I love how the right assumes because their party was proven brain dead morons they assume the opposition will do the same.
I love how the right assumes because their party was proven brain dead morons they assume the opposition will do the same.
Yeah, 'cause history is so full of examples showing that only one side of the political spectrum is subject to doing dumb things and getting corrupted by power :roll:
Wake up. Decades of irresponsible militarism, offshoring, and greed at the top have already done that, with the Bush Admin adding a kicker at the end.
By Sept 30 2009, the national debt will have doubled from where it was Sept 30 2001. We'll have zombie banks propping up zombie business, supported by taxpayer bailouts and lots of poor schmucks defaulting on mortgages written for twice the current market value of their homes.
In case you hadn't noticed, we were already in financial freefall before the election. Hell, the scenario was set before the 2006 election.
Betcha didn't realize that the "ownership society" doesn't mean you'll own anything, but rather be owned...
When the Dems start a war on BS evidence and hold back scientific research in the medical arena let me know.
cKGunslinger
Lifer
- Nov 29, 1999
- 16,408
- 57
- 91
Is this supposed to be taken serious? It was democrats who got us into Vietnam. Secondly many many dems voted for the Iraqi war.
And nothing the Republicans did held back medical research. The private sector was free to do what the feds couldnt. Just because you have this fascination with big govt doesnt mean big govt is always the answer.
Vietnam? Um, yeah. Let's try and focus on 2008 instead of 40 years ago. Also, anyone who didn't vote for the war was considered an unpatriotic terrorist sympathizer.
You can spin Bush's ban of federal funds for embryonic stem cell research all you want. Anyone with half a brain knows it held back research and the reasoning was moronic.
And what exactly is that supposed to mean? Are you saying the democrats voted for the war for purely political reasons? And you are going to lecture me that democrats are somehow different than republicans after saying that?
There is no spin. The private sector has been free to do what they want in this area. However the dirty secret is this area of research isnt turning up much to report. Unless you want to celebrate cancer in rats from embryonic stem cells. I guess since this area of research is failing to deliver the goods and the private sector is washing their hands of it, this is a perfect govt program right? Waste resources on a failure.
People like you are one of the problems with healthcare costs. By refusing to address the risk of a catastrophe, you spread the risk across everyone. All the while you have the nerve to claim that the profit from others assuming your risk amounts to your own fiscal responsibility.
No. I'm saying they voted for it because 99% of this country wanted blood for 9/11 and GWB&Co told them Iraq had ties to it as well as WMD's. Both were errors at best and lies at worst.
Well gosh since we haven't beaten cancer or MS or Alzheimers yet maybe we should just quit trying? Why waste resources on failure, right?
ericlp
Diamond Member
- Dec 24, 2000
- 6,137
- 225
- 106
Doesn't worry me much... Funny the OP didn't worry much with the repubs not too long ago had majority in the senate/house
Bush had the whole friggen world backing him and most chose to ignore the information and go with the flow.
So what are you worried about? Maybe they will shred your bible and set it out for yesterdays trash? Sheesh... Who gives a crap.
Bush had the whole friggen world backing him and most chose to ignore the information and go with the flow.
So what are you worried about? Maybe they will shred your bible and set it out for yesterdays trash? Sheesh... Who gives a crap.
If they are quitting it is because it isnt showing any signs that it is viable. It is showing signs of 'causing' cancer in rats. Curing something is a pipedream. They would probably be happy just to have it not kill the rats.
Cars were a pipe dream. Planes were a pipe dream. Space travel was a pipe dream. Just because stem cells haven't produced a cure yet doesn't mean they never will. One thing is certain, if they abandon research they never will.
Is that why John Kerry said he would have authorized the war even if he knew they didn't have WMDs?
Nobody's abandoned the research. They've merely stopped federal funding for it, even if its voodoo science.
Are you being sarcastic or just stupid? The Vietnam war was started on JFK and LBJ's watch. Speaking of BS evidence, perhaps you've heard of the Gulf of Tonkin "incident" that got the escalation in the war started in earnest?
Geez, get over your partisan zealotry and realize that both parties have -- time and time again -- shown themselves to be quite capable of doing stupid things of all kinds, and getting corrupted by power. You can't just conveniently look only at the last 8 years and say "see, only the republicans have done stupid things!".
Originally posted by: JEDI
Dems now have 58 seats (including the 2 independents).
