Dems to voters: You may hate us, but GOP is worse

[SammyJr]

So it's ok to call an ass a unicorn if it will make your party more appealing to voters? Let's try calling things what they are - it's at least a step in the right direction.

You missing my comparison of the parties earlier in the thread.

 

[Jhhnn]

It's going to take several election cycles to populate DC with a majority of Tea Party candidates. We'll all just have to hold our breath and hope we can survive until then.

Gawd that's some of the lamest denial ever. Populate DC with Whack-a-doodles of the most ridiculous sort- ODonnell's, Angle's, Paul's, and Palin's, under the ideological wing of Glenn Beck and assorted cronies.

Idiocracy was humor, but apparently some people didn't get it...

The most remarkable thing about this election cycle is that repubs are running against everything, including their own healthcare plan from 1993, trying desperately to avoid anybody noticing their accomplishments...

"We Looted the Economy!" isn't much of a campaign slogan, after all...

 

[JEDIYoda]

we've been going back and forth between the two for damn near 100 years

You must be the oldest member on these forums...100yrs you say....

 

[JEDIYoda]

It's going to take several election cycles to populate DC with a majority of Tea Party candidates. We'll all just have to hold our breath and hope we can survive until then.

Damn people you can`t make this stuff up!!

hahahahahaaaaa thx for the laugh!1
Dude you are in serious need of professional medical help if you beleive what you just posted...hahahaaaa

 

[Lemon law]

ts go back to the original OP of this thread contention of, " Dems to voters: You may hate us, but GOP is worse
This is the most pathetic plea for votes that I've ever seen:"

Note, the 'Most pathetic plea for votes" is the OP's argument, But saying "pathetic" does not make his contention true.

As for me, I think we have to compare the GOP and the Democrats and then decide which are more pathetic. And in my mind, yes the Democrats do have a good argument, because they are far less pathetic than the Republicans.

But that just establishes relative position, when truth be told, both parties fall far short of being what this country really needs to dig us out of the economic hole we are now in. But as long as we have total gridlock, not only will this country be unable to dig ourselves out of the economic hole we are in, but a house divided cannot stand.

 

[boomerang]

You guys are too fucking predictable for me. Pavlov never had it so easy.

I should have waited to use this but what the hell.

 

[Deudalus]

This is the most pathetic plea for votes that I've ever seen:


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100917/ap_on_el_ge/us_desperate_democrats


The Democrats will now reap the failure of their inability to compromise and work with the Republicans. Later, the Republicans will reap their own failure IF they cannot compromise and work with the Democrats.

- An independent who voted for Obama ... and now sorely regrets it.



Rant over

Cooperation is not what we need.

We need absolute and total gridlock. No one needs to get shit done period.

The economy is not something that the government needs to fix. The economy will fix itself given the opportunity.

 

[Craig234]

Cooperation is not what we need.

We need absolute and total gridlock. No one needs to get shit done period.

The economy is not something that the government needs to fix. The economy will fix itself given the opportunity.

Completely wrong. The engine of the economy is the private sector; but alone it's a *disaster*, and it needs the government setting up the rule for it to work.

We've had laissez-faire economics.

It did not work. It does not.

The problem is, you can't tell the difference between the government making good rules and bad. When there's corruption, you spout that the government can't do better.

 

[CycloWizard]

Completely wrong. The engine of the economy is the private sector; but alone it's a *disaster*, and it needs the government setting up the rule for it to work.

We've had laissez-faire economics.

It did not work. It does not.

The problem is, you can't tell the difference between the government making good rules and bad. When there's corruption, you spout that the government can't do better.

The real problem is that you think it's possible to separate federal government and corruption. I'm not sure that's the case. It may be that corruption is necessary to rise to the level of federal office. Barring that, it may be that it's necessary to achieve anything legitimate in the presence of a corrupt majority. Either way, the corruption of our federal government is hardly debatable at this point.

 

[Craig234]

The real problem is that you think it's possible to separate federal government and corruption. I'm not sure that's the case. It may be that corruption is necessary to rise to the level of federal office. Barring that, it may be that it's necessary to achieve anything legitimate in the presence of a corrupt majority. Either way, the corruption of our federal government is hardly debatable at this point.

At this point - and it could be a lot worse, believe it or not.

There was *modest* corruption of the federal government under Kennedy, under Eisenhower, under FDR, under Teddy Roosevelt... it can be done.

The thing is all the warnings progressives have made for decades have a price to ignore.

Do I need to repeat sample statistics to help? How when Reagan took office there were fewer than 1000 federal lobbyists (still high with 2 for everyone in Congress) and now it's 35,000?

How the finance sector was under 10% of the economy when Reagan took office and was recently over 40%?

How for the first time in American history, since Reagan practically all the growth of the econony has gone to the top 20% only, and towards the top sliver of that, the top 0.01%?

