NationStates Jolt Archive

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20090226/pl_politico/19346

So, yeah. If, after a month, Republicans begin to be seen like that, I wonder what will be left of them in one year.

Basically they're hoping that if they openly cockblock Obama's attempts to fix the great legacy of Bushanomics, the public'll blame the Democrats and re-elect the cockblockers?

That's like trying to convict a rape victim for sexual assault on the defendant.

And people wonder why the Republicans have Sarah Palin and Bobby Jindal as their biggest shots as President.

I would caution against being overly quick to declare the GOP dead. If the stimulus fails to work then they'll have a good chance to try and con the American people into voting for them.

Remember, the voters are fucking stupid.

I would caution against being overly quick to declare the GOP dead. If the stimulus fails to work then they'll have a good chance to try and con the American people into voting for them.

Remember, the voters are fucking stupid.

Even stupid enough to vote for Palin/Jindal?

Even stupid enough to vote for Palin/Jindal?

I'd wager that ticket would pull in at least 45% of the vote.

Even stupid enough to vote for Palin/Jindal?
Bush/Cheney got re-elected.

Nuff said.

I'd wager that ticket would pull in at least 45% of the vote.

I dunno, if the general public was that stupid you'd think we'd already have a President Palin in office by now.

I'd wager that ticket would pull in at least 45% of the vote.

Regardless, Obama has 4 years to help fix the economy. If people notice some improvement, they will likely eschew the Repubs.

I dunno, if the general public was that stupid you'd think we'd already have a President Palin in office by now.

And again...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush

Regardless, Obama has 4 years to help fix the economy. If people notice some improvement, they will likely eschew the Repubs.

He has less than two years before the mid term elections. If there's not noticeable change in the economic situation by then he'll likely face a hostile congress increasingly held by Republicans.

And again...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush

Which begs the question. If they were stupid enough to vote for Dear Leader twice, why not a third time with Palin/McCain?

This is basically the Republicans trying to keep Obama from fixing the mess they brought upon the country in the first place in the hopes the public will reward them for sabotage by re-electing them back into the same position they got the country into the mess to begin with from.

He has less than two years before the mid term elections. If there's not noticeable change in the economic situation by then he'll likely face a hostile congress increasingly held by Republicans.

I'd like to think people will have a longer memory of who caused the mess in the first place. If there's some sign of improvement on the horizon, I think Republicans will have fucked themselves by offering....well, nothing.

Which begs the question. If they were stupid enough to vote for Dear Leader twice, why not a third time with Palin/McCain?

This is basically the Republicans trying to keep Obama from fixing the mess they brought upon the country in the first place in the hopes the public will reward them for sabotage by re-electing them back into the same position they got the country into the mess to begin with from.

I know. However, Obama has likely too big a majority...

I hope.

Even stupid enough to vote for Palin/Jindal?

The American people have been repeatedly proved to be, despite containing large numbers of college graduates, scientists, and intellectuals, fucking stupid when taken as a whole. A mob is only as smart as the IQ of its least intelligent member divided by ten. (This isn't limited to Americans, admittedly. Practically every other democracy in the world has the same problem.)

I'd like to think people will have a longer memory of who caused the mess in the first place. If there's some sign of improvement on the horizon, I think Republicans will have fucked themselves by offering....well, nothing.
It's not that people will forget about who caused the economic mess.

It's that the Democrats might actually try to deliver on some of their promises about gay rights.
And if history has taught us anything, it's the the American people will elect a rotting turnip as long as it promises not to let fags marry.

Which begs the question. If they were stupid enough to vote for Dear Leader twice, why not a third time with Palin/McCain?

This is basically the Republicans trying to keep Obama from fixing the mess they brought upon the country in the first place in the hopes the public will reward them for sabotage by re-electing them back into the same position they got the country into the mess to begin with from.

The Republicans have a point, though. By 2012 or even 2010, nobody will remember how bad George W. Bush was (the collective memory goes back about a month at most, sometimes all of two months if something really interesting happened). If Obama doesn't do as well as they thought he would in '08, they can say look, the Democrats are fucking the economy up, vote for us and we'll improve it, et cetera. And people will because, apart from a small portion of the intelligent voting population, nobody will remember that the Republicans and their bad decisions caused the economic problems in the first place. (Well, there was a partially Democratic Congress in '06 or something, so maybe both parties are to blame. Meh.)

It's not that people will forget about who caused the economic mess.

