U.S. election races...

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

Here comes the Democrat "new course" in Iraq, no course at all, but pulling the levers for Iran's takeover....

http://newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/...021.shtml?s=ic

Let's all hold our breath...there's some serious stuff they're playing with now, if they listen to McGovern.

Let's not forget who started it. One of the reasons Bush Sr. didn't take out Saddam was because he realized that, no matter how bad an individual, he represented an important counterbalance to Iran. By taking him out, we created a vacuum for Iran to fill. It's just a matter of time, not matter what we do.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

So you don't believe this election was a spanking for Republicans, but that it was a generous handover to the Dems? I'm not so sure. I think the Reps will take back the house (hopefully with fresh blood) in 08.

When did I say that? I DO think this election was more about people being angry and disgusted with republicans then confident with democrats. Now, the democrats DID run much smarter races this time around by running a bunch of moderates and right leaning dems in many of the heartland elections rather then Kerry types. This made it much easier for independents and even a lot of conservatives to pull the lever for them. But that being said some of this was certainly a vacuum effect. The democrats got sucked in in the wake of an angry expulsion of republicans. The republicans could certainly take back the house in 08 if the democrats come across as feckless and ineffective or get high and mighty like the republicans and fall pray to the same temptations of sleaze and corruptions they did. But then again be aware that in 08 there will still be more republican seats up for election then democrats. So it may be 2010 that will be the real boon year for the republicans (after 2 years of a democratic presidency no doubt…).

Seriously though, most amendments are pretty "broadly" written, you know that, and then they have some very specific tag-alongs.
I highly doubt that just because of the broad language, that married couples are going to lose anything...

Married couples? Im talking about ANY heterosexual couple that isn’t married. They will lose civil union privileges under this language. Now how backwards is that really…

Huh? I have the hardest time comprehending how widely you view this issue. If you're saying something along the lines of "Christians want to persecute people that aren't like them" then I think you're off the wall.

How about Christians want to discriminate. But not just Christians, most Americans want to discriminate. And Virginians (a small cabal of them; most of the rest are ignorant of the real effects of the amendment and just voted yes because they didn’t want them dang gays a’marriyin) want to take away rights that even many heterosexual couples have currently.

...I think you'll just have to go with the flow of fatalistic evolution taking it's natural course...

We are seeing evolution take place in places like Massachusetts and New Jersey. The trouble with evolution is that it’s a nasty affair when yer in it. Bet rest assured over time the concept of discriminating against gays on the basis of marriage will drop one after the other like anti race mixing laws dropped throughout the south during the 20th century. And some day kids will look in their history books and be amazed that just a generation or two ago we actually voted by the millions to take away the rights of certain people just based on their sexual persuasion. And maybe even religious leaders will see the clear hypocrisy of urging people to live under high morals in their relationships and yet ban certain people from entering into the type of relationship that encourages that.

[Nurvingiel]

With the Dems in control of the House of Representatives, what's the chance of getting George Bush impeached? (Especially if they win the Senate too?)

I know he didn't have Watergate like Reagen did, but could the gross incompetence in Iraq and around Katrina, and completely irresponsible croneyism and spending, be grounds for impeachment?

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

You know who the models of spend where before them? They put new meaning in the word, but they didn't invent it

Sure, administrations before them spent money.

But did they rack up a debt of a trillion dollars?

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

The big news for me is the resignation of Rumsfeld. That to me is a bigger deal than anything else...

Oh he'll do fine. He still owns a company that supplies weopens to the American army in Iraq.

By the way did I mention that the American national debt is a trillion dollars?

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

With the Dems in control of the House of Representatives, what's the chance of getting George Bush impeached? (Especially if they win the Senate too?)

I thought I answered that already

I know he didn't have Watergate like Reagen did, but could the gross incompetence in Iraq and around Katrina, and completely irresponsible croneyism and spending, be grounds for impeachment?

Whoa, Reagan had Watergate? Now that just really turns things around for me...because I thought it was Nixon

Sure, administrations before them spent money.

But did they rack up a debt of a trillion dollars?

Hmmmm...

Oh he'll do fine. He still owns a company that supplies weopens to the American army in Iraq.

Hey, don't jump ahead yet, I haven't revealed that I'm sad about it....

[GrayMouser]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

With the Dems in control of the House of Representatives, what's the chance of getting George Bush impeached? (Especially if they win the Senate too?)

Zero. For one thing.....President Cheney

Besides, it would be futile to impeach as it takes a two-thirds majority in the Senate, which means a lot of Republicans would have to go along, and that won't happen; plus it would take at least a year, and he's only got two left.

