too vague. And as such, useless.
That's the age-old problem with polls -- How do you ask a question?

Despite the fact that nothing will ever change even with said revolution.

To be fair, something will change. Instead of private property being in the hands of the *Ahem* bourgeois.*Snicker* It'll be in the hands of the government. Instead of there being a large middle class, EVERYONE will be poor! Except Communist party officials. Oh, and everyone who protests will be rounded up and shot. See? LOTS of change! Don't forget to party*!

*Note: Anyone found partying harder then the communist party will ALSO be rounded up and shot.

To be fair, something will change. Instead of private property being in the hands of the *Ahem* bourgeois.*Snicker* It'll be in the hands of the government. Instead of there being a large middle class, EVERYONE will be poor! Except Communist party officials. Oh, and everyone who protests will be rounded up and shot. See? LOTS of change! Don't forget to party*!

*Note: Anyone found partying harder then the communist party will ALSO be rounded up and shot.
It's called class warfare, it's about time the working class started fighting back.

It's called class warfare, it's about time the working class started fighting back.
Indeed. How dare those rich kids party harder then YOU Andaras!:D Gather the protalriat! Grab all the vodka you can! Show them how Communists party! XD Kidding of course.

It's called class warfare, it's about time the working class started fighting back.

Except thatthe working class already pretty much have what they need. They got it without doing a violent revolution and they effected change in how owners dealt with them.

So much for your statements.

No. Gingrich was a much better Speaker than Pelosi.

That doesn't follow. Vetoes have little to do with who is speaker.

But, no one (as far as I know) is claiming that Pelosi is the greatest speaker, either.

But - since you decided to play 'speakers' instead, I assume you are claiming Bush as the better president?

It's called class warfare, it's about time the working class started fighting back.
By handing all power to an elitist group of Party officials who accept no opposition?

Sounds fun.

How to make an Andaras quote in THREE EASY STEPS!

1.Say the words: bourgeois, revolution, proletariat, and oppressor a lot.

2. Make sure to mention how private property is theft.

3. Deny all evidence to the contrary that workers are not being oppressed, including your own life style.

This is actually an ad hominem fallacy.

What he said was, at heart, basically true. Hence you attack the poster, not the post.

To be fair, something will change. Instead of private property being in the hands of the *Ahem* bourgeois.*Snicker* It'll be in the hands of the government. Instead of there being a large middle class, EVERYONE will be poor! Except Communist party officials. Oh, and everyone who protests will be rounded up and shot. See? LOTS of change! Don't forget to party*!

*Note: Anyone found partying harder then the communist party will ALSO be rounded up and shot.

It's a bit of a hijack anyway, but it's worth pointing out that your whole post is based on a flawed assumption. Communism doesn't equate to poverty. Especially in the west, with all our technology, there is really no good reason why we shouldn't have a 'techno'communist' culture with a reasonable standard of technology, and reasonable standards of living.

Except thatthe working class already pretty much have what they need. They got it without doing a violent revolution and they effected change in how owners dealt with them.

So much for your statements.

In two states, maybe...

Except thatthe working class already pretty much have what they need. They got it without doing a violent revolution and they effected change in how owners dealt with them.

Yeah, like job securi...hrm, no

OK, like educa...no, that won't work.

OK, at least they have health ca....fuck

So much for your statements.

Wow, my whole adult life I always thought you had to do things like back up your claims. Apparently I was wrong as "nuh uh!" is sufficient...

Yeah, like job securi...hrm, no


Have that.

OK, like educa...no, that won't work.

Have that too.

OK, at least they have health ca....fuck

Have that as well.


Wow, my whole adult life I always thought you had to do things like back up your claims. Apparently I was wrong as "nuh uh!" is sufficient...

Well, you either point to yourself as a source, or claim you're a lawyer, or call the mods.

Have that.

I didnt know the constant threat of lay-offs was job security.

This is actually an ad hominem fallacy.

What he said was, at heart, basically true. Hence you attack the poster, not the post.
I realize it was an Ad Hominem.:eek:
It's a bit of a hijack anyway, but it's worth pointing out that your whole post is based on a flawed assumption. Communism doesn't equate to poverty. Especially in the west, with all our technology, there is really no good reason why we shouldn't have a 'techno'communist' culture with a reasonable standard of technology, and reasonable standards of living.
Actual, Communism does equate to poverty with large numbers, because at numbers exceeding a certain point (That point having not yet been figured out) , the system breaks down, and creates widespread inefficiency.

I think I might've said this before, but the only way you could get communism to work is by splitting up humans into select groups, enforcing a near-nothing government, bringing the birth/death rate 1:1, and creating some sort of violence barrier to prevent these small groups from attacking or taking over anothers land.

If we could do that, communism would be the perfect government. HOWEVER, I was talking about big C Communism, ex. Soviet Russia, and *Ahem* "Comrade Stalin"

Well, you either point to yourself as a source, or claim you're a lawyer, or call the mods.
Or all three.

