Democrats Win Control of the Senate!

[Darren Daring]

Republicans have bigger Penis' but Democrats can last longer.

 

[Lighthouse]

i still dont understand the difference between democrats and republicans.

I prefer to think of them in terms of Hank and Dean of the Venture Brothers. Hank is the republican, brave but immensley ******ed. Dean is the democrat, a little smarter but a complete p****.

 

[maxwell's demon]

In what way is Bush an "extreme figure"? If you are refering to his "conservtisim"- he's defenantly not.

i'm referring to the fact that he's extremely polarizing and almost every poll in America the last 3 or so years has confirmed that? that he's a "with us or against us" mentality kind of guy?

 

[lazur]

i'm referring to the fact that he's extremely polarizing and almost every poll in America the last 3 or so years has confirmed that? that he's a "with us or against us" mentality kind of guy?

Honestly, I think any president in power who has a matching house and senate would be considered a "polarizing" figure. When everyone in the government sees everything your way, it's polarizing.

In many ways, I'm glad to have the oversight and/or checks and balances aspect back in the government. I'm just hoping it doesn't do a complete 180 and that we wind up with dems controlling all three branches in a couple years.

 

[Matt]

Honestly, I think any president in power who has a matching house and senate would be considered a "polarizing" figure. When everyone in the government sees everything your way, it's polarizing.

In many ways, I'm glad to have the oversight and/or checks and balances aspect back in the government. I'm just hoping it doesn't do a complete 180 and that we wind up with dems controlling all three branches in a couple years.

What about FDR?

Hell, Bush wasn't polarizing following 9/11. In fact, he had the chance to be one of the greatest uniters in American history. He made himself polarizing.

 

[lazur]

What about FDR?

Hell, Bush wasn't polarizing following 9/11. In fact, he had the chance to be one of the greatest uniters in American history. He made himself polarizing.

You're referencing someone who was President during a much more traditional period of our history, when fighting for our beliefs was the norm.

And back then, the differences between "left" and "right" weren't nearly as drastic as they are now.

 

[Matt]

You're referencing someone who was President during a much more traditional period of our history, when fighting for our beliefs was the norm.

And back then, the differences between "left" and "right" weren't nearly as drastic as they are now.

And you're over simplifying those primitive folks of the 1930s.

 

[lazur]

And you're over simplifying those primitive folks of the 1930s.

I never called them primitive. You did.

All I'm saying is that there weren't nearly as many polarizing issues back then. The two parties weren't all that different when it came to the major issues. They didn't have abortion, embryonic stem cell research, gay marriage and a whole slew of other "polarizing" issues to deal with like we do today. You're comparing apples to oranges.

But hey, I'll just concede right now. You're obviously going to follow me around and tell me how wrong everything I post is, so let me save you the trouble and just say now, I'm wrong, I'm always wrong, you're right, you're always right, all hail the all-knowing Matt. I'm not worthy.

There, feel better now?

 

[maxwell's demon]

Honestly, I think any president in power who has a matching house and senate would be considered a "polarizing" figure. When everyone in the government sees everything your way, it's polarizing.

that might be true. i think Bush took it to another level with his overly secretive manner, his lack vehement lack of repsect for hte press (i'm not talking only about his reactions tho their negative stories, but to his lack of press conferences form the moment he was elected), and his cronyism.
But even so, the reason doesnt matter,. he was a polarizing figure so, almost by definition, a moderate would have to be largely against him.

In many ways, I'm glad to have the oversight and/or checks and balances aspect back in the government. I'm just hoping it doesn't do a complete 180 and that we wind up with dems controlling all three branches in a couple years.

Why not? wouldn't turnabout be fairplay?

 

[lazur]

that might be true. i think Bush took it to another level with his overly secretive manner, his lack vehement lack of repsect for hte press (i'm not talking only about his reactions tho their negative stories, but to his lack of press conferences form the moment he was elected), and his cronyism.
But even so, the reason doesnt matter,. he was a polarizing figure so, almost by definition, a moderate would have to be largely against him.


Why not? wouldn't turnabout be fairplay?

Fair play? I see, so you're looking more for "pay back" than what's best for the country?

 

[maxwell's demon]

I never called them primitive. You did.

All I'm saying is that there weren't nearly as many polarizing issues back then. The two parties weren't all that different when it came to the major issues. They didn't have abortion, embryonic stem cell research, gay marriage and a whole slew of other "polarizing" issues to deal with like we do today. You're comparing apples to oranges.

good point.