2 races have not been decided:
Minnesota- Democrat Al Franken trails by 215 votes. Hand re-count will take weeks
Georgia- Republican won by 110k votes, but that was only 49.9%. by georgia law, you need >50%, else a run-off on 12/2.
dems own the whitehouse, and the House of Reps.
with a fillbuster proof senate, the Dems can pass laws at will.
no one party should have absolute power. Look at all the damage Bush did when he had 6yrs of Republican Congress, and that was when he didnt have a Fillbuster proof senate.
The pendulum will swing to the other extreme with the Dems. In fact, it will be worse w/a SuperMajority senate. W/o opposition, they have power absolute.
And abolute power corrupts
I've addresses this fallacious view many times here. The fallacy lies in equating 'Republican' and Deocrat'and wanting to appply the same rules to each.
When one party has good policies, representing the broad national interest, and the other has bad policies, representing the narrow interests of the few, they're not the same.
And it's not the case in that situation that 'balance' is the answer. Do you need to 'balance' police with crimnals, healthy food suppliers with unhealthy food suppliers, etc.?
Now the knee-jerk reaction from some unfortunately uninformed 'centrists' is, 'oh, you can't begin to challenge our assumption the parties are the same and we need balance'
'Why, that's *partisan*, icky icky shuder. You have drunk the kool-aid!'
Except that what if the 'centrists' are the actual ideologues, not for a party, but for the lack of party, not recognizing the parties' agendas very well, for example giving Republicans credit for things not because the facts confirm the assumptions, but because of blind assuming?
JEDI, for all your angstt, where did you account for the need to *undo* a lot of the harmful policies of the last 25, especially the last 8, years? How do you think that will happen? The nation has had terrible changes, and the Republicans still have a harmful agenda to obstruct fixing the bad policies. Where is your 'balance' for the many years of bad policies, when you effectively call for the democrats to not do much now they're in power, just keep the changes grom Reagan and Bush? That's not 'balanced', it's saying 'Republicans, you make radical changes, but democrats, you need to have your hands tied'. I know you said neither party should have all that power but the fact is, the Republicans got a lot of changes made, in part because of too many democrats going along with them. That's the fact; that the Republicans had more power than the numbers might suggest.
Now, what's this concern you have if the democrats get a super-majority? I read your post to see if you had any specifics, and you didn't. There's a reason - because your position is based more on ideology than on rationality. I can name you many specific problems if the Republicans had that power - you should be able to do the same to worry about democrats. Where's your looking at history, and seeing that the nation's best new policies and progress were from periods of Democrats having a super-majority?
Your view is the one that's dangerou snow, IMO, sort of nervous nelly preventing the Democrats from fixing a lot of things. The Republicans have poisoned a lot of people not to think government can do any good policies. It's funny, people assumed Republicans could govern because Democrats could, and they assume Democrats can't because of bad Republicans. That's backwards.
Now having said all that, I agree with you that 'absolute power tends to corrupt absolutely'.
I do think there is a danger of the Democrats being corrupted somewhat similarly to how the Repulbicans were - they already are to a point. What would the powerful want more than to also get their hands on the second of the only two viable parties, so that elections really are a meaningless choice between their two selected servants, an illusion of choice as many third-party supporters already claim, however exaggerated?
That's why more is needed to systemic changes to help with that.
But at the moment, the Democrats are the best party for representing the people's interests, and a supermajority would help. The Republicans obstruct that, not balance it.
You might get a better idea of this when you review the history of what Democrats and Republicans do with strong power, and when you try to list your specific concerns.
Are you worried the Democrats might 'sell out' to corporate interests? Republicans already have. Are you worried Democrats might spend too much? Republicans already surpass Democrats, and the spending is the wrong type, not helping the nation but enriching their backers at taxpayer expense. Are you worried the Democrats might be too pro-union? Think about that. Unions helped build the middle class; the nation used to have something like a third of workers in unions and it did nicely, where people could do ok, and that fueled the economy. For the last 25 years there's been a war on unoions - down to like 7% now - and all the while the bottom 80% of Americans have gotten zero percent of the nation's growth after inflation, while the super-rich have gotten far richer in a massive increased concentration of wealth that's bad for the country.
So your well-intended cuation is actually the harmful position. Let the Democrats fix the Republicans' mistakes, and use your cuation to fix the system to prevent corruption.
Call for public campaigjn financing, for restrictions on lobbying, for laws requiring disclosure by government tothe people and accountability, for 'ranked' voting in states.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter