1. Advertising
    y u no do it?

    Advertising (learn more)

    Advertise virtually anything here, with CPM banner ads, CPM email ads and CPC contextual links. You can target relevant areas of the site and show ads based on geographical location of the user if you wish.

    Starts at just $1 per CPM or $0.10 per CPC.

What will the republicans do now?

Discussion in 'Politics & Religion' started by jumpboy11jaop, Jun 30, 2009.

  1. #1
    The Democrats now have 60 votes in the senate. The Republicans, assuming everyone votes along party lines, have no power whatsoever.

    What will the Republicans do, and even for those who agree absolutely with the Democrats, do you think it;s a good thing that they have such total control?

    I personally am more of a centrist (Although I dislike the extent to which the Republicans are controlled by the Religious right), and while I think that a congress that is more or less evenly divided would tend to block itself, which isn't very useful, domination by either party won't work very well.
     
    jumpboy11jaop, Jun 30, 2009 IP
  2. TechEvangelist

    TechEvangelist Guest

    Messages:
    919
    Likes Received:
    140
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    133
    #2
    It is never a good thing when one party has total control. The checks and balances in the system are emasculated.

    Obama and the Democrats are trying to push through as much junk legislation as they can right now, because public confidence in Obama's plans is eroding rapidly. If his outrageously expensive schemes continue to show zero results, there will likely be a big voting swing back to the Republicans in 2010. Meanwhile, they are pretty much lame ducks.
     
    TechEvangelist, Jun 30, 2009 IP
  3. ncz_nate

    ncz_nate Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,106
    Likes Received:
    153
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    153
    #3
    This is what interests me. In order to fuel the well-oiled leftist hate machine, Obama needs to pass a bunch of legislation. But, he needs to do it quickly because his support is fading. But if his support is fading, we have good reason to believe the reason why is because of his actual ISSUES that Americans generally don't agree with. In other words, the emotional hype is fading.

    If America doesn't agree with his issues, and he is being very aggressive with them, it would make sense to me that his support would fall even more rapidly as he crams legislation in.

    Also, BO is being tugged at from extremes on both sides in such a way that he has to be a very certain way in his positions as to not abandon one extreme. He has the socialist left and the conservative/libertarian side that stands strongly against everything he represents. To favor the left too strongly will get him destroyed by talk radio and people who actually think. But even the left will be going after him if he sticks too close to the center.

    He needs to be very precise in his positions for him to even keep the country together till the next election, a few notches left of center. Anything else is unacceptable.

    I hope people will understand through this historic example that central planning does not work. You can't govern centrally and expect to please all sides. I wish America didn't have to learn the hard way, but it will.
     
    ncz_nate, Jun 30, 2009 IP
  4. Zibblu

    Zibblu Guest

    Messages:
    3,770
    Likes Received:
    98
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #4
    It looks like they have got to the point where they are wishing for more terrorist attacks. These people just can't stand everyone not living in fear, can they? Sick freaks.

    ---

    More directly on your topic: I think it's only 60 votes in name, there are a number of Democratic Senators who are almost Republicans and then there are are a couple of Republican Senators (see Maine) who may vote with the Democrats on important issues.

    The whole idea that the Democratic party is some "socialist" party is absurd. They are a center-right party. We have no truly liberal party in America.
     
    Zibblu, Jul 1, 2009 IP
  5. TechEvangelist

    TechEvangelist Guest

    Messages:
    919
    Likes Received:
    140
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    133
    #5
    The guy in the video doesn't actually say that. He is saying that it will take a wake-up call such as another terrorist attack in order to make people realize the weak defensive position that BO is creating. That is true. Most people complain about politics, but they do not do anything about it. We still keep electing idiots for public offices, and then we complain about them and re-elect them.

    The USA was very motivated and pretty much unified after 9/11, but then one political party did their best to make the new and very effective methods created by the Bush administration look like criminal acts. The result was that most of the intelligence gathering and defensive methods have been vilified and discontinued, which further erodes the ability of the USA to defend itself. There is only one major political party in the USA that continues to represent and defend the rights of criminal and terrorists, and that is BO's party.

    The first attack was a surprise. It was brilliantly executed. You can say that Bush was warned of a possible attack, but the information was vague and there was no time frame. The USA uncovers dozens of threats like that every day. Bush did nothing to put the country in a weaker position prior to 9/11.

    The problem is that we need to give our intelligence people the tools and authority that they need to help uncover and thwart attacks. The liberals in the USA seem to think that this violates their personal rights. It doesn't violate anyone's rights unless it is abused. They have nothing to be concerned about unless they have something to hide.

    For the past 30 years, a group of extreme left-wingers has slowly taken away the ability of every law enforcement agency to do a thorough job, and they are also the first ones to jump up and down and scream every time something happens as a result of their actions.

    By the way, BO is not a Liberal. He openly claims to be a Progressive. Progressives are Socialists and are further left than Liberals. Everything he has done thus far is based on Socialist ideals: nationalizing part of the banking system (the banks were not given a choice regarding TARP funds), nationalizing an auto manufacturer (60% ownership), firing the president of GM (the president has no authority to do that), making the income tax more progressive, wastefully diverting billions of dollars that we do not have to Liberal/Socialist organizations, etc. Although he does a good job of pretending to be a moderate and centrist, all of his actions are those of a Socialist.
     
    TechEvangelist, Jul 1, 2009 IP
  6. Zibblu

    Zibblu Guest

    Messages:
    3,770
    Likes Received:
    98
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #6
    There's so many things wrong with what you wrote that it's hard to know where to start so I'll just go with the most wrong thing: The attack on 9/11 was *NOT* a surprise (or it shouldn't have been.) The Bush admin took their eyes off the ball. The Clinton admin had told them about how dangerous Bin Laden was and the Bush admin ignored them and focused their energies elsewhere. Remember they got a memo about the planning of an attack inside the US in August and the WTC had been attacked before.

    If the right wing wackos are going to blame Obama for anything that happens in the future, then Bush/Cheney must also accept blame for 9/11. You can't have it both ways. Stop it with the BS.

    ---

    The idea that Obama is "to the left of the liberals" is absolute hogwash. He is far to the right of me and every other liberal I know. He is a very pragmatic politician who I consider to be a centrist in the mold of a Bill Clinton.
     
    Zibblu, Jul 1, 2009 IP
  7. ncz_nate

    ncz_nate Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,106
    Likes Received:
    153
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    153
    #7
    The democrat party is center-right? What exactly do you call left?
     
    ncz_nate, Jul 1, 2009 IP
  8. Zibblu

    Zibblu Guest

    Messages:
    3,770
    Likes Received:
    98
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #8
    "Democrat" party? Democratic party. Are you taking lessons in propaganda from Ann Coulter?

    I'd call Dennis Kucinich left. While he is technically a member of the Democratic party, he's clearly far to the left of President Obama and just about every other Democrat in the House/Senate.

    If the Democratic party were truly what they pretend to be, Dennis Kucinich would be a mainstream Dem. instead of labeled as "fringe" how he is now. I believe his views are much more in line with the average liberal than the mainstream "centrist" (which is another word for owned by big business) politicians.

    I don't consider DK's views to be at all "fringe" - I think they should be the platform of the Democratic party. Personally I'm still to the left of Kucinich - but he would at least be a reasonable starting point.
     
    Zibblu, Jul 1, 2009 IP
  9. ncz_nate

    ncz_nate Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,106
    Likes Received:
    153
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    153
    #9
    Why don't you just move to Europe?
     
    ncz_nate, Jul 1, 2009 IP
  10. pingpong123

    pingpong123 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    4,080
    Likes Received:
    117
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    175
    #10
    Its rediculously funny how you guys can sit here and squabble between socialists and neocons who are just about the same. I think im going to start my own government soon. Can I borrow 200 million people who will follow anything I say as gospel truth?

    Do you both actually think the republicans and democrats today are true republicans and true democrats? I bet the founders of these 2 parties would be flipping in their graves with their eyeballs popping out if they saw what their parties looked like these days lol.
     
    pingpong123, Jul 1, 2009 IP
  11. TechEvangelist

    TechEvangelist Guest

    Messages:
    919
    Likes Received:
    140
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    133
    #11
    The fact is that Bush was not warned of an attack on the WTC using aircraft on 9/11. If any one of a hundred other terrorist attack had been committed, there was probably some warning that an attack of that nature was a possibility. The USA deals with a lot of threats from numerous enemies. Bush-haters just cannot seem to grasp reality.

    Heehehehehe! Given everything he has done thus far, you are not serious, are you? Bill Clinton was a moderate. BO is obviously VERY far to the left of Clinton. He just pretends that he isn't in order to fool the slobbering masses who blindly idolize him. I understand it is hard to see reality when you are part of a cult.
     
    TechEvangelist, Jul 1, 2009 IP
  12. ncz_nate

    ncz_nate Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,106
    Likes Received:
    153
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    153
    #12
    I don't care who's true republican or democrat. It is what it is today, I don't take sides or favor any party. But that doesn't mean I don't recognize what IS. Libertarians have a hard time living in reality, sure, the theory is all great and usually makes sense, but reality is at hand and needs to be lived in.

    The reality is, right now conservatives are growing tired of this bullsh!t, and I am too. I don't need to agree with them on everything, I don't need to agree with them on anything for that matter. We have to work together to get shit done, that doesn't mean compromising what you believe in, it means that this absolutist individualist philosophy that many libertarians have taken hasn't got us ANYWHERE.

    We don't grow because we don't appeal to conservatives, the only group worth targeting, because we want to debate them all the time on these stupid details of who is right and who is wrong. If you want to always be right, go ahead, you'll be living in a reeducation camp someday with a bunch of others who thought THEY were right.

    All stereotypes are worth taking note of, they need to be spoken and they need to be heard, no matter who's feelings get hurt. There's usually some truth in it, and it's always hard to hear, that's why we have political correctness. Libertarians ought to listen to the stereotypes, we're nutty and kooky. Why? Cause we talk about shit like conspiracies too much when there's really no point to. If you're going to persuade people, you need to step outside yourself and see it from their view. Just cause something makes sense to you doesn't mean it makes sense to someone else.

