The Democrats Agenda

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
41

[quote]doogie wrote:
mark57 wrote:
The Democrats Agenda

Education is also high on our agenda, as well as reforming the completely broken health care system.

Headhunter’s (note possessive} agenda:
“I are a teecher, so you must be rong.”

“New Orleans only exists to suck up my tax moneys, I are mad.”

Name a single democratic education reform measure. Any one. I’ll wait…

You can’t do it. Democrats don’t want education reform, because they know that as soon as minorities are as educated as the “man”, they’ll all vote Republican, too.[/quote]

Isn’t it keep your promise President Bush, fully fund No Child Left Behind.

And it’s not funded, nor is public schooling supported (see vouchers) because if voters are educated they earn more. (Remember the party of 1 percent!)

42

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:

Democrats tend to give more social aid, and are supposed to support a more even distribution of wealth.

Who’s ‘wealth’? Who made this ‘wealth’ to be distributed? The janitor pushing a broom in a factory? The sales clerk at Wal-Mart? Hmmm…these people would probably starve in their hopeless ineptitude were it not for men (like Rainjack) who created places for these people to work. Do you propose to steal what they created, to give it to those who did NOT create it? [/quote]

Oy!
How old are you by the way? Investing in America is stealing–news to me.

43

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:

But for more than 75 years, no Republican administration has cut the size of government. Since George W. Bush became president, government spending has risen nearly 25 percent.

So, if Bush cuts the budget, he’s heartless and cruel. If he increases the budget, he’s careless and profligate? What wrong with this reasoning?[/quote]

Nothing. Obviously, he(they) does both, cutting things from parts of the budget (LIHEAP) while increasing others (funding oil companies), all while cutting taxes.

44

[quote]Professor X wrote:
doogie wrote:
mark57 wrote:
The Democrats Agenda

Education is also high on our agenda, as well as reforming the completely broken health care system.

Headhunter’s (note possessive} agenda:
“I are a teecher, so you must be rong.”

“New Orleans only exists to suck up my tax moneys, I are mad.”

Name a single democratic education reform measure. Any one. I’ll wait…

You can’t do it. Democrats don’t want education reform, because they know that as soon as minorities are as educated as the “man”, they’ll all vote Republican, too.

That was one truly ignorant statement. It implies that democrats are only democrats as long as they aren’t educated or doing well financially. It also implies that republicans are better educated and all financially more well off than democrats.

Do you make more money than all democrats? Are you sure? Are you more educated? Really? You earn the award for dumbest post of the year. Congrats. [/quote]

WHy don’t you just man up and admit you can’t come up with a single Democratic education reform measure?

45

I agree that what is making the Dems weaker than they already are is that they are a REACTIVE group, where their policy is dictated by reaction to the republican party agenda. How sad.

And for them to go after Bush on this spying bit…just way below the belt. ALL Presidents have used domestic wiretaps etc. since the technology was available. Now we use it to protect our own country and it’s all of a sudden wrong.

Lame, lame lame. Get an original agenda with some substance.

46

[quote]doogie wrote:
mark57 wrote:
The Democrats Agenda

Education is also high on our agenda, as well as reforming the completely broken health care system.

Headhunter’s (note possessive} agenda:
“I are a teecher, so you must be rong.”

“New Orleans only exists to suck up my tax moneys, I are mad.”

Name a single democratic education reform measure. Any one. I’ll wait…

You can’t do it. Democrats don’t want education reform, because they know that as soon as minorities are as educated as the “man”, they’ll all vote Republican, too.[/quote]

I know some well off liberals. Normally age will move you closer to being more conservative by nature.

Also, our Higher education system (at least in bleeding CA) is FULL of liberals, so your arguement about education is actually VERY wrong.

47

[quote]doogie wrote:

WHy don’t you just man up and admit you can’t come up with a single Democratic education reform measure?
[/quote]

Why would I argue for a democrats point of view? You are the one using that label for me even though it is one that I never claimed. Pointing out how wrong and biased you are with a statement you make doesn’t mean I need to run to the rescue of Democrats and make claims of what they stand for.

How many times have I said on this forum that I believe BOTH parties suck ass? You cheer for conservatives while thinking you are better than liberals. I laugh at you cheering for any of them.