So why don't we hear about it? Remember the warnings about consolidating the media from hundreds of independant companies to where five big corporations own almost all of it?

Yes, this all has a price - and even those who get angry have a tea party paid for by these special interests in large party started to keep them from really opposing the agenda.

Opposing the government is disaster, it's the one thing that can represent the public against the powerful interests - and it's because they're so powerful they can corrupt it now.

This is a decades-long radical movement largely started in the 70's to propagandize the American people into supporting the disaster happening - that is good for the rich.

If you really opposed the corruption of the federal government, you would support progressive Democrats who oppose it, too, the one faction that really does.

Or you can do as the powerful interests want and blame it on the progressives, and demand more right-wing agenda that's done so much damage since Reagan.

The American people don't understand the economic issues and are largely vulerable to the propaganda that is so well-funded and pervasive. That's the problem.

We're lucky to have the minority of good members of Congress we do, and may well lose many of them now with Citizens United maknig it easier to spend them out.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

A major problem is that Dems can come up with road kill stew, to which the Republicans are accused of wanting to ruin by adding rocks.

 

[IronWing]

A major problem is that Dems can come up with road kill stew, to which the Republicans are accused of wanting to ruin by adding rocks.

This is true. The Dems do have a point though - "We suck but the Reps suck even harder" is an accurate statement at the moment. This is a problem with two entrenched parties. You can't throw the bums out of your own party w/o handing a seat to the other party for at least a cycle or four.

 

[Moonbeam]

A major problem is that Dems can come up with road kill stew, to which the Republicans are accused of wanting to ruin by adding rocks.

I think it is all the rocks that make it possible to only come up with road kill stew.

There is a huge hate fear machine out there destroying any hope for America, a festering disease of corporate wealth and privilege protecting its interests by creating millions of screaming marching morons armed with monkey wrenches. Calm ordinary, sincere and thoughtful people turn away from all this with pathos and disgust because they can't compete on a field where insanity and the race to the bottom creates winners.

Take a look at folk like Rush Limbaugh and the political evolution of that pile of shit, Newt G.

Every time America tries to move toward adulthood the fucking psychotic children are seized by panic attacks and tantrums. The folk who fancy themselves to be the real Americans are deep deeply sick. They are our worst self. We are dying from insular cultural stupidity, the spawn of racial bigotry, Christian fundamentalist ignorance, and the paternal dominance of emotionally dead cowboy self-pity.

 

[nick1985]

Take a look at folk like Rush Limbaugh

How do you feel about Kieth Olbermann?

 

[MJinZ]

This is the most pathetic plea for votes that I've ever seen:


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100917/ap_on_el_ge/us_desperate_democrats


The Democrats will now reap the failure of their inability to compromise and work with the Republicans. Later, the Republicans will reap their own failure IF they cannot compromise and work with the Democrats.

- An independent who voted for Obama ... and now sorely regrets it.


Rant over

You're so dumb, I gave up after Clinton lost to Obama..

 

[CycloWizard]

At this point - and it could be a lot worse, believe it or not.

There was *modest* corruption of the federal government under Kennedy, under Eisenhower, under FDR, under Teddy Roosevelt... it can be done.

The thing is all the warnings progressives have made for decades have a price to ignore.

Do I need to repeat sample statistics to help? How when Reagan took office there were fewer than 1000 federal lobbyists (still high with 2 for everyone in Congress) and now it's 35,000?

How the finance sector was under 10% of the economy when Reagan took office and was recently over 40%?

How for the first time in American history, since Reagan practically all the growth of the econony has gone to the top 20% only, and towards the top sliver of that, the top 0.01%?

So why don't we hear about it? Remember the warnings about consolidating the media from hundreds of independant companies to where five big corporations own almost all of it?

Yes, this all has a price - and even those who get angry have a tea party paid for by these special interests in large party started to keep them from really opposing the agenda.

Opposing the government is disaster, it's the one thing that can represent the public against the powerful interests - and it's because they're so powerful they can corrupt it now.

This is a decades-long radical movement largely started in the 70's to propagandize the American people into supporting the disaster happening - that is good for the rich.

If you really opposed the corruption of the federal government, you would support progressive Democrats who oppose it, too, the one faction that really does.

Or you can do as the powerful interests want and blame it on the progressives, and demand more right-wing agenda that's done so much damage since Reagan.

The American people don't understand the economic issues and are largely vulerable to the propaganda that is so well-funded and pervasive. That's the problem.

We're lucky to have the minority of good members of Congress we do, and may well lose many of them now with Citizens United maknig it easier to spend them out.

You fail to see that government is the ultimate powerful interest. You fail to see that corruption in a government is like entropy - it always increases over time at a rate proportional to change. You think that somehow labeling something as "progressive" makes it a magic placebo which somehow defeats the realities of the system. Unfortunately, it's not.

