Meet your new thread, same as the old thread.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

• As has been pointed out before, Congress as a whole traditionally gets lower approval ratings than the President for the simple reason that people on BOTH sides of the ideological aisle can disapprove of it -- the people backing the minority party will naturally disapprove of it, but a lot of the people backing the majority party will also say THEY disapprove of it because they don't think their party is doing an enthusiastic enough job of trampling the opposition underfoot. (Indeed, it's almost unprecedented for a President to come as close to having a lower approval rating than Congress as Bush has managed to do.) So, if you really want to know what the voters now think of the two parties in Congress, you have to ask them separately whether they approve of the Congressional Democrats and the Congressional Republicans -- a question which actually does get asked fairly frequently.
  
  Well, the latest pollster to ask it is Fox News today -- and, like all other post-2006 election polls on the subject, they indicate that at the moment the Dems have very little to worry about, election-wise. The voters, as a whole, do disapprove of the Congressional Dems by a 13-point margin -- but they disapprove of the Congressional GOP by a 26-point margin: the same type of huge difference we've seen in recent ABC and Harris polls:
  
  http://www.pollingreport.com/congress.htm.

link

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
At that age I totally misconstrued this:

There is magic at your fingers
For the Spirit ever lingers
Undemanding contact in your happy solitude

Uh, I misconstrued it right up until I finished reading what you wrote. I thought it was something like "And the man is [something] and your head is solitude."

ETA: Why haven't Simon & Garfunkel sued them over that song?

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Uh, I misconstrued it right up until I finished reading what you wrote. I thought it was something like "And the man is [something] and your head is solitude."

ETA: Why haven't Simon & Garfunkel sued them over that song?

I think they had causation issues proving that it was that particular song that induced the nausea.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop

• As has been pointed out before, Congress as a whole traditionally gets lower approval ratings than the President for the simple reason that people on BOTH sides of the ideological aisle can disapprove of it -- the people backing the minority party will naturally disapprove of it, but a lot of the people backing the majority party will also say THEY disapprove of it because they don't think their party is doing an enthusiastic enough job of trampling the opposition underfoot. (Indeed, it's almost unprecedented for a President to come as close to having a lower approval rating than Congress as Bush has managed to do.) So, if you really want to know what the voters now think of the two parties in Congress, you have to ask them separately whether they approve of the Congressional Democrats and the Congressional Republicans -- a question which actually does get asked fairly frequently.
  
  Well, the latest pollster to ask it is Fox News today -- and, like all other post-2006 election polls on the subject, they indicate that at the moment the Dems have very little to worry about, election-wise. The voters, as a whole, do disapprove of the Congressional Dems by a 13-point margin -- but they disapprove of the Congressional GOP by a 26-point margin: the same type of huge difference we've seen in recent ABC and Harris polls:
  
  http://www.pollingreport.com/congress.htm.

link

Ty -

What do you think is going to change so radically if the Dems win the White House? Are your taxes going to change? Technically, but you'll employ a professional to fix it so they don't. Are you suddenly going to get better public schools near you? No, because the problems are beyond a mere change in partisan outlook on the matter. Are the people crying for whatever sort of parity the Dems are pandering to going to do any better? No, because their problems are beyond the aid of politicians and stem from intractable natural economic issues.

There's no New Deal. Never. Ever. It wasn't the Democrats or the GOP who brought us to this mean spot in history. It is economic change beyond George Bush or Hillary Clinton's or Barack Obama's control.

There Is No Fix Coming From DC. You are right to loathe the Iraq thing. I am with you 100% there. But the rest of your agenda? Who cares? Things are not going to change radically. Ever. Michael Moore and Al Gore can make all the movies they like. And we can beat arguments back and forth here for amusement all day, but guess what? Ain't much difference in the end. The only reason I get angry about politics is that one side costs me a few more bucks and has an ideology I find silly. I don;t like being dictated to by the silly. But in the end, who really gives a fuck. I'll hide my money some other way. Elect Porky pig.

SD

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
I think they had causation issues proving that it was that particular song that induced the nausea.

Most of us come here for serious political discussion, and sharing of other's ideas from sundry blogs. You and sebastian are doing a disservice. Take your song posts elsewhere. i believe the minnesota board is free.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
What do you think is going to change so radically if the Dems win the White House?

I don't think I've ever said that I would expect radical change. But I would expect competent government instead of the clown show that we've seen for six years, because a Democratic president will appoint officials who believe in public policy rather than patronage. There are precious few of them in this administration, and they knew who's in charge. When this happens, I think you'll see better policy across a wide range of things that government does, and I think you'll see the potential for better policy coming out of Congress on issues like health care, global warming, torture, and so on across the board.

Will it all be roses? Of course not.

There's no New Deal. Never. Ever. It wasn't the Democrats or the GOP who brought us to this mean spot in history. It is economic change beyond George Bush or Hillary Clinton's or Barack Obama's control.

Who knew you were a Marxist?