The liberals won’t stand for anything now because they are afraid to. They are afraid anything they vocally stand for will be used against them in the next election. That is simple common sense. That doesn’t make them right and it damn sure doesn’t make conservatives right simply because they loudly express their views lately.

48

[quote]100meters wrote:
The right reacts to the left.
Did President Bush not react to President Clinton’s policies?

example:
Clinton:meetings on terrorism.
Bush: no meetings on terrorism-that’s something Clinton would do.

Clinton: balance budget
Bush: stop balancing budget

Clinton: cut poverty
Bush: raise poverty

Clinton: get PDB on terrorists, shake the trees
Bush: get PDB on terrorists, have no meetings.

etc.

OK. Lies. Is this a lie?

Bush:
Secondly, there are such things as roving wiretaps. Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires – a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we’re talking about chasing down terrorists, we’re talking about getting a court order before we do so.

That’s Bush LYING to sheepish voters in a campaign speech in Buffalo April 20, 2004. [/quote]

Psst - Clinton hasn’t been in office since January of 2001. The Dems have lost seats in every election since November 2000.

You have given nothing even remotely resembling a platform for the left. And I think it is obvious by the election results that whatever message you are trying to send is not getting across very effectively. Or - maybe it is and the people don’t like it.

Court order - or congressional oversight - either way it’s not like Bush is acting on his own.

Holy crap you can do way better than this. I’ve seen you do it.

49

This thread sucks ass. That is all.

50

[quote]vroom wrote:
This thread sucks ass. That is all.[/quote]

And the thinktard shows up to to prove his thinktardiness. Great job vroom. I hope you think it sucks really bad so you’ll stay out of it and spare us your mind-numbing attempts at being intelligent.

51

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
100meters wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Could someone please tell me what the Democrats stand for, other than a woman’s right to sleep with a guy she doesn’t want to have kids with? The Roe vs Wade crap is getting old and I’d just like to know what the hell they stand for. Please enlighten me, someone??

Fighting Terror? (Remember that ol’ thing?)
Fixing Iraq? (Remember who screwed that up?)
Congressional Oversight into war profiterring? or how bout just
Congressional Oversight?
Economic growth that “people” feel?
Science?
Balancing the Budget? (again)

Separation of church and state? (thanks Thomas Jefferson)
Not outing covert agents?
Hiring people with relevant experience for jobs like FEMA?
Checks and balances?
Alternative Fuels?
Cleaner Enviroment?

No forced abortions on Marianas?
The middle class?
The lower class?
Anybody not a part of top 1%?
Oh, the top 1% too.

it goes on and on and on and on.

a little different than the RNC:
manipulate voters on fake social issues and fear in order to stuff pockets and friends pockets (or in Iraq, bags) with tons of cash.

Let’s see: the Democratic Party was founded on the principle that owning slaves was an ‘alternative lifestyle’. The GOP evolved out of the Whigs, for the purpose of ending slavery. Good to know where our ROOTS (sorry, Alex Haley) are. But I digress…

THat’s quite an extensive list, 100meters. Where’d you get it – from Senator Byrd (D-West Virginia), former verified member of the KKK?

[/quote]

C’mon now Headhunter, don’t be like that. I know that you remember that the political parties have undergone various idealogical shifts since their inception.

You know about the shifts in the 1960s where the “solid South” started voting Republican and the party of the progressives became the democrats.

You cannot compare the historical basis of the parties to what they are now- its like comparing the old GTO to the new one; might have the same name, but it sure as shit ain’t the same car.

When it comes down to it, the Democrats and Republicans are the same party, they just vary on a couple of social issues. Economically (which is always the most important, they have stood together in favor of capitalism and free trade. Just because the Dems get the Union votes doesn’t mean that they are any different; it only means the Unions have gotten more corrupt.

52

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:

But for more than 75 years, no Republican administration has cut the size of government. Since George W. Bush became president, government spending has risen nearly 25 percent.

So, if Bush cuts the budget, he’s heartless and cruel. If he increases the budget, he’s careless and profligate? What wrong with this reasoning?[/quote]

When you cut medicare because you spent 87 billion (actually far more) on a war that was unprovoked…well yea that’s not a good thing. Plus, he is careles because he is careless, not because he raised the budget. The budget, like everything else in life, cannot be judged on numbers and statistics alone. Different times call for different measures. However, these last four years have been something else.

53

[quote]rainjack wrote:
vroom wrote:
This thread sucks ass. That is all.

And the thinktard shows up to to prove his thinktardiness. Great job vroom. I hope you think it sucks really bad so you’ll stay out of it and spare us your mind-numbing attempts at being intelligent. [/quote]

Gettin a little brutal there RJ. Its only politics man.

54

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
rainjack wrote:
vroom wrote:
This thread sucks ass. That is all.

And the thinktard shows up to to prove his thinktardiness. Great job vroom. I hope you think it sucks really bad so you’ll stay out of it and spare us your mind-numbing attempts at being intelligent.

Gettin a little brutal there RJ. Its only politics man.[/quote]

No, it’s love for those two.

55

[quote]doogie wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
rainjack wrote:
vroom wrote:
This thread sucks ass. That is all.

And the thinktard shows up to to prove his thinktardiness. Great job vroom. I hope you think it sucks really bad so you’ll stay out of it and spare us your mind-numbing attempts at being intelligent.

Gettin a little brutal there RJ. Its only politics man.

No, it’s love for those two.

[/quote]

Well you know, they argue like only 1) A married couple or 2) brothers.

Either way, its kind of humourous.

56

[quote]100meters wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:

Democrats tend to give more social aid, and are supposed to support a more even distribution of wealth.

Who’s ‘wealth’? Who made this ‘wealth’ to be distributed? The janitor pushing a broom in a factory? The sales clerk at Wal-Mart? Hmmm…these people would probably starve in their hopeless ineptitude were it not for men (like Rainjack) who created places for these people to work. Do you propose to steal what they created, to give it to those who did NOT create it?

Oy!
How old are you by the way? Investing in America is stealing–news to me. [/quote]

Oy! ?? Oy vay!!

This post makes no sense. Please go and look up ‘Non Sequitor’. But, maybe I’m wrong – you’ll have to 'splain this one to me, boyo.
And I still think you’re a closet conservative – no lib on here would EVER read Ann Coulter.

57

I seemed to have mix up Mark57 and 100meters. Ah well, all you libs look alike to me (its a joke).

My apologies to these two fine gentlemen.

58

It might be love for RJ, but I wish he’d find another target for his leg humping.

59

[quote]Rockscar wrote:
I agree that what is making the Dems weaker than they already are is that they are a REACTIVE group, where their policy is dictated by reaction to the republican party agenda. How sad.

And for them to go after Bush on this spying bit…just way below the belt. ALL Presidents have used domestic wiretaps etc. since the technology was available. Now we use it to protect our own country and it’s all of a sudden wrong.

Lame, lame lame. Get an original agenda with some substance. [/quote]

Obviously you don’t understand some basic issues. President Bush wiretapped on americans without a required warrant. That’s illegal. “Them” is also members of both parties. Other presidents have used the legally required warrants-- I’ll assume you at least know what those are. So no, factually it’s not below the belt at all. In fact President Bush’s imperialism is cause for a great deal of concern, if you care about things like the constitution. You being a wingnut and all, probably don’t.

As for the rest, the agenda remains, quite extensive. Little, if any could be called reactive, and most are unique to the democratic party (i.e. “original”)

60

[quote]rainjack wrote:

Psst - Clinton hasn’t been in office since January of 2001. The Dems have lost seats in every election since November 2000.

You have given nothing even remotely resembling a platform for the left. And I think it is obvious by the election results that whatever message you are trying to send is not getting across very effectively. Or - maybe it is and the people don’t like it.

Court order - or congressional oversight - either way it’s not like Bush is acting on his own.

Holy crap you can do way better than this. I’ve seen you do it.
[/quote]

The RNC wins (of course) so long as fake issues such as gays and abortion, and fear are more important than factual information. This has little do with the value of any agenda. By wide margins most americans agree with the agenda, but other fake issues are obviously more important, and hence right now the RNC wins. I’ve no idea what turns the tide the other way…but that doesn’t change the soundness of the “agenda”.

Uhmm. You asked for a lie. I gave you one. A big one.