I didnt know the constant threat of lay-offs was job security.

I live in the artificial economic zone known as Washington DC.

Never, ever has the unemployment around here risen above 5%. Right now it's at 3% (there is a massive shortage of government consultants - yeah, I know that sounds hilarious).

Maybe if you lived here you would know that.

Have that. Have that too. Have that as well.

Who does? 48 of 50 states allow termination without grounds. As of 2006, something like 15% of all Americans have no health insurance.

Who has what, now?

Who does? 48 of 50 states allow termination without grounds. As of 2006, something like 15% of all Americans have no health insurance.

Who has what, now?

Me. Or is your ability to understand English limited? Back to English class with you!

I live in the artificial economic zone known as Washington DC.

Never, ever has the unemployment around here risen above 5%. Right now it's at 3% (there is a massive shortage of government consultants - yeah, I know that sounds hilarious).

Maybe if you lived here you would know that.

Washington DC =/= The whole country.

Me. Or is your ability to understand English limited? Back to English class with you!

Oh silly me. I thought we were talking about the general US worker. Not DK. I didnt know you made this about you all of a sudden.

I realize it was an Ad Hominem.:eek:

Actual, Communism does equate to poverty with large numbers, because at numbers exceeding a certain point (That point having not yet been figured out) , the system breaks down, and creates widespread inefficiency.

I think I might've said this before, but the only way you could get communism to work is by splitting up humans into select groups, enforcing a near-nothing government, bringing the birth/death rate 1:1, and creating some sort of violence barrier to prevent these small groups from attacking or taking over anothers land.

If we could do that, communism would be the perfect government. HOWEVER, I was talking about big C Communism, ex. Soviet Russia, and *Ahem* "Comrade Stalin"

No, there are other ways to make a communism work. The biggest inhibiting factor has always been tracking resources, and we have technology to just about make that problem go away, if we wanted to. Suffice it to say, syndicalism or modern state communism, there's actually no justification (anymore) to the inherent assumption that communism equals poverty.

Oh silly me. I thought we were talking about the general US worker. Not DK. I didnt know you made this about you all of a sudden.

You make it sound like no one has a chance at all in the US.

Maybe you live in some other country.

Me. Or is your ability to understand English limited? Back to English class with you!

"Have that". Those were your words. The context was 'working classes'.

Your starter for 10, where is the problem - in the comprehension of this reader, or in the failure to identify your focus?

(I'll give you a clue - it was you).

You are not indicative of the working class. You might be indicative of ONE of them, maybe a small handful - but certainly not representative of the collective.

You make it sound like no one has a chance at all in the US.

Maybe you live in some other country.

Funny - someone describes the facts as they really are, and you say it makes it sound like no one has a chance. Obviously, the reality of the US seems fairly bleak to you?

Funny - someone describes the facts as they really are, and you say it makes it sound like no one has a chance. Obviously, the reality of the US seems fairly bleak to you?

Not at all. In fact, I think that it's rather un-bleak.

Lord Tothe says vote the bums out! If a congresscritter hasn't done anything or has supported legislation contrary to the Constitution and the will of the people, get it out of there! Vote third party if you have to. Never accept mediocrity!

Vote third party if you have to. Never accept mediocrity!
Hear, hear!

Lord Tothe says vote the bums out! If a congresscritter hasn't done anything or has supported legislation contrary to the Constitution and the will of the people, get it out of there! Vote third party if you have to. Never accept mediocrity!

Our system doesn't really have a viable third party (the other two parties have extensively seen to that bit of undemocratic action).

Most congresscritters of either party are notably ignorant of current events, world and national politics (they only know what their staffers tell them), and can't tell one Constitutional Amendment from another, or what they mean.

To them "will of the people" is any quick unscientific poll of anyone who can be found to answer a few questions.

That said, our country is actually run by a bureaucracy, which has long been out of control of either the executive or the legislative branches, and has been granted power to enact "regulations" that have the power of law.

And since everyone in the bureaucracy relies on government contractors to do the actual work, and support the decisionmakers in the bureaucracy (we constitute about 80% of what you would call the Federal workforce), the government contractors are the actual power.

Our Federal client is about as brainless as a flatworm. And yet we write software that will guide certain government workers in implementing regulation and policy. We ourselves are accountable to no one.

When some brainless Federal worker forces you to do "this" and "that" it will be because some software told them that "this is the next step in the process".

Voting for Obama won't stop any of that. Ever.

Not at all. In fact, I think that it's rather un-bleak.

Dude, you said it.

Washington DC =/= The whole country.

Washington DC =/= any of the country

No, there are other ways to make a communism work. The biggest inhibiting factor has always been tracking resources, and we have technology to just about make that problem go away, if we wanted to. Suffice it to say, syndicalism or modern state communism, there's actually no justification (anymore) to the inherent assumption that communism equals poverty.
No. the biggest inhibiting factor of Communism has been, and always will be, humans. The more there are, the larger the chance the system will fall apart.