It's that the Democrats might actually try to deliver on some of their promises about gay rights.
And if history has taught us anything, it's the the American people will elect a rotting turnip as long as it promises not to let fags marry.

They can text booty calls to their underaged interns, have drug-laced sex with male prostitutes and tapdance in airport restrooms, but as long as they're not allowed to marry they're fine. What a country eh?

They can text booty calls to their underaged interns, have drug-laced sex with male prostitutes and tapdance in airport restrooms, but as long as they're not allowed to marry they're fine. What a country eh?
The key to understanding American conservatives is knowing that they are, first and foremost, a party that is all about kinky sex.

Republicans like to have dirtybadnaughty sex. Bathroom trists with annonymous men? Hell yeah!

But gay marriage evokes images of monogamous couples doing decidedly non-kinky things like owning homes, filing tax returns, and taking the kids to soccer practice.

Hence, all true Republicans must fight tooth and nail against the de-kinkification of faggots everwhere.

Basically they're hoping that if they openly cockblock Obama's attempts to fix the great legacy of Bushanomics, the public'll blame the Democrats and re-elect the cockblockers?

You obviously forget American's short attention span.

You obviously forget American's short attention span.

And again I say if it's that short, why not a President Palin already?

I'd like to think people will have a longer memory of who caused the mess in the first place.

If that were the case then that would explain why Clinton didn't win. Remember her husband is the one that signed the bill creating the Mortgage Backed Securities that are ultimately the root of the problem today. Eliminate those bad debts and the economy is far better off.

If there's some sign of improvement on the horizon, I think Republicans will have fucked themselves by offering....well, nothing.

Maybe, but look at the stimilus plan in detail. Nearly 400 billion of good stuff that will actually stimulate the economy, and another 400 billion in stuff that should be budget items and have nothing to do with actually economic stimulus. Example, $190 million to Philipino Veterans of WWII. Good stuff, that needs to be paid, but should not be part of a stimulus plan.

If that were the case then that would explain why Clinton didn't win. Remember her husband is the one that signed the bill creating the Mortgage Backed Securities that are ultimately the root of the problem today. Eliminate those bad debts and the economy is far better off.


more education, less repeating right wing talking points would serve you well.

And again I say if it's that short, why not a President Palin already?

The media liked Obama better, for whatever reason (maybe because of the newsworthiness of "first black president").

more education, less repeating right wing talking points would serve you well.

You obviously haven't actually read the stimulus plan have you?

You obviously haven't actually read the stimulus plan have you?

This is NSG. Like we have the time to do actual research rather than snarking on posters we disagree with. Tell me, what's more important, the facts, or that "zing" moment? I don't think we should have to hesitate before answering that question. :wink:

And before someone starts screaming about the Community Reinvestment Act, here's the funny thing.

Mortgages made under the guidelines of the CRA were, taken as a whole, no less profitable than traditional bank mortgages. It's when banks ignored those guidelines, and started issuing subprime mortgages without taking them into consideration, is when this mess started.

I suppose CRA could be blamed, in a very round about fashion, by showing banks that they could, in fact, lend to poor people and still make money. The fault, however, lies with the banks in doing so, WITHOUT following the CRA guidelines which, when implimented, allowed those mortgages to be profitable in the first place.

But hell, don't take MY word for it:

Some economists, politicians and other commentators have charged that the CRA contributed in part to the 2008 financial crisis by encouraging banks to make unsafe loans. Others however, including the economists from the Federal Reserve and the FDIC, dispute this contention. The Federal Reserve and the FDIC holds that empirical research has not validated any relationship between the CRA and the 2008 financial crisis.

. . .

San Francisco Federal Reserve Bank Governor Randall Kroszner has stated that no empirical evidence had been presented to support the claim that "the law pushed banking institutions to undertake high-risk mortgage lending". In a Bank for International Settlements ("BIS") working paper, economist Luci Ellis concluded that "there is no evidence that the Community Reinvestment Act was responsible for encouraging the subprime lending boom and subsequent housing bust," relying partly on evidence that the housing bust has been a largely exurban event. Others have also concluded that the CRA did not contribute to the current financial crisis, for example, FDIC Chairman Sheila Bair, Comptroller of the Currency John C. Dugan, Tim Westrich of the Center for American Progress, Robert Gordon of the American Prospect, Daniel Gross of Slate, and Aaron Pressman from BusinessWeek.

Some legal and financial experts note that CRA regulated loans tend to be safe and profitable, and that subprime excesses came mainly from institutions not regulated by the CRA. In the February 2008 House hearing, law professor Michael S. Barr, a Treasury Department official under President Clinton, stated that a Federal Reserve survey showed that affected institutions considered CRA loans profitable and not overly risky. He noted that approximately 50% of the subprime loans were made by independent mortgage companies that were not regulated by the CRA, and another 25% to 30% came from only partially CRA regulated bank subsidiaries and affiliates. Barr noted that institutions fully regulated by CRA made "perhaps one in four" sub-prime loans, and that "the worst and most widespread abuses occurred in the institutions with the least federal oversight". According to Janet L. Yellen, President of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, independent mortgage companies made risky "high-priced loans" at more than twice the rate of the banks and thrifts; most CRA loans were responsibly made, and were not the higher-priced loans that have contributed to the current crisis. A 2008 study by Traiger & Hinckley LLP, a law firm that counsels financial institutions on CRA compliance, found that CRA regulated institutions were less likely to make subprime loans, and when they did the interest rates were lower. CRA banks were also half as likely to resell the loans.

This is NSG. Like we have the time to do actual research rather than snarking on posters we disagree with. Tell me, what's more important, the facts, or that "zing" moment? I don't think we should have to hesitate before answering that question. :wink:

You know its reasons like this that I hate being a moderate that pays attention to the issues on a site where liberals and conservatives find every reason to bicker.

You obviously haven't actually read the stimulus plan have you?

I have read a great deal of it. I work in the banking industry. Sorta my job. I was merely rejecting your typical neo-con BS of "clinton caused it!"

What you're refering to is the CRA, which was under Carter, and amendments to it, some of which happened under Clinton (probably specifically refering to the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act) which has been demonstrably shown to have not contributed in any substantial degree to this mess. What did were overvalued and underprofitable mortgages. CRA mortgages were on the whole no less profitable than conventional ones.

Keep in mind, in eight years, it'll be an open field again

You know its reasons like this that I hate being a moderate that pays attention to the issues on a site where liberals and conservatives find every reason to bicker.

Meh. I used to be like that -- a moderate who paid attention to the issues and did actual research for threads. Until I started to realize that nobody cared and I was wasting my effort. Then I turned to roleplay, but it didn't work out there either, as I realized that nobody cared and they just wanted to destroy each other with their giant steel penises. Now I just sit on the sidelines and act all self-referential.

I have read a great deal of it. I work in the banking industry. Sorta my job. I was merely rejecting your typical neo-con BS of "clinton caused it!"

He had a hand in it. Just accept the fact.

What you're refering to is the CRA, which was under Carter, and amendments to it, some of which happened under Clinton (probably specifically referring to the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act) which has been demonstrably shown to have not contributed in any substantial degree to this mess. What did were overvalued and under profitable mortgages. CRA mortgages were on the whole no less profitable than conventional ones.

No I am not referring to the CRA. In December 2000, after the election, and before George Bush was inaugurated, Bill Clinton signed the Credit Futures Modernization Act. (CFMA). This bill was intended to resolve a dispute between the SEC and the CFTC over who had jurisdiction over single-stock futures contracts. This act also specifically banned regulation on credit default swaps, which are what the mortgage backed securities are lumped under. Therefore, if removed critical regulation on these securities and in turn contributed heavily to our current housing debacle.

Hence, Bill Clinton had a direct hand in this problem today. I am not saying that Bush isn't responsible, only that Clinton, and the Democrats share the blame.

Unfortunately, as many people keep pointing out, the American people have a very short memory so by 2008 no one remembered the CFMA except a few of us that have kept pointing out that wasn't just Bush's fault, he had help from his predecessors.

No I am not referring to the CRA. In December 2000, after the election, and before George Bush was inaugurated, Bill Clinton signed the Credit Futures Modernization Act. (CFMA). This bill was intended to resolve a dispute between the SEC and the CFTC over who had jurisdiction over single-stock futures contracts. This act also specifically banned regulation on credit default swaps, which are what the mortgage backed securities are lumped under. Therefore, if removed critical regulation on these securities and in turn contributed heavily to our current housing debacle.

Fair enough, I'm so used to hearing about CRA, that whenever someone mentions "clinton regulations" it's sorta the default presumption.

