[quote]hedo wrote:
Democrats are ineffective at leadership. Try and think of Brad as an adult and you have the modern Democratic party.
They are much more effective at complaining then actually doing things or coming up with original thoughts. See above example.
[/quote]
Republicans are also ineffective at leadership. See last 7 years.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
If we ever have another Great Depression (which I think will happen sooner rather than later) we’ll likely have an end to this Republic. The military will simply kick Congress to the curb, in one way or another.[/quote]
We may have a large recession. There’s nothing about the current state of things that could come close to causing another Great Depression. If you think there is, you really don’t understand many of the crucial factors that caused the Great Depression.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
The Mage wrote:
Usually there is what they call a honeymoon period after a change in power. But the last election needs to be looked at more closely to be understood. People were not voting for the democrats, but against the republicans. The war has some effect, but many who didn’t use the war to decide, or even many that were for the war were not happy with the republicans acting like democrats.
Also with so many Republicans jumping ship on the war because the polls were dropping meant those who did support the war had no reason to vote for the Republican, plus they may have felt betrayed.
I know I really was disgusted by most everyone in politics. Spending money the government doesn’t have and putting us deeper in debt just to garner votes is not conservative. To be conservative is to not waste money, and keep control over taxes so the economy is not stifled.
When there are 2 democrat parties, it really doesn’t matter who you vote for.
Very insightful post!
[/quote]
Or maybe there are two Republican parties! Their definitions aren’t written in stone ya know.
And there much worse then the dems.
The dems tax and spend.
These GOP members have been spending and going into debt. No new taxes. Completely irresponsible. At least the last Bush recognized new taxes were needed, and did the responsible thing to do.
[quote]Beowolf wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
The Mage wrote:
Usually there is what they call a honeymoon period after a change in power. But the last election needs to be looked at more closely to be understood. People were not voting for the democrats, but against the republicans. The war has some effect, but many who didn’t use the war to decide, or even many that were for the war were not happy with the republicans acting like democrats.
Also with so many Republicans jumping ship on the war because the polls were dropping meant those who did support the war had no reason to vote for the Republican, plus they may have felt betrayed.
I know I really was disgusted by most everyone in politics. Spending money the government doesn’t have and putting us deeper in debt just to garner votes is not conservative. To be conservative is to not waste money, and keep control over taxes so the economy is not stifled.
When there are 2 democrat parties, it really doesn’t matter who you vote for.
Very insightful post!
Or maybe there are two Republican parties! Their definitions aren’t written in stone ya know.
And there much worse then the dems.
The dems tax and spend.
These GOP members have been spending and going into debt. No new taxes. Completely irresponsible. At least the last Bush recognized new taxes were needed, and did the responsible thing to do.[/quote]
Very good point. Spend-and-tax liberals are problematic enough. Spend-and-DON’T-tax Republicans are terrigying.
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
Brad61 wrote:
Democrats have been in control of Congress for only two months. It’s still a transition period for some new members. It’s a little early to start analyzing poll numbers and trying to come up with an explanation for what the polls are doing.
Dumbest thread ever.
Okay, not dumber than Headhunter’s threads. That would have to be pretty crazy.
But still dumb.
I don’t think this is a dumb thread at all. And I often think Headhunter’s threads are way off-base. A critical analysis of the performance of the Democrats from the getgo is entirely legitimate. And I’m not someone who is gunning for them either. I’m pretty moderate.
We see what they’ve done. You are right that there’s plenty of time and they haven’t been in power very long, and it will be important to see what they do.
[/quote]
Actually the leadership was pretty effective. Republicans did’t defect and generally reflected the voice of the voters who put them into office. Democrats are losing approval because they are caving into the fringe of the party and do not reflect the wishes of the people who elected them.
The public didn’t like the way the war was going but they didn’t want to surrender and lose either. The Dems are in an odd position. They want to complain and bitch but don’t want to do anything about it or accept any responsibility. The public will tolerate that for a few months but will quickly grow tired of it.
[quote]Beowolf wrote:
Or maybe there are two Republican parties! Their definitions aren’t written in stone ya know.[/quote]
That is true. The party is actually supposed to have the platform of who they elect as president/ presidential candidate, or party leader. So it can fluctuate. Right now Bush is moderately liberal, as shown by his spending record, and the liberals are very liberal.
I have never chosen a political party for myself as I actually like to think, and not take a position just because a party takes it. Each issue must be thought out.[quote]
And there much worse then the dems.[/quote]
Really? Their a hell of a lot worse. I lost a lot of respect for them when they decided destroying a president for political gain at all costs, including the safety of Americans. [quote]
The dems tax and spend.
These GOP members have been spending and going into debt. No new taxes. Completely irresponsible. At least the last Bush recognized new taxes were needed, and did the responsible thing to do.[/quote]
Yes the spending has been bad, but the cut in taxes has actually increased revenue. It sounds like a joke, and people make fun of it because it is so counterintuitive.
