Politics: Where we struggle to kneel in the muck.

[sgtclub]

Seem to have come off without a huge hitch, relatively speaking,though I understand the opposition party is claiming that there were problems with the voting machinery (sound familar). However, most importantly, millions voted witout any major incident. This is heart-warming news.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Mostly the Republican controlled and hostile congress forced him to kill the deficit. the past few years show what happens when its all controlled by one side.

Because the Republican controlled and hostile congress was so eager to raise taxes?

The "we're just too powerful now to control ourselves" argument fails to account for the other Repub presidencies, when the Repubs didn't control congress, and yet the deficits were at -- well, at Repub-presidency levels.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by sgtclub
How can you make this claim when the DEMs controlled Congress for roughly 15 of those 25 years? You can't. The fact is that both parties are out of control on spending, which I can't see stopping as long as the country is so divided, unless there is another extraordinary event, like the Contract.

Because ultimately I think that the president -- at least a strong president -- has more power than you seem to think. Reagan managed to push through spending cuts when he wanted to, and tax increases when he needed to. It wasn't the dem-controlled congress that prevented him from balancing the budget; it was his tax-cutting (until even he -- unlike Bush 2 -- realized that you gotta pay for at least some stuff you want to buy) and his military spending. Those who disagree, please identify all years in which Reagan submitted a balanced budget to congress for approval.

Dems controlled congress, and we had deficits. Repubs control congress, and we have deficits. Repubs control the white house, and we have deficits, regardless of whether it's a dem congress or a repub congress, regardless of whether it's a recession or economically flush times. Dems control the white house..... and there's no more deficit. Draw your own conclusions (mine is that Clinton actually meant the fiscal prudence he preached -- and knew that he had to perform, because otherwise Ross Perot would run again on a platform that was largely about dealing with the deficit).

I don't dispute that "tax-and-spend" is a label that can be applied to Dems, if you are using an extremely broad and general brush. But, as I've said before, that's a hell of a lot better for the country than "borrow-and-spend."

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
His Eminence, John Cardinal Kerry, on his pro-life Catholic, pro-Roe, anti partial-birth abortion stance:

It'll be interesting to see what will happen when the GOP is able to find a candidate capable of struggling with insoluable national controversies --- insoluable meaning where the electorate demands one thing and principle demands another. The current best available technology on the GOP side is to have Bush say one thing, and Cheney/Powell/Rumsfeld/Rice say the other, and then assure the base that that they were taken out of context by the liberal media. That this gambit works so effectively on certain people after four years is testament to its flexibility. I think it was target marketed to the hayseed crowd, but it seems to work with equal effectiveness here, which is nice.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
It'll be interesting to see what will happen when the GOP is able to find a candidate capable of struggling with insoluable national controversies --- insoluable meaning where the electorate demands one thing and principle demands another. The current best available technology on the GOP side is to have Bush say one thing, and Cheney/Powell/Rumsfeld/Rice say the other, and then assure the base that that they were taken out of context by the liberal media. That this gambit works so effectively on certain people after four years is testament to its flexibility. I think it was target marketed to the hayseed crowd, but it seems to work with equal effectiveness here, which is nice.

This strikes me like a John Kerry vote. I think i know what it means- but relying on that is a sucker's game. I'm going to sit back and wait; later you'll explain what you meant.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
This strikes me like a John Kerry vote. I think i know what it means- but relying on that is a sucker's game. I'm going to sit back and wait; later you'll explain what you meant.

We Dems always go for the hand-wringers and self-reflective types. The only D who regrets nothing about their role in how Iraq went down is Barbara Lee. Meanwhile, Reps nominated a guy who's so stuck on the Decisiveness Factor that he'd probably have to say he was proud to have had the opportunity to execute so many retards whilst governor of the great state of Texas.

What W is indecisive about is revisiting anything that might be seen as a mistake or a close call. So he calls revisiting things a new kind of leadership sin. Whatever. Anyone who votes for W merely because he's "decisive" (and not because of underlying policy agreement with him --- hi, Slave!) is not thinking. "I'm voting for W because he won't turn back from building a base on the moon!"

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Shape shifter
Drudge, Matt. FOD and egg fetishist who's done great damage to his gay brothers and sisters by aiding the cause of fascists, intolerant orthodox Christians, and conservative scum. Ethically challenged hypocritical lackey and moral catamite to right-wingers. We remember you from the old days, Matt-o, and when you fall back to obscurity we'll be waiting with sharpened knives.

http://www.geocities.com/mnussitch/gossip.html

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
Reps nominated a guy who's so stuck on the Decisiveness Factor that he'd probably have to say he was proud to have had the opportunity to execute so many retards whilst governor of the great state of Texas.