As to the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 (it is Commodity not "credit" just fyi), the discussion over whether the regulation on credit default swaps would have been the kindo f regulation that would have eventually soured the problem. More to point, the bulk of the mortgage backed securites that were at the heart of it all were good securities. They didn't violate any particular notions as to the how we regulate securities. The process was sound. The underlying debt, on the other hand, was rotten.

More to point, the CFMA specifically exempted these kinds of securities from falling under the regulations that typically governed futures contracts. It's unclear and highly speculative whether the regulations governing futures contracts even if they applied to credit default swaps, would have prevented anything.

I will say your argument is significantly more sophisticated than I'm used to, so thank you for that. I was...anticipating a different argument.

Also, about the ads, it's new, you can't get it to go away..

Meh. I used to be like that -- a moderate who paid attention to the issues and did actual research for threads. Until I started to realize that nobody cared and I was wasting my effort. Then I turned to roleplay, but it didn't work out there either, as I realized that nobody cared and they just wanted to destroy each other with their giant steel penises. Now I just sit on the sidelines and act all self-referential.

And all of this in under 320 post...
It ought to be a record.

I'd like to think people will have a longer memory of who caused the mess in the first place. If there's some sign of improvement on the horizon, I think Republicans will have fucked themselves by offering....well, nothing.
Yeah, you'd think so. *sighs*

And all of this in under 320 post...
It ought to be a record.

Actually, there were ~11k more over 3 years before I quit NS, for a couple of years anyway <.<

Don't count your chickens before they hatch. I remember after Bush's first mid-term election when the GOP made gains in Congress instead of losing seats, the Dems were projected to be worthless and out of a job after the next few elections. Remember Rove and his idea of a permanent GOP majority?

Basically they're hoping that if they openly cockblock Obama's attempts to fix the great legacy of Bushanomics, the public'll blame the Democrats and re-elect the cockblockers?

That's like trying to convict a rape victim for sexual assault on the defendant.

And people wonder why the Republicans have Sarah Palin and Bobby Jindal as their biggest shots as President.
Neither of whom were at the CPAC convention this week. Hm. Those are the rightwing's frontrunners, and even they don't want to hang out with the rightwing.

I would caution against being overly quick to declare the GOP dead. If the stimulus fails to work then they'll have a good chance to try and con the American people into voting for them.

Remember, the voters are fucking stupid.
Especially if they succeed in their cockblocking. Easy to blame the president for failing, if you engineer his failure. Bill Kristol wrote as much in his column, urging the RNC to block everything Obama wants to do and do whatever they can to make sure he never gets any significant legislation passed, so they won't have to run against his success later. Fuck the country, put party first.

And meanwhile, Rome burns.

If Obama fails, the Republicans win. It doesn't matter how good things are or how bad things are; he was cursed with ridiculously high expectations and if he fails to meet them he will be punished at the polls. In fact, Obama could probably do a pretty decent job and still see his Congressional allies voted out of office...such is the nature of politics.

Fuck the country, put party first.

And meanwhile, Rome burns.

Maybe if political parties were required by law to disband every 2 decades, with former members barred from ever joining or funding new ones...

I would caution against being overly quick to declare the GOP dead. If the stimulus fails to work then they'll have a good chance to try and con the American people into voting for them.

Remember, the voters are fucking stupid.

I have to agree with you there. Let us not forget that in 1976, the GOP were decimated thanks to Watergate and Ford's pardoning of Nixon. After four years of Carter, and no change economically, and constant appearances by Carter on TV wearing jerseys, the GOP regained the Presidency in a landslide. We all know that Obama could easily come across like Carter did (remember the comments about keeping your tyres inflated), and if the economy doesn't fix itself, then Obama is doomed.

The Republicans have a point, though. By 2012 or even 2010, nobody will remember how bad George W. Bush was

I was watching Fox the other day, and Bill O'Reilly was making a huge fuss about Obama 'still' mentioning the problems with the Bush regime.

Now - this is bearing in mind that Obama has barely started digging into the huge mountain of problems with the Bush regime... but already some of that rightwing contingent are bitching that it's common knowledge, everyone knows, no need to keep going on about it - etc.

The Republicans WANT everyone to forget the last 8 years. They WANT everyone to forget the horrible election campaign they put forward in '08. It's a tightrope act that the Democrats are going to have to be careful about, if they want to keep doing what they're trying to do - they can't afford to let the voters forget why even Republicans voted Democrat, this time round.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20090226/pl_politico/19346

So, yeah. If, after a month, Republicans begin to be seen like that, I wonder what will be left of them in one year.