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Ty -

What do you think is going to change so radically if the Dems win the White House? Are your taxes going to change? Technically, but you'll employ a professional to fix it so they don't. Are you suddenly going to get better public schools near you? No, because the problems are beyond a mere change in partisan outlook on the matter. Are the people crying for whatever sort of parity the Dems are pandering to going to do any better? No, because their problems are beyond the aid of politicians and stem from intractable natural economic issues.

There's no New Deal. Never. Ever. It wasn't the Democrats or the GOP who brought us to this mean spot in history. It is economic change beyond George Bush or Hillary Clinton's or Barack Obama's control.

There Is No Fix Coming From DC. You are right to loathe the Iraq thing. I am with you 100% there. But the rest of your agenda? Who cares? Things are not going to change radically. Ever. Michael Moore and Al Gore can make all the movies they like. And we can beat arguments back and forth here for amusement all day, but guess what? Ain't much difference in the end. The only reason I get angry about politics is that one side costs me a few more bucks and has an ideology I find silly. I don;t like being dictated to by the silly. But in the end, who really gives a fuck. I'll hide my money some other way. Elect Porky pig.

SD

I don't know about anyone else, the last five days of Supreme Court rulings more than anything else make me want a Dem in the White House for at least another eight years, if not more.

If Bush ever has a legacy, it's going to be Roberts and Alito, and that scares me more than any of your boogey man taxes and socialized health care ever will.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I don't think I've ever said that I would expect radical change. But I would expect competent government instead of the clown show that we've seen for six years, because a Democratic president will appoint officials who believe in public policy rather than patronage. There are precious few of them in this administration, and they knew who's in charge. When this happens, I think you'll see better policy across a wide range of things that government does, and I think you'll see the potential for better policy coming out of Congress on issues like health care, global warming, torture, and so on across the board.

Will it all be roses? Of course not.



Who knew you were a Marxist?

Comptent = more involved, more "nanny." More social safety nets. More oversight. More agencies and more regulation.

I want it all downsized - defense, social programs, everything.

I want competent bridges and military and no more using the govt as a subsidy for businesses, as Bush has. I likewise want half the agencies and programs in the country ended.

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
I don't know about anyone else, the last five days of Supreme Court rulings more than anything else make me want a Dem in the White House for at least another eight years, if not more.

If Bush ever has a legacy, it's going to be Roberts and Alito, and that scares me more than any of your boogey man taxes and socialized health care ever will.

Alito and Roberts look frighteningly young and healthy. Plus, given where things stand now, it will probably only take about ten years of litigation to roll the regulatory environment back to 1925, which is where people seem to want it.

But I am looking forward to reading some more inspiring dissents, which admiring schoolchildren will no doubt read in 2075 (if mankind is still alive).

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
I don't know about anyone else, the last five days of Supreme Court rulings more than anything else make me want a Dem in the White House for at least another eight years, if not more.

If Bush ever has a legacy, it's going to be Roberts and Alito, and that scares me more than any of your boogey man taxes and socialized health care ever will.

I assume you mean desegregation case, but which others?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
I don't know about anyone else, the last five days of Supreme Court rulings more than anything else make me want a Dem in the White House for at least another eight years, if not more.

If Bush ever has a legacy, it's going to be Roberts and Alito, and that scares me more than any of your boogey man taxes and socialized health care ever will.

I am with you as far as the social "liberties" policies. I believe gays should be allowed to marry, abortion should be written into the constitution as a natural woman's right and a kid should be able to scream Bong Hits for Jesus from anywhere he likes off school property. BUT, I agree with the ruling in the school case. Social engineering of any variety creeps me out. Road to hell paved with good intentions, etc.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
I am with you as far as the social "liberties" policies. I believe gays should be allowed to marry, abortion should be written into the constitution as a natural woman's right and a kid should be able to scream Bong Hits for Jesus from anywhere he likes off school property. BUT, I agree with the ruling in the school case. Social engineering of any variety creeps me out. Road to hell paved with good intentions, etc.

oh. bong hits- Think past the bong hits sign to the broader issue, and remember that whatever rule you set has to apply to an administrator trying to run an inner city school full of gang bangers, and not just to stoners in the middle of alaska.

Ty would argue that the guy has to let the Crips wear red (blue?) to class.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
oh. bong hits- Think past the bong hits sign to the broader issue, and remember that whatever rule you set has to apply to an administrator trying to run an inner city school full of gang bangers, and not just to stoners in the middle of alaska.

If kids want to wear gang colors off school property it is their right to do so. You don't fuck with freedom of speech just because you don't like the speech offered or can come up with some horseshit distinction that it somehow interferes with the administrator's ability to control the student body. Nonsense. That was a lousy ruling that showed an activist bent. The court should be embarrassed it had balls to roll back an interfering policy in the school case on one hand while endorsing interference with free speech on the other.

The problem with this court is its not a "legal" court so much as a group of guys ruling in accord with what people in red states think is "just good common sense." Sometimes that apporach is right (school case), sometimes its wrong (bong hits).

[Cletus Miller]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop

a Democratic president will appoint officials who believe in public policy rather than patronage.

Do you really believe this?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Cletus Miller
Do you really believe this?

Probably not, but the slip is telling...