But regardless, if you spend more money then you make, year after year after year, your an idiot. That goes for both parties. (Except for one guy.) We have to stop these political games that have bankrupted the American government, but that won’t happen as long as people support a credit card government.
[quote]The Mage wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
Or maybe there are two Republican parties! Their definitions aren’t written in stone ya know.
That is true. The party is actually supposed to have the platform of who they elect as president/ presidential candidate, or party leader. So it can fluctuate. Right now Bush is moderately liberal, as shown by his spending record, and the liberals are very liberal.
I have never chosen a political party for myself as I actually like to think, and not take a position just because a party takes it. Each issue must be thought out.
And there much worse then the dems.
Really? Their a hell of a lot worse. I lost a lot of respect for them when they decided destroying a president for political gain at all costs, including the safety of Americans.
The dems tax and spend.
These GOP members have been spending and going into debt. No new taxes. Completely irresponsible. At least the last Bush recognized new taxes were needed, and did the responsible thing to do.
Yes the spending has been bad, but the cut in taxes has actually increased revenue. It sounds like a joke, and people make fun of it because it is so counterintuitive.
But regardless, if you spend more money then you make, year after year after year, your an idiot. That goes for both parties. (Except for one guy.) We have to stop these political games that have bankrupted the American government, but that won’t happen as long as people support a credit card government.
[/quote]
Good post. I agree with most of this. However, I will say that throughout American history as a whole, both economically liberal and economically conservative ideals have been fucked by their parties for political gain.
Though social liberalism and conservativenss (<-- word for this?) are usually pretty solid, but still for political gains.
I lost respect for the GOP when they destroyed Clinton for political reasons.
I lost respect for the Democrats when they sat down and let the invasion of Iraq go through, with no fucking after-plan at that.
And again when they wouldn’t just come out and say “We were wrong then, something has to be done about this” and again, now, that they just won’t tell Bush to set a goddamn date.
I don’t approve of the funding cuts, but they could still make actual legislation instead of just legislated “suggestions” they know he’ll ignore.
At least 70% of all civilian federal employees should be fired at once. Spending for non-defense should be slashed by at least 70%. All taxes and regulations should be eliminated immediately and forbidden. The government should be funded only by user-fees. Only judicial, police, and military branches should be kept in service — fire everyone else. Sell off the assets.
If the low-life Dems and Reps don’t have the balls to say it, I will: “You’re fired!”(in my best Vince McMahon voice 
)
The alternative to the above is the death of this Republic.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
At least 70% of all civilian federal employees should be fired at once. Spending for non-defense should be slashed by at least 70%. All taxes and regulations should be eliminated immediately and forbidden. The government should be funded only by user-fees. Only judicial, police, and military branches should be kept in service — fire everyone else. Sell off the assets.
If the low-life Dems and Reps don’t have the balls to say it, I will: “You’re fired!”(in my best Vince McMahon voice )
The alternative to the above is the death of this Republic.[/quote]
Hahahaha. I was wrong. It would be possible for their to be another Great Depression. It would be brought about by dropping all government-funding to pre-Civil war levels when the population is 10 times as big and the government is irrevocably intertwined with 10 times as many aspects of daily life.
Your idea would probably lead to anarchy and a mass country-wide riot as well.
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
At least 70% of all civilian federal employees should be fired at once. Spending for non-defense should be slashed by at least 70%. All taxes and regulations should be eliminated immediately and forbidden. The government should be funded only by user-fees. Only judicial, police, and military branches should be kept in service — fire everyone else. Sell off the assets.
If the low-life Dems and Reps don’t have the balls to say it, I will: “You’re fired!”(in my best Vince McMahon voice )
The alternative to the above is the death of this Republic.
Hahahaha. I was wrong. It would be possible for their to be another Great Depression. It would be brought about by dropping all government-funding to pre-Civil war levels when the population is 10 times as big and the government is irrevocably intertwined with 10 times as many aspects of daily life.
Your idea would probably lead to anarchy and a mass country-wide riot as well.[/quote]
What has happened to just about every country on earth that continually spent more than it earned, year after year? Let’s see…they collapsed into chaos and destitution…taking CENTURIES to recover. The closest analogy to our situation is Imperial Spain.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
At least 70% of all civilian federal employees should be fired at once. Spending for non-defense should be slashed by at least 70%. All taxes and regulations should be eliminated immediately and forbidden. The government should be funded only by user-fees. Only judicial, police, and military branches should be kept in service — fire everyone else. Sell off the assets.
If the low-life Dems and Reps don’t have the balls to say it, I will: “You’re fired!”(in my best Vince McMahon voice )
The alternative to the above is the death of this Republic.
Hahahaha. I was wrong. It would be possible for their to be another Great Depression. It would be brought about by dropping all government-funding to pre-Civil war levels when the population is 10 times as big and the government is irrevocably intertwined with 10 times as many aspects of daily life.
Your idea would probably lead to anarchy and a mass country-wide riot as well.