I would hope, and I think the bulk of reps would agree, that Bush's main regret with regard to killing retards in Texas should go to a lack of efficiency. no offense.

[bilmore]

If one is going to run the kids down the mile or two to see the President of The United States (because, really, how often do kids get to see something like that?), and one of one's Lesser Children is currently walking with crutches - nice, shiny, tubular-aluminum crutches - one should warn said Lesser Child ahead of time that pointing out where the President is sitting in his limo is a task best done with something other than said crutch, especially when Secret Service types are nearby.

Interesting times . . . .

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Because ultimately I think that the president -- at least a strong president -- has more power than you seem to think. Reagan managed to push through spending cuts when he wanted to, and tax increases when he needed to. It wasn't the dem-controlled congress that prevented him from balancing the budget; it was his tax-cutting (until even he -- unlike Bush 2 -- realized that you gotta pay for at least some stuff you want to buy) and his military spending. Those who disagree, please identify all years in which Reagan submitted a balanced budget to congress for approval.

Wrong. Reagan was a pragmatist, far more so than W. He wanted a tax cut but had to get it through the DEM controlled congress, so he struck a deal with Tip. This has been documented everywhere.

I, and I bet every R on this board, would agree, however, that W has no excuse for the size of the budget defs he's run up. It would be understandable to have run up a def for the military spending necessary to fight the war and protect the country, but everything above that is not excusable.

Dems controlled congress, and we had deficits. Repubs control congress, and we have deficits. Repubs control the white house, and we have deficits, regardless of whether it's a dem congress or a repub congress, regardless of whether it's a recession or economically flush times. Dems control the white house..... and there's no more deficit. Draw your own conclusions (mine is that Clinton actually meant the fiscal prudence he preached -- and knew that he had to perform, because otherwise Ross Perot would run again on a platform that was largely about dealing with the deficit).

I think Clinton was a convert. Surely you are not suggesting that, absent the 94 takeover and the contract with amercia, that Clinton would have been the def hawk that he was? This notwithstanding, he should get his fair share of credit for not standing in the way. But to say that this was solely a Clinton driven endeavor is just a joke.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Why does Senator Kerry acknowledge only one of our internets?

When I heard that, all I could think of was:

"Not 'internet.' InternetS. Plural. President Man bleed on the inside. But you wouldn't know nothing 'bout that because youse a big ketchup-eatin' motherfucker."

Thurgreed(love workin' instead of watchin' football)Marshall

[Not Bob]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Mostly the Republican controlled and hostile congress forced him to kill the deficit. the past few years show what happens when its all controlled by one side.

Bullshit. Clinton's deficit reduction package of his first days in office -- with a Dem majority in both houses -- barely passed, and did so without any Republican support. In fact, the Republicans were pounding him on how his plan would destroy the economy.

Re-read Bob Woodward's "The Agenda."

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by bilmore
But, in balance, the other choice will leave us all with Sharia.

It sounds like you've been drinking Cheney's kool-ade again, Bilmore. You can't seriously believe that the US will be taken over by radical islamisicsts, do you? If not (and I think this is the case) then you are laying down the same line of demagogeury that you argued was so absurd it couldn't possibly be what Cheny meant a few weeks back when he said something along the lines of vote for Bush or we're all gonna die.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by bilmore
So, you're saying that, before the Amendment, the Constitution allowed slavery because of personal property rights?

The Constitution provided that Negroes were less than human; that sentiment is what supported the fact that they could be chattel. Taney's opinion was based essentially on the Fifth Amendment right of a person not to be deprived of his property.

So, yeah. Pretty much.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
His Eminence, John Cardinal Kerry, on his pro-life Catholic, pro-Roe, anti partial-birth abortion stance:

Back in the day, before your judgment got clouded, you too understood nuance. I miss those days.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by bilmore
Cry me a river. Find the "news" in some paper that doesn't turn the "right" story into an effin editorial every time, and then tell it, maybe. She objected that the pamphlets were produced, with USA money, by someone with a decidedly anti-USA bent. Someone else listened. Good for them.

Um, whiff.

I'm slowly coming to the conclusion that my posts like these are the ones that lead you to drop me in the "liberal Democratic whiner just like that dumbass Pete on the street corner in St. Paul" poster category, and it colors your responses accordingly. Ah, well. Live and learn.