What else do you expect them to do? They are the party in opposition, do you think they should add their rubber stamp to everything just because it will make somebody, somewhere feel better?

I was watching Fox the other day, and Bill O'Reilly was making a huge fuss about Obama 'still' mentioning the problems with the Bush regime.

Maybe if someone shot Bill O'Reilly somewhere painful, but not lethal, and then complained about how he's still whining about being shot when it's in the past...

Not very legal, but good irony isn't always legal.

I was watching Fox the other day, and Bill O'Reilly was making a huge fuss about Obama 'still' mentioning the problems with the Bush regime.



And why on Earth were you watching Fox? The network collectively jumped the shark in early 2001.

And why on Earth were you watching Fox? The network collectively jumped the shark in early 2001.

Cruci here is what we like to call an informed man. He likes to study up on what everyone says, including Fox News.

Well, Im not a big supporter of Republicans, as in, I hate republican positions, lol..

But, from their point of view, it does kinda make sense, think about it, If the Stimulus Plans work, then who gets the credit? Democrats, if it fails, who will get the blame? Republicans(rightly so, Id wager, but its beside the point)

And, Id wager thats what will happen regardless of what they do, sort of a Catch-22, however, if they take a determined stand against these actions, they hold on to what little conservative base there is left, and will likely pick up some bandwagon voters if it actually does fail, and then they can appease them in 2012 by running Palin/Jindal, because thats who the base wants atm...

Now, Im of the opinion that Obama's rates are so high among the voters who voted for him this time around that regardless, he wont lose in 2012, but, imo, from a Republican stand-point, you can use that to your advantage, by running someone popular, that youd never want to see in office, namely, Palin/Jindal...

Then next time around, in 2016, banking on a failure of said packages, run someone more Romney-esque, or Giuliani-Esque that you would like to see in office, and have a good line of attacks to give on the Dem ticket, Im wagering something with Hillary on it,lol, admittedly, something id like to see from the Dems...

Cruci here is what we like to call an informed man. He likes to study up on what everyone says, including Fox News.

It's startlingly hard to come to the conclusion that what Fox News says is relevant to being informed. The information that it does provide tends to be equally available elsewhere.

It's not that people will forget about who caused the economic mess.

It's that the Democrats might actually try to deliver on some of their promises about gay rights.
And if history has taught us anything, it's the the American people will elect a rotting turnip as long as it promises not to let fags marry.

These things change fast. Even 40 years ago, 96% of the country opposed interracial marriage. I'll bet you that by 2012, only the most rancid religious nuts will even give gay marriage a second glance.

It's startlingly hard to come to the conclusion that what Fox News says is relevant to being informed. The information that it does provide tends to be equally available elsewhere.

That's not the point. The point is the perspective offered by Fox News. That is equally as important as the information. Knowing what the enemy is saying is more important than you might think. Underestimating the enemy and refusing to educate yourself about the enemy is foolish.

These things change fast. Even 40 years ago, 96% of the country opposed interracial marriage. I'll bet you that by 2012, only the most rancid religious nuts will even give gay marriage a second glance.

I'd give it till 2016 personally. 2012 is a wee bit too early in my opinion.

If that were the case then that would explain why Clinton didn't win. Remember her husband is the one that signed the bill creating the Mortgage Backed Securities that are ultimately the root of the problem today. Eliminate those bad debts and the economy is far better off.

Oh, yeah. That's right. The investors that abused it and the government that knew the system was going nuts in the last few years and chose not to add more stringent oversight was just a symptom of the problem. It was the creation of mortgage backed securities that were at fault. Also, Guns kill people.

That's not the point. The point is the perspective offered by Fox News. That is equally as important as the information. Knowing what the enemy is saying is more important than you might think. Underestimating the enemy and refusing to educate yourself about the enemy is foolish.

I'd prefer an entertaining opponent, though. Fox News is no longer fun, it's just a bunch of the same cranky, right-wing drivel.

Talk radio is far more enjoyable, totally insane, and it's an incidental investment in my time--usually when I'm in the car.

I'd prefer an entertaining opponent, though. Fox News is no longer fun, it's just a bunch of the same cranky, right-wing drivel.

Talk radio is far more enjoyable, totally insane, and it's an incidental investment in my time--usually when I'm in the car.

Talk radio is where all the same cranky, right-wing drivel originated and infests.