Lots of investigations, and if the Dems are smart they won't try for a direct confrontation with the White House at first- it would mean getting bogged down in a constitutional struggle over Executive power.

Do it DA style. Start with the low-hanging fruit at Haliburton and Kellogg Brown & Root, get them to turn and gradually work your way up the ladder.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Sure, administrations before them spent money.

But did they rack up a debt of a trillion dollars?

Congressional spending has always trended upwards no matter who controls congress. That said, Bush and the recent Republican congress outstripped most of their predecessors in spending, even if you don't count war-related spending.

[hectorberlioz]

Is it just me, or do I not like McCain at all as an idea for a Republican Presidential Candidate? I mean, the guy TALKED about running with Kerry in 04! That's traitorous. I don't want someone who will win just because he can "reach across the aisle", like McCain or Giuliani, nor do I want an "emergency" candidate like Frist. I want Condi, or George Allen. Hey, wouldn't mind say, Sam Brownback either


So what are you guys in the other aisle thinking?

[brownjenkins]

My favorite potential Republican is McCain because he does kiss *a word I can't say here*.

My favorite potential Democrat is Joe Biden because he seems pretty pragmatic on a lot of issues.

I'd vote for either of them above any other potential candidate. If they faced each other, it'd be tough.

Basically, I'm sick of salesman-presidents we've had for the past few decades (Reagan, Clinton, GWB). I want a straight-shooter.

[Insidious Rex]

I'd LOVE to see McCain as the republican nominee. Hes actually a decent guy and a free thinker even if he does hold certain positions I disagree with. Hes not an extremist party line follower like so many candidates are.

What about a McCain - Lieberman ticket...

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

I'd LOVE to see McCain as the republican nominee. Hes actually a decent guy and a free thinker even if he does hold certain positions I disagree with. Hes not an extremist party line follower like so many candidates are.

What about a McCain - Lieberman ticket...

That's what scares me...

I wouldn't mind Lieberman running on the Rep ticket as VP hopeful, given that the front runner was VERY conservative

I'm just scared of the idea of McCain vs. Hillary...I mean, it's a choice between a radical Socialist and a middle-of-the-road-run-over-by-a-semi conservative. These are the two that had vodka together in the Bahamas!

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

I'm just scared of the idea of McCain vs. Hillary...I mean, it's a choice between a radical Socialist and a middle-of-the-road-run-over-by-a-semi conservative. These are the two that had vodka together in the Bahamas!

So you'd prefer the I'm-doing-what-I-feel-like-doing-no-matter-what-the-people-who-elected-me-want Republican.

I've had enough of the monarchy. Let's be a democratic republic again.

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

So you'd prefer the I'm-doing-what-I-feel-like-doing-no-matter-what-the-people-who-elected-me-want Republican.

I've had enough of the monarchy. Let's be a democratic republic again.

Why does McCain exemplify this ideal? He doesn't at all, IMO. I think he could be a tyrant. Bush appointed strict readers of the constitution, McCain could appoint the "fluctuators", like Ginsberg.


Btw, I'd like to see some variations from Hillaryism from you guys. Surely Hillary isn't the ONLY one you guys would like to see run. And Biden? Yeah, not variation there

[GreyMouser]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

Well thats not too nice is it?....Do the Dems feel THAT bitter about Lieberman? I mean it's not like he changed his stances on Abortion, Gay Marriage etc...he's still a liberal Democrat as far as I'm concerned. But I admire his pursuit to win without the Democrat Party's help, which shows he is truly independent. I wonder how Kerry and Hillary are going to act once he's back in the Senate with them...hard to make it up, right?

Can I call 'em, or can I call 'em?

Senator Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut said yesterday that he will caucus with Senate Democrats in the new Congress, but he would not rule out switching to the Republican caucus if he starts to feel uncomfortable among Democrats.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/

[BeardofPants]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

So you'd prefer the I'm-doing-what-I-feel-like-doing-no-matter-what-the-people-who-elected-me-want Republican.

I've had enough of the monarchy. Let's be a democratic republic again.

What?! I thought you guys were really enjoying this god-emperor thing!

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by GrayMouser

Zero. For one thing.....President Cheney

Oh God that's horrible! Forget I said anything, never mind the whole two-thirds majority thing. Heh.

Edit:
Hector, are you saying that Hilary Clinton is an extreme socialist? Or did I <strike>misunderestimate</strike> misunderstand your post?