 

[maxwell's demon]

Fair play? I see, so you're looking more for "pay back" than what's best for the country?

no. i'm looking for what's best for the country. i think it'll take at least 4 years to undo the damage that i've seen done the last 6 years in this country.

I know it's my opinion and i don't expect you to agree, but do you honestly think i'd be talking about revenge? I care about this country and i don't like the direction it's gone in.

 

[lazur]

no. i'm looking for what's best for the country. i think it'll take at least 4 years to undo the damage that i've seen done the last 6 years in this country.

I know it's my opinion and i don't expect you to agree, but do you honestly think i'd be talking about revenge? I care about this country and i don't like the direction it's gone in.

Well I think if you come into the conversation and say "dems should have all three houses for six years since reps did", that's not really looking at what's best for the country.

Dems and Reps both have their strong points. Given the climate of the world today, we need both parties as a part of the decision making process. Over the last couple of days, I've really given it a lot of thought and I've really come to believe that. The oversight of a Democratic Congress is not a bad thing, even though at first I thought it could be.

 

[maxwell's demon]

Well I think if you come into the conversation and say "dems should have all three houses for six years since reps did", that's not really looking at what's best for the country.

how is it not? you can't just outright say that.

I'm talking about this one particular case. at THIS time, due to what I see as rampant abuses of power taking our coutnry inthe wrong direction, i think a democratically controlled goverment, considering that ALL eyes are on them to be effective nad ALL eyes will be looking for any hint of corruption or abuse of power, will be a good thing for this country.

honestly, except for partisan bias, i don't see how you could disagree with that.

Dems and Reps both have their strong points. Given the climate of the world today, we need both parties as a part of the decision making process. Over the last couple of days, I've really given it a lot of thought and I've really come to believe that. The oversight of a Democratic Congress is not a bad thing, even though at first I thought it could be.

in the long term i agree with you. but if you've got a wound you've got to plug it up, not just go back to business as usual. I believe the GOP has wounded the country. that needs to be fixed before the balance of power can be restored in any meaningful and lasting sense.

 

[Matt]

I never called them primitive. You did.

All I'm saying is that there weren't nearly as many polarizing issues back then. The two parties weren't all that different when it came to the major issues. They didn't have abortion, embryonic stem cell research, gay marriage and a whole slew of other "polarizing" issues to deal with like we do today. You're comparing apples to oranges.

But hey, I'll just concede right now. You're obviously going to follow me around and tell me how wrong everything I post is, so let me save you the trouble and just say now, I'm wrong, I'm always wrong, you're right, you're always right, all hail the all-knowing Matt. I'm not worthy.

There, feel better now?

play the victim.

Just because they didn't have abortion and gay marriage does not mean they weren't polarized.

Hell, the debate between those who wanted to intervene in WWII and those who did not was pretty extreme. economic issues were dividing the country in a huge way at the time with the Depression. But FDR still managed to unite the country. Why? Because tough times bring people together. Bush had the opportunity to be the same following 9/11. Instead he decided to use the political capital he garnered from 9/11 for revenge and to get rid of the gays.

 

[lazur]

how is it not? you can't just outright say that.

Sure I can. If someone's truly interested in what's best for the country, then you have to recognize the two party system. And I say that primarily because I have different views than you do about the current administration.

I'm talking about this one particular case. at THIS time, due to what I see as rampant abuses of power taking our coutnry inthe wrong direction, i think a democratically controlled goverment, considering that ALL eyes are on them to be effective nad ALL eyes will be looking for any hint of corruption or abuse of power, will be a good thing for this country.

But see, I don't see it that way. I don't see "rampant abuses of power" and "taking our country in the wrong directon". To me, a rampant abuse of power would not just be implementing some new electronic surveillance measure, but actually *abusing* it, which Bush has not done. To me, taking the country in the wrong direction would have been not responding to 9/11.

Most people don't believe Bush is abusing his power. If so, he would not have been elected and re-elected. But most people DO believe the war in Iraq is not going well, and that, and that *alone*, is what cost republicans the house and senate. That alone will also be responsible for republicans losing the Presidency in '08 if Bush/Congress doesn't turn it around. (Speaking of which, I'm really hoping that democrats don't use obstruction to success in Iraq as a means of trying to ensure a democratic win in '08.)

honestly, except for partisan bias, i don't see how you could disagree with that.

I disagree with that because I don't view the U.S. being strong on defense if the dems control all three houses, period. I just don't see it. I know dems *claim* they will be strong on defense, but they also want to treat terrorism as a police matter. And that's just wrong.