 

[dawp]

Neither party is well like by the general population. If there was a viable alternative the voters would bolt in a minute.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/19/AR2010091904664.html

In an Associated Press poll released last week, 38 percent of respondents approved of the job Democrats in Congress are doing, while 60 percent disapproved - not exactly where any party wants to be this close to an election. The ratings for Republicans in Congress, however, were even worse, with 31 percent approving and 68 percent disapproving. A New York Times/CBS News survey released last week also showed congressional Democrats' approval rating at a measly 30 percent, while congressional Republicans' sat at a ghastly 20 percent.

And in a Washington Post-ABC News poll released this month, voters expressed a distinct desire not to reelect incumbents in either party. Just 34 percent said Democrats deserved reelection, while 31 percent said Republicans did. The deep unpopularity of the GOP brand is one of the last vestiges of hope for Democrats seeking to retain their majorities in the House and Senate in what - if history is any guide - is shaping up to be a difficult midterm election season for the party.

 

[EXman]

imo Dems and Repubs are responsible and to try and put more blame on one party than the other is retarded. we've been going back and forth between the two for damn near 100 years and have nothing has really changed between the two. we need NEW blood in the system and that's why I'm hoping the Tea Party succeeds. Not so much because I agree with their view points, but more so to shake up our current two party system and hopefully introduce the possibility for more parties to rise up and give us some actual choice besides an R and a D.

Winnar Winnar Chicken Dinnar!

 

[EXman]

Completely wrong. The engine of the economy is the private sector; but alone it's a *disaster*, and it needs the government setting up the rule for it to work.

We've had laissez-faire economics.

It did not work. It does not.

The problem is, you can't tell the difference between the government making good rules and bad. When there's corruption, you spout that the government can't do better.

Another Socialist hear from. We've not had Laissez -faire economics ever. What we've had has always been regulated except Bushes reulators took a nap and the Dems sold a bill of goods that everyone should own a house and then regulated it to be so. People who voted for them and others that were not credit worthy and didn't read loan terms were temporary home owners.

The government especially under the Dems Pro Centeralized Government Anti-business agenda is the "disaster."

As Gore would say "Our economy has a fever." Sorry Socialist you cannot regulate demand. The Pres and his theoretical Scientists of Educrat Eletists like Elizabeth Warren to jobs where they can completely ruin the American business landscape with out a Senate confirmation which she'd never get. Seriously Obama said he wanted to "Fundamentally change America." He's delivering. And Pres Bush the neocons and Rinos (Dem Lites) delivered Obama to us on a silver platter by fluffing their nest and not doing as the electorate voted them to do.

We don't need comprehensive reform we just need the regulations on the books to be enforced. Sure there are things that need to be tweaked. But just like our southern boarder our laws need to followed first to see if they would work before we just change them for the sake of change.

 

[piasabird]

vote all incumbunts out of office!

 

[dawp]

vote all incumbunts out of office!

That's all fine and dandy, but it really isn't gonna change anything. The real power is in the party and just replacing the incumbents isn't doing a thing. What we need are candidates that aren't a (D) or an (R). And that isn't gonna happen any time soon.

 

[zsdersw]

Too many people are entirely hypocritical. They say they don't want to pay more taxes and don't want government to pay for healthcare... as they continue to suckle from the Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid teats.

The majority of voters always get what they voted for, 100% of the time. The only thing that fluctuates and gets distorted is their perception of what they voted for.

 

[CycloWizard]

Too many people are entirely hypocritical. They say they don't want to pay more taxes and don't want government to pay for healthcare... as they continue to suckle from the Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid teats.

The majority of voters always get what they voted for, 100% of the time. The only thing that fluctuates and gets distorted is their perception of what they voted for.

This is not hypocrisy - it is simply playing by the rules of the game. These people already paid into the current system and have every right to take as much advantage of it as they can. If I oppose the instant replay rule in football, but every team I play can still take advantage of this rule when playing against me, I'd be handicapping my team if I didn't take advantage of it as well.

 

[zsdersw]

This is not hypocrisy - it is simply playing by the rules of the game. These people already paid into the current system and have every right to take as much advantage of it as they can. If I oppose the instant replay rule in football, but every team I play can still take advantage of this rule when playing against me, I'd be handicapping my team if I didn't take advantage of it as well.

Yeah right... until/unless some part of the gravy train dries up, then it's like their first-born child was killed.

Politicians who "bring home the bacon" are, absent any scandals or significant mistakes, re-elected very easily; re-elected by, in no insignificant amount, the same people who criticize the growing size/cost of government.

 

[irishScott]

The Democrats have plenty of disasters, but the good Democrats fare far better than any of the Republicans.

Pelosi, Grayson, Waxman, Kucinich, Woolsey, Boxer, Feingold for a start, all have a far better agenda, far less corporate corruption than the corporatist Dems and Republicans.

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaahahahahahhaaaaaaaa *breath* hahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahah 😀 😀 😀