If she is, I will have to re-evaluate my opinion of her politics, as I thought she was quite right-wing.

What socialist issues does she stand for? Social housing? Welfare? General "left wing" ideas like gay marriage and strong environmental policy?

[GreyMouser]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Edit:
Hector, are you saying that Hilary Clinton is an extreme socialist? Or did I <strike>misunderestimate</strike> misunderstand your post?

If she is, I will have to re-evaluate my opinion of her politics, as I thought she was quite right-wing.

What socialist issues does she stand for? Social housing? Welfare? General "left wing" ideas like gay marriage and strong environmental policy?

She wants people to have HEALTH CARE!!! Obviously an unrepentant Stalinist

[Aquilonis]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

Is it just me, or do I not like McCain at all as an idea for a Republican Presidential Candidate? I mean, the guy TALKED about running with Kerry in 04! That's traitorous. I don't want someone who will win just because he can "reach across the aisle", like McCain or Giuliani, nor do I want an "emergency" candidate like Frist. I want Condi, or George Allen. Hey, wouldn't mind say, Sam Brownback either


So what are you guys in the other aisle thinking?

Reaching across the aisle is the only way either party will win, because it allows the candidate to scoop up the moderates and reach into the fringes of the other party's base. If George Allen runs, he's going to lose (he couldn't even win a Senate seat in his own state...). Condi would lose as well, probably to Hillary, though that would be a cool race to watch. Frist would, too, because he's again, too conservative. If I was a Republican, I would have no choice but to choose someone like McCain or Giuliani because he can get votes out of Democratic areas. They are who I worry about.

For example- Kerry lost because Bush was able to portray him as overly liberal and out of touch. He would not have been able to do that with, say, a moderate from a poorer family that just wanted to put some food on the table and couldn't because the tax laws are unfairly skewed and...well...nevermind that's getting away from my point.

Point is, if I was a Republican, my candidate would be McCain. Of course, I'm not a Republican, but think McCain would work out well if we had to elect one.

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by GreyMouser

She wants people to have HEALTH CARE!!! Obviously an unrepentant Stalinist

Oh sure, it's that simple. You know as well as I, that what she wants is: HillaryCare. The most convoluted...piece of junk ever thought up. She wanted make it ILLEGAL not to have healthcare. Sounds pretty socialist to me.

Ya know, If Hillary wins, I'm not afraid of her decisions about war: I think she's a warhawk of sorts. But her domestic policy is going to put us back into the cradle...with chains.

It's not like Republicans don't want people to have healthcare, it's that they aren't going to shove it down your throat. My history teacher keeps telling us "we're the only civilized country in the world that doesn't have healthcare for all it's citezens."...as if that was a bad thing! If you ask me, having healthcare makes you more prone to "accidents:P...that's why I'm not president I guess.


Aquinolas, what I have to say is this: You (and all other liberals/dems here) would like McCain or Giuliani because they are indistinguishable from the regular Joe Democrats out there. And the only difference perhaps being their part affiliation, and perhaps a few foregin policy issues. If you were Republicans, I have no idea who you would really choose, but you certainly don't seem to mind McCain or Giuliani, which just goes to show me that they're empty as far as conservatism goes.
Bill Frist is not a strong candidate...
I don't know why you say Condi would lose against Hillary...Condi may not be as malignant and hawkish, but she's a snappy gal.

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

It's not like Republicans don't want people to have healthcare, it's that they aren't going to shove it down your throat. My history teacher keeps telling us "we're the only civilized country in the world that doesn't have healthcare for all it's citezens."...as if that was a bad thing! If you ask me, having healthcare makes you more prone to "accidents:P...that's why I'm not president I guess.

Why would having healthcare make you prone to accidents? That makes no sense at all.

The Republicans certainly don't shove healthcare down your throat. They make heathcare only available to those who can afford it. People who want healthcare and can't afford health insurance get bupkus.

I think not having healthcare for all citizens is very much a bad thing. You don't have to make it a law, just make it available.

[The Gaffer]

Ah hector, the caring face of Republicanism.

The US spends the most per head of population on health care and yet it ranks about 39th on the WHO table of health service quality. The reason? The very large minority of (poor) people who have no health insurance.

And one of the many outcomes of this setup precisely what hector says would happen under a universal system: disease mongering. The US system rewards over-intervention, particularly towards the "needs" of wealthy groups.

So, you've got treatments for "Social Anxiety Disorder" being peddled directly to wealthy consumers on their TV screens. Meanwhile, poor people are dying of diabetes.