    Even though LogicFlux is a little SOB, he said it best why he doesn't like Ron Paul, "it's the followers". I don't need to try hard to separate myself from the neocons, I know we don't agree and it doesn't help matters to bring up the fact that we don't agree. But, at some point we have to define our goals and intentions. Work with people and get shit done, or be right all of the time? Quite simply, libertarianism will always be the nutty group of whackjobs in the corner if we're going to "stand on principle" all the time like it's some religion.

    Now you may say, "wait ncz_nate, you try to be right all the time with the leftists!". That's mostly true, I see little potential with leftists, especially the socialist ones like Zibblu who have apparently studied their position enough to never be persuade otherwise.
     
    ncz_nate, Jul 1, 2009 IP
  13. bogart

    bogart Notable Member

    Messages:
    10,911
    Likes Received:
    509
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    235
    #13
    Barry Obama is a left-handed product of the Chicago machine.

    Bill Clinton worked with Dick Morris to move to the center after the Hillary-Care fiasco and the Repiblican landslide in the 1994 elections. was the centrist.
     
    bogart, Jul 1, 2009 IP
  14. Zibblu

    Zibblu Guest

    Messages:
    3,770
    Likes Received:
    98
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #14
    Because I care about the PEOPLE that live in this country. Because of that, I want this country to PROGRESS rather than to be left behind by the rest of the world. I want this country to reach it's potential rather than shriveling up into a place where only the rich and powerful have the right to a good life.
     
    Zibblu, Jul 1, 2009 IP
  15. Zibblu

    Zibblu Guest

    Messages:
    3,770
    Likes Received:
    98
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #15
    What has Obama done that has made him "far to the left of Clinton." And yes I do agree with you about the "hard to see reality when you are part of a cult" thing... I think you are a member of the Obama hating cult because you are clearly having a very hard time seeing what's actually happening in the world. Here's a hint: You aren't going to find out the truth by listening to Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, and Rush Limbaugh. Those guys are propagandists.
     
    Zibblu, Jul 1, 2009 IP
  16. ncz_nate

    ncz_nate Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,106
    Likes Received:
    153
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    153
    #16
    Why not take all the people you want to save with you?

    Or at least, at LEAST, we could divide the country in half, imagine how happy both sides would be. Seriously, imagine it.
     
    ncz_nate, Jul 1, 2009 IP
  17. browntwn

    browntwn Illustrious Member

    Messages:
    8,347
    Likes Received:
    848
    Best Answers:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    435
    #17
    If the country were run correctly with the Federal Government taking care of National Security and guaranteeing a the minimum level of rights that the states could not lessen and little else, then the states could compete with each other as intended and each offer different types of governance. Some could be liberal, some conservative, some moderate, some libertarian. We have that in very limited form now but it is so watered down due to the fact that the bloated Federal Government sticks its damn hands into everything. The Commerce Clause of the Constitution has been so twisted as to make everything (even growing pot in your own backyard for personal use) something that they claim affects interstate commerce and thus they have a right to regulate it. The Constitution gives the Feds no such right - but unfortunately, the Supreme Court has repeatedly and consistently ruled otherwise.
     
    browntwn, Jul 1, 2009 IP
  18. ncz_nate

    ncz_nate Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,106
    Likes Received:
    153
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    153
    #18
    I'm just delighted, you still believe in freedom.

    This is the issue that should be discussed before any other issue. Central power, it does not work, and the left has a very weak, if any argument against it.

    I made a topic on the huge Obama group about this and no one could say anything related to the topic. In fact, go ahead and read it here.

    No one could stay on topic or discuss the ideas presented, and this is a very big group with a lot of emphatic BO supporters who usually have a thorough college education. It's a very competent place, makes discussing here feel like a hot knife going through butter.. and after all this time no one wants to talk about it.

    Zibblu, do you want to talk about it? Can anyone really make a good argument against having the states compete against each other?
     
    ncz_nate, Jul 1, 2009 IP
  19. Stroh

    Stroh Notable Member

    Messages:
    3,482
    Likes Received:
    292
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    200
    #19
    Republicans will get their turn again once the democrats screw up. It's a cycle that happens every so often. As for control, I would much prefer it if neither party was in control. Unfortunately that's not possible and well, depending on your state's / city's general demographic (ex I live in a heavily controlled democratic area), your chances of having equilibrium of powers are short and slim.
     
    Stroh, Jul 1, 2009 IP
  20. hostlonestar

    hostlonestar Peon

    Messages:
    1,514
    Likes Received:
    50
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #20
    I agree with browntwn. Zibblu can live in Kalifornia and the rest of us can go to Texas. Everyone would be happy if the government was actually run like it started out and was intended to. Unfortunately, someone realized that they may be able to get away with a little bit, then a little more, then more, then some more, until we were finally where we are.

    That is exactly what is happening now. On just about everything from gun rights to commerce. It is all slowly being eroded to the point where everything will be run by the Feds and the states will not have anything.
     
    hostlonestar, Jul 1, 2009 IP