Talk radio is where all the same cranky, right-wing drivel originated and infests.

Fox News requires you to sit in front of a TV. I've got work and school, hardly enough time for that.

Fox News requires you to sit in front of a TV. I've got work and school, hardly enough time for that.

How does that have anything to do with what I said?

Also, Guns kill people....I thought bullets killed people. :( (Except in a very few desperate situations, but, even in those, something else would suffice.)

My entire concept of weapons have been ruined, ruined, I say!

...I thought bullets killed people. :( (Except in a very few desperate situations, but, even in those, something else would suffice.)

My entire concept of weapons have been ruined, ruined, I say!

Specifically, it's the holes that kill people.

Specifically, it's the holes that kill people.

"Your honor, I did not kill this man. It was the unfortunate state of his brain, scattered all over the wall like that, that killed him. My bat had nothing to do with it."

:p

Maybe if political parties were required by law to disband every 2 decades, with former members barred from ever joining or funding new ones...
A consummation devoutly to be wished. I detest political parties. All political parties.

"Your honor, I did not kill this man. It was the unfortunate state of his brain, scattered all over the wall like that, that killed him. My bat had nothing to do with it."

:p

*writes this down*

Specifically, it's the holes that kill people.Maybe it's the liquid coming out of the holes (That's needed for continued body function.) created by the bullet that was forcefully propelled by the firearm in the person's direction, which caused the mess in the first place.

...Yeah. *nod*

What about we all listen to the greatest economist of the 20th century?

Remember, the voters are fucking stupid.

The Republican party is counting on this...

...and they say that liberals hate America. :rolleyes:

Keep in mind, in eight years, it'll be an open field again

What? The idea of President Biden doesn't tickle your fancy? :tongue:

I'd prefer an entertaining opponent, though. Fox News is no longer fun, it's just a bunch of the same cranky, right-wing drivel.

Talk radio is far more enjoyable, totally insane, and it's an incidental investment in my time--usually when I'm in the car.

As Kyronea pointed out, the point is to hear different stories, or the same stories from different perspectives. I can't be everywhere at once, so I view the world through a multitude of windows.

Fox News requires you to sit in front of a TV. I've got work and school, hardly enough time for that.

I 'watch' news programs at work. Just because it's on, doesn't mean I have to have my eyes glued to the screen.

Specifically, it's the holes that kill people.

Nonsense. It's the internal bleeding, plus external bleeding, plus the loss of various fluids that kill people.

Thus, if you beat a man to death, you can honestly say "I didn't kill him! Internal injuries, bone fractures, and heart failure killed him!"

What about we all listen to the greatest economist of the 20th century?

You mean.... who exactly? I assume you're not talking about the Duke of Ankh-Morpork and his Boots Theory of Economic Inequality.

I 'watch' news programs at work. Just because it's on, doesn't mean I have to have my eyes glued to the screen.

Yeah. That would hurt. <.<

Although, why anything like that would stay on while you were trying to work is a mystery to me, unless you work at a TV station, because otherwise the moving images and sounds will distract anyone trying to get anything done and waste their time greatly.

The Republican party is counting on this...

...and they say that liberals hate America. :rolleyes:



What? The idea of President Biden doesn't tickle your fancy? :tongue:


President MBNA? Hmmmmmm

You mean.... who exactly? I assume you're not talking about the Duke of Ankh-Morpork and his Boots Theory of Economic Inequality.

I think you should familiarize yourself with the writings of the eminent Russian-American Philosopher/Sex kitten Ayn Rand.

I think you should familiarize yourself with the writings of the eminent Russian-American composer/pianist Sergei Rachmaninoff.

The eminent Russian-American composer/pianist Sergei Rachmaninoff wasn't much of an economist, though.

to be honest the GOP is just falling in with how an opposition party should act.
keep everyone in on the party line as much as possible so you can negotiate as a group.
The reason so many of bush's polices were pasted in the first place was the democrats didn't know how to be a proper opposition party. Given since the 30's they had been in power until the 90's (with one brief exception being the senate in the 80's) so they really haven't been the opposition party.

I think you should familiarize yourself with the writings of the eminent Russian-American Philosopher/Sex kitten Ayn Rand.

Who?

Alright. Democracy is not the greatest form of government ; Aristotle was right, but at least it expresses the views (sometimes) of the generic public. The problem with having a despot is that one bad one can do much worse than, well, dumb people voting. I hope that the internet will expose a lot more information about whoever the bad party is and catch the bluffs. Before people won by ruining the other party's reputation. This elected dishonest people. Maybe we will have more honest leaders.

Alright. Democracy is not the greatest form of government ; Aristotle was right, but at least it expresses the views (sometimes) of the generic public. The problem with having a despot is that one bad one can do much worse than, well, dumb people voting. I hope that the internet will expose a lot more information about whoever the bad party is and catch the bluffs. Before people won by ruining the other party's reputation. This elected dishonest people. Maybe we will have more honest leaders.
:confused: Huh?

Alright. Democracy is not the greatest form of government ; Aristotle was right, but at least it expresses the views (sometimes) of the generic public. The problem with having a despot is that one bad one can do much worse than, well, dumb people voting. I hope that the internet will expose a lot more information about whoever the bad party is and catch the bluffs. Before people won by ruining the other party's reputation. This elected dishonest people. Maybe we will have more honest leaders.

Your syntax requires some work, grasshopper.

Also, I don't see how the views of the general public are particularly relevant to government. They should be an advisory at best -- a guideline for the leaders to follow, perhaps, but not necessarily an end goal.

Obama/Biden got elected.

Nuff said.
Fixed.

Fixed.

Ah, what would we do without you, eh?

(And I don't just mean 'have more constructive debates').

Fixed.

Indeed. They will fix many of screw ups of the last eight years.

And why on Earth were you watching Fox? The network collectively jumped the shark in early 2001.

If I were living in the US, I would watch it. According to the reliable source youtube, fox news seems to be a constant source of hilarious drama. Seems like good entertainment.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20090226/pl_politico/19346

So, yeah. If, after a month, Republicans begin to be seen like that, I wonder what will be left of them in one year.


Oh dear! It's almost as though those nasty old Republicans believe in a two party system that offers voters alternatives. No wonder the poor liberals are upset. How will the poor liberals ever cope with the fact that voters like choices? :rolleyes:

The only way we will get back to a two-party system which offers alternatives is when the Republican party is dissolved so that a new party which offers an alternative can form.

Oh dear! It's almost as though those nasty old Republicans believe in a two party system that offers voters alternatives. No wonder the poor liberals are upset. How will the poor liberals ever cope with the fact that voters like choices? :rolleyes:Give me an example of the difference between the Republicans and Democrats on a major that actually has them taking a side on it.

It's not Republicans that I have a problem with, that would be over-generalizing. It is certain factions within both the Democratic and Republican party that I have problems with. :rolleyes:

If the stimulus package doesn't do enough, or does nothing at all, then all this grandstanding by the Republicans will rocket them right back into power.

If the stimulus package doesn't do enough, or does nothing at all, then all this grandstanding by the Republicans will rocket them right back into power.

Will it? Or will they be remembered as the party that didn't even try?

Will it? Or will they be remembered as the party that didn't even try?

I don't know which electorate you're looking at, but we're talking about Americans here.

The key to understanding American conservatives is knowing that they are, first and foremost, a party that is all about kinky sex.

Republicans like to have dirtybadnaughty sex. Bathroom trists with annonymous men? Hell yeah!

But gay marriage evokes images of monogamous couples doing decidedly non-kinky things like owning homes, filing tax returns, and taking the kids to soccer practice.

Hence, all true Republicans must fight tooth and nail against the de-kinkification of faggots everwhere.

Win post is win.

Indeed. They will fix many of screw ups of the last eight years.
So you believe that it's possible to fix mistakes with more mistakes? You can't stop stupid people from doing stupid things by passing stupid laws. That's just stupid.

Ah, what would we do without you, eh?

(And I don't just mean 'have more constructive debates').
Fritter away your time on the internet without basking in my awesome? Circle-jerk about how much you love government, how it structures your lives and makes society so much better, and how it has a monopoly on legal force? Pretend to act like a bunch of sterotypical beared snobs that frequent art galleries (I don't need a beard) and pontificate on altruism and the nature of humanity or how things ought to be? Pile on the bad puns whenever the joke threads resurface like a bad case of herpes every fucking week?

I don't think that there has ever really been a constructive debate on this board. It's just the same tired threads regurgitated by new members and returning oldies that are either too stupid to bring back their past accounts or were banned for having some fucking balls. The only exception to this is when someone tries to imitate reporters and anchors as they bring you news stories exactly as they were reported on whatever blog or other site they were ripped from with practically nothing in the way of stimulating commentary.