Which is why I come back to saying that each party has its strengths and weaknesses. In today's climate, we need BOTH parties making decisions - not just one. The last six years have *proven* how wrong things can go if just one party is making all of the decisions, has it not? And you're seriously saying you want more of that?

in the long term i agree with you. but if you've got a wound you've got to plug it up, not just go back to business as usual. I believe the GOP has wounded the country. that needs to be fixed before the balance of power can be restored in any meaningful and lasting sense.

What's the wound that only an exclusively dem government could plug up? Seriously? Paying off the deficit? Stopping terrorists? Please explain.

 

[hippie_hunter]

You're referencing someone who was President during a much more traditional period of our history, when fighting for our beliefs was the norm.

And back then, the differences between "left" and "right" weren't nearly as drastic as they are now.

FDR was a very polarizing figure. Many business leaders and conservatives opposed his New Deal polices. Some even plotted to assassinate him and take control of the government.

The difference is that FDR is one of America's greatest Presidents and Bush had the chance to be as great as Reagan, but fudged it up along the process and is a rather bad President.

 

[Reaper]

All our base are belong to them.

LOL t:

 

[Extromaniac]

My opinion on politics as follows:

Well, I see it in a broader light. It's a cycle of a cycle of a cycle. You have the people complaining about this or that, and it is magnified through centuries at a time. When someone does something and it falls through, the public and media gets pissed and has a field day, and this happens with about every political shift this country has. All's fine and dandy for the first few months and then, oh ****! Scandals away and you find just another reason to hate the ruling 'faction' (political party).

You'd think that people would realize by now that politicians aren't in it for the long-term, or even what they know will benefit us later on. They're in their positions because they want to become instantly famous and to become 'celebrity-esque' figureheads. And the end result is super-short term happy public, and long term super pissed public. And it just recycles itself every damn decade. When viewed from that angle, politics is the epitome of mediocrity.

Every new issue, every new debate is just the modern equivalent of [X]. And it's only further injected into our systems because of the idiots that we set up as speakers for us as a people. We have little induction of fresh ideas and more of the same old, drawn out ideas given new form. Annoying, really.

I suppose that's the best thing that I can really say about it, it's annoying. At least then it causes some form of emotional response that spikes interest in a dull topic.

 

[droogiedroogie2]

In many ways, I'm glad to have the oversight and/or checks and balances aspect back in the government. I'm just hoping it doesn't do a complete 180 and that we wind up with dems controlling all three branches in a couple years.

Man, lazur, you always know how to cheer me up. I mean, here I was, constantly battling with my internet connection to stay online, out of booze money, out of weed, and nobody's around to go jogging with, which means nobody's going to be around to party with. It was a ****ty evening. And then you give me this wonderful vision of the future, in which a party that has at least some inkling of the notion that it might be a good idea to do a thing or two that benefits the middle and working classes, controls all three branches of government! Dude, I like the way you think.

 

[droogiedroogie2]

And back then, the differences between "left" and "right" weren't nearly as drastic as they are now.

For example, there was absolutely NO disagreement about whether the New Deal was a good idea! NOBODY was calling it unconstitutional! And how about a few years later, when civil rights came up. Yeah, pretty much everybody agreed on that. And there was that McCarthyism thing, which just about everyone in the country was OK with.

Yeah. Big-time student of history, you are.

 

[droogiedroogie2]

Fair play? I see, so you're looking more for "pay back" than what's best for the country?

In this case, payback WOULD be what's best for the country.

Besides, everything accomplished by Gingrich's Republican Revolution WAS payback for decades of a Democratic Congress, and for Clinton's audacity in unseating the GOP's President. The Republican Revolution was when the GOP got nasty.

 

[thedarks0ldier]

FDR was a very polarizing figure. Many business leaders and conservatives opposed his New Deal polices. Some even plotted to assassinate him and take control of the government.

The difference is that FDR is one of America's greatest Presidents and Bush had the chance to be as great as Reagan, but fudged it up along the process and is a rather bad President.

OH NO!!!! They always know whats best

 

[JLBats]

I do believe that as an American, it's our duty and obligation to stand behind our President against the rest of the world, even if we don't agree with what he or she is doing at the time.

 

[Darren Daring]

I do believe that as an American, it's our duty and obligation to stand behind our President against the rest of the world, even if we don't agree with what he or she is doing at the time.

Isn't this, like, the exact opposite of what America stands for?