No. the biggest inhibiting factor of Communism has been, and always will be, humans. The more there are, the larger the chance the system will fall apart.

No more so than any other system, mechanism or pattern.

No more so than any other system, mechanism or pattern.

Except Communism relies on human beings basically setting aside personal ambitions and gains for the great of the community as a whole. Works decently in small communes, but in a much larger scale it'll fail due to human inclination for self-aggrandizement. Orwell's Animal Farm is a good allegory on this fault.

The only way Communism could work in a governmental scale is if human beings were in fact a hivemind species like ants, bees and wasps.

Our Federal client is about as brainless as a flatworm. And yet we write software that will guide certain government workers in implementing regulation and policy. We ourselves are accountable to no one.

When some brainless Federal worker forces you to do "this" and "that" it will be because some software told them that "this is the next step in the process".

Voting for Obama won't stop any of that. Ever.
Hear hear! Seriously.

That's the part of the debate no one ever touches, yet it's probably more important to our relationship with the government than any other.

Orwell's Animal Farm is a good allegory on this fault.

that would be an interesting thing for orwell to have written in...

that would be an interesting thing for orwell to have written in...

?

What are you trying to say?

?

What are you trying to say?

that orwell hated stalin, not communism

that orwell hated stalin, not communism

Entirely possible. He was, at the very least, a socialist.

Except Communism relies on human beings basically setting aside personal ambitions and gains for the great of the community as a whole. Works decently in small communes, but in a much larger scale it'll fail due to human inclination for self-aggrandizement. Orwell's Animal Farm is a good allegory on this fault.

The only way Communism could work in a governmental scale is if human beings were in fact a hivemind species like ants, bees and wasps.

Not at all. The problem is that, for a lot of people, ambition is measured only in terms of how much crap you've collected.

And that's largely externally applied, we use it as a measure of each other, rather than ourselves. So, you could do away with that in a generation... if you educated the next generation right.

Entirely possible. He was, at the very least, a socialist.

a socialist who was a big fan of what the non-stalinist revolutionary communists did in spain

Orwell's Animal Farm is a good allegory on this fault.

No, it isn't.

This doesn't even work as an interpretation of the novel considered independently: most of the animals are perfectly idealistic, willing to put aside their personal selfishness and ambitions for the sake of the farm. The trouble is with the pigs, whose "vanguard" role leads to them concentrating political power and taking economic privileges for themselves.

Orwell's problem isn't with communism, but with political corruption, dishonesty, and authoritarianism. If anything, the animals aren't communist enough. This is confirmed, too, by the trajectory of the plot, which ends up attacking Napoleon for what essentially amounts to capitalist restoration.

No, it isn't.

This doesn't even work as an interpretation of the novel considered independently: most of the animals are perfectly idealistic, willing to put aside their personal selfishness and ambitions for the sake of the farm. The trouble is with the pigs, whose "vanguard" role leads to them concentrating political power and taking economic privileges for themselves.

Orwell's problem isn't with communism, but with political corruption, dishonesty, and authoritarianism. If anything, the animals aren't communist enough. This is confirmed, too, by the trajectory of the plot, which ends up attacking Napoleon for what essentially amounts to capitalist restoration.

Actually you agree with me. I said that Orwell pointed out that communism's real flaw is hoping for the altruism of others which leaves it open to exploitation by ambitious leaders such as Stalin or Napoleon the pig.

Actually you agree with me. I said that Orwell pointed out that communism's real flaw is hoping for the altruism of others

...which, in Animal Farm, it got, for the most part. The animals aren't driven to be lazy by the lack of incentives. The economy doesn't collapse due to free-riding.

which leaves it open to exploitation by ambitious leaders such as Stalin or Napoleon the pig.

But vulnerability to "exploitation by ambitious leaders" is a problem for politics as such. It has nothing to do with communism. And Orwell didn't suggest it did--his most damning description of Napoleon and the pigs is stating that they are no different from the men who ruled in the first place.

He wrote a left-wing, anti-capitalist attack on Stalinism.

...which, in Animal Farm, it got, for the most part. The animals aren't driven to be lazy by the lack of incentives. The economy doesn't collapse due to free-riding.

But vulnerability to "exploitation by ambitious leaders" is a problem for politics as such. It has nothing to do with communism. And Orwell didn't suggest it did--his most damning description of Napoleon and the pigs is stating that they are no different from the men who ruled in the first place.

He wrote a left-wing, anti-capitalist attack on Stalinism.

this ^^

Here is a solution for you - lets go to Mars and start over ;D
Why bother with Mars? We can have a violent overthrow of the current government right here and now and replace it with something better? Also, I've deleted System32 from the rocket's main computer.