Posting Towards Gomorrah

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Spanky
What is the "goal" of the Democrats?

We have many. Stable economy and a secure peace are good places to start. But, once again, what's the R's plan (and, if they've got it, why haven't they put it into effect when they've had a free hand?)

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Two points:

First, find a party with a better record for managing the economy. It's all we've got.

Fair enough

Second, this was exactly my point. One of the reasons for the Dem's strong record is that the Rs will make an election issue - effectively - out of any wild spending. The Rs spend wildly, however, and no one takes our criticisms of it as seriously - witness this exchange. Years of anti-spending chants are what give the Rs the leeway to spend like drunken sailors.

I think one of the main reasons the GOP looks likely to loose the mid-terms is exactly because the fiscally conservative/libertarian wing of the party is fed up.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I think one of the main reasons the GOP looks likely to loose the mid-terms is exactly because the fiscally conservative/libertarian wing of the party is fed up.

And the Dems have a strong contingent with a libertarian streak. And do not have a recent record of spending like drunken sailors.

I'm not saying there are any strong contingents with the same "no new taxes" religion as the fiscal conservatives of the 1980s, just that if you want fiscal discipline, you're more likely to get it from many of the Ds.

So there is a place for some of the people in that wing of the Republican party to go - albiet relunctantly.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Spanky
Am I the only one in the dark? Why isn't this a bigger news item (or is it and I am just out of it)?

During National Character Counts Week, Bush Stumps for Philanderer

By Dana Milbank
Friday, October 20, 2006; A02

LA PLUME, Pa., Oct. 19

So it has come to this: Nineteen days before the midterm elections, President Bush flew here to champion the reelection of a congressman who last year settled a $5.5 million lawsuit alleging that he beat his mistress during a five-year affair.

At the end of the day, Dems still believe the number one scandal is Abramhoff. Which is why they aren't pounding on Foley any more, or making hay of this stuff.

But, what it really comes down to, is the Rs really want Hastert to keep his job - despite the fact that if he were getting an annual review at my firm there would be a strong message and a weak bonus this year (and last, and the one before that...)

[SlaveNoMore]

Not Bob
What is the Republican Party's plan with Iraq?

This lead (and the rest of your post for that matter) was pretty spot on. What are the Republicans going to do in Iraq? But also, what are the Dems going to do. Hell, even (cut and run - my only issue) LaMont is moving right now. This election year we are faced with two choices.

The GOP, a pro-military party, purportedly small government and small spending (but we know this is a joke) who had 6 years of unified government and did a pretty lousy job of it.

The DNC, a party with little to say, other than that "we aren't them" It's a good tactic, and it could work. Schumer has publicly stated that the Dems need to remain ambiguous as to their goals. Rangel, on the other hand, reveals his hand and states on the record that all tax cuts will be repealed.

Both parties are full of crooks. Liars. Self-aggrandizing losers.

Sadly, I will hold my nose and vote for Republicans I detest, yet again, because I truly belive the Democrats will have us learning the Koran.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
We have many. Stable economy and a secure peace are good places to start. But, once again, what's the R's plan (and, if they've got it, why haven't they put it into effect when they've had a free hand?)

I was talking about Iraq.

What is the Democrats Goal in Iraq.

I asked what was the Democrat's plan.

I was then asked the Republicans plan. In other words the Democrats don't have one but either do the Republicans.

And I said the Republican plan is to stay until the Iraqi government can take care of the insurgency themselves.

Then I was told that is a goal not a plan. OK. If you want to call it goal fine. But what is the Democrats goal in Iraq? The Republicans definitely have one, but do the Democrats.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
We have many. Stable economy and a secure peace are good places to start. But, once again, what's the R's plan (and, if they've got it, why haven't they put it into effect when they've had a free hand?)

What the hell does a "stable economy" mean? That is a completely meaningless phrase. How about a robustly growing economy?

Secure Peace. We are in war on Terror. There is no peace. The only question is how do you conduct the war.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
The DNC, a party with little to say, other than that "we aren't them" It's a good tactic, and it could work. Schumer has publicly stated that the Dems need to remain ambiguous as to their goals. Rangel, on the other hand, reveals his hand and states on the record that all tax cuts will be repealed.

Democrats have decided to run this year against the GOP's record rather than on their own proposals. I don't happen to agree with this tactic, but it doesn't mean that they have little to say.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Not Bob
"Tech bubble" in November 1996 when the Dow was at 6100? I think not. Those capitalists who were in the market might think that the bubble was more of a 1998 forward kind of thing.

go read Wikipedia* on "tech bubble." The build up started in 94.


*Flower- approved source.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Democrats have decided to run this year against the GOP's record rather than on their own proposals. I don't happen to agree with this tactic, but it doesn't mean that they have little to say.

Looks like the GOP doesn't want to run on its record:

• Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas, who holds a seat deemed safe for the GOP, said in a campaign debate Thursday she would have voted against the war had she known ousted Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein possessed no weapons of mass destruction.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061021/..._pr_wh/us_iraq

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
go read Wikipedia* on "tech bubble." The build up started in 94.


*Flower- approved source.

But think back, Hank. You weren't prosecuting business process patents for your VC-backed client lookiemybunghole.com until '99, '98 at the earliest.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Which Senator do you most want to see voted out of office? If you haven't already done so, vote in the poll. With early precincts reporting, Rick Santorum and Debbie Stabenow are way ahead of the pack.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Gattigap
But think back, Hank. You weren't prosecuting business process patents for your VC-backed client lookiemybunghole.com until '99, '98 at the earliest.

Ty- this is outable. Deletion please.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Democrats have decided to run this year against the GOP's record rather than on their own proposals. I don't happen to agree with this tactic, but it doesn't mean that they have little to say.

In my limited experience, in a an election, you get some simple themes and repeat them over and over again. Clinton was a master at it. The Democrat leadership should pick four phrases and repeat them over and over again: extricate ourselves from the quagmire in Iraq, stop blowing holes in the budget, fully fund the war on dieseases i.e. stem cell research etc.

But they have no constant and consistent message, and they are going to fail.

[Spanky]