What has happened to just about every country on earth that continually spent more than it earned, year after year? Let’s see…they collapsed into chaos and destitution…taking CENTURIES to recover. The closest analogy to our situation is Imperial Spain.
[/quote]
So lets raise taxes and start earning more, like a responsible nation.
We can’t cut spending or the troops suffer, so the obvious answer is to kill the tax cuts.
[quote]hedo wrote:
The public didn’t like the way the war was going but they didn’t want to surrender and lose either.[/quote]
The only way not-to-lose in Iraq is kill every last one of them. As long as parents outlive their kids who fell under US fire, wives their abducted and tortured husbands, the resistance will continue.
[quote]lixy wrote:
hedo wrote:
The public didn’t like the way the war was going but they didn’t want to surrender and lose either.
The only way not-to-lose in Iraq is kill every last one of them. As long as parents outlive their kids who fell under US fire, wives their abducted and tortured husbands, the resistance will continue.
[/quote]
Naive opinion. The resistance is being led by foriegn fighters, as I am sure you know.
[quote]lixy wrote:
hedo wrote:
The public didn’t like the way the war was going but they didn’t want to surrender and lose either.
The only way not-to-lose in Iraq is kill every last one of them. As long as parents outlive their kids who fell under US fire, wives their abducted and tortured husbands, the resistance will continue.
[/quote]
Here we go again: are you in Al-Qaeda? You sound more radical with every post.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
lixy wrote:
hedo wrote:
The public didn’t like the way the war was going but they didn’t want to surrender and lose either.
The only way not-to-lose in Iraq is kill every last one of them. As long as parents outlive their kids who fell under US fire, wives their abducted and tortured husbands, the resistance will continue.
Here we go again: are you in Al-Qaeda? You sound more radical with every post.
[/quote]
Here we go again: are you in the Nazi Party?
You sound more radical in every post.
[quote]beowolf wrote:
So lets raise taxes and start earning more, like a responsible nation.
[/quote]
Stop calling us tax and spend liberals,
Signed,
mondale, dukakis, clinton, gore, and kerry.
[quote]JeffR wrote:
beowolf wrote:
So lets raise taxes and start earning more, like a responsible nation.
Stop calling us tax and spend liberals,
Signed,
mondale, dukakis, clinton, gore, and kerry.
[/quote]
…Is someone not getting the irony here or is it just me?
Bush promised “No New Taxes” remember? And when the country went to war and needed funding, what did he do? He made new taxes.
Bush Jr. promised “Tax Cuts for everyone”. He gave tax cuts to the upper half of America. When the country went to war and needed new funding, he sat around with his thumb up his ass, and refused to drop his tax cuts.
Dems don’t just tax and spend willy-nilly, they tax and spend with a purpose and for a purpose. They just don’t like the negativity associated with it. Seriously, it’s a political thing, and any idiot can see that.
[quote]beowolf wrote:
JeffR wrote:
beowolf wrote:
So lets raise taxes and start earning more, like a responsible nation.
Stop calling us tax and spend liberals,
Signed,
mondale, dukakis, clinton, gore, and kerry.
…Is someone not getting the irony here or is it just me?
Bush promised “No New Taxes” remember? And when the country went to war and needed funding, what did he do? He made new taxes.
Bush Jr. promised “Tax Cuts for everyone”. He gave tax cuts to the upper half of America. When the country went to war and needed new funding, he sat around with his thumb up his ass, and refused to drop his tax cuts.
Dems don’t just tax and spend willy-nilly, they tax and spend with a purpose and for a purpose. They just don’t like the negativity associated with it. Seriously, it’s a political thing, and any idiot can see that.[/quote]
I’m a tax and spend liberal “with a purpose.”
Signed,
beowolf.
[quote]Beowolf wrote:
…
Bush promised “No New Taxes” remember? And when the country went to war and needed funding, what did he do? He made new taxes.
[/quote]
The Democrats rammed it down his throat and he was stupid enough to sign it.
Everyone got tax cuts and the government revenue is higher than ever.
[quote]JeffR wrote:
beowolf wrote:
JeffR wrote:
beowolf wrote:
So lets raise taxes and start earning more, like a responsible nation.
Stop calling us tax and spend liberals,
Signed,
mondale, dukakis, clinton, gore, and kerry.
…Is someone not getting the irony here or is it just me?
Bush promised “No New Taxes” remember? And when the country went to war and needed funding, what did he do? He made new taxes.
Bush Jr. promised “Tax Cuts for everyone”. He gave tax cuts to the upper half of America. When the country went to war and needed new funding, he sat around with his thumb up his ass, and refused to drop his tax cuts.
Dems don’t just tax and spend willy-nilly, they tax and spend with a purpose and for a purpose. They just don’t like the negativity associated with it. Seriously, it’s a political thing, and any idiot can see that.
I’m a tax and spend liberal “with a purpose.”
Signed,
beowolf.
[/quote]
Did I say thats what I was? Nope. Do I even agree with it? Somewhat. Am I a tax-and-spend kind of guy?
No.
You lose, good day sir.