If the democrats start to take over..?

not4u

..will it be the neocons that will orchestrate the next terror attack?. Will our eyes be opened? Will be be raped? or will dick cheney's warnings simply fade away. Its not like the dems won't do a good job. Its the fact that the republicans are not in power that will have us Fall. democracy? lol

El_Kabong

if the democrats take over we'll still be screwed and our money will still be mismanaged.

other than the little R and D next to their names what were the real differences between kerry and bush, again? some small ones exist but policy wise they looked the same

lalalalaaaaaaaa

El_Kabong wrote:

if the democrats take over we'll still be screwed and our money will still be mismanaged.

other than the little R and D next to their names what were the real differences between kerry and bush, again? some small ones exist but policy wise they looked the same

Great point, and it's not brought up enough. The last election didn't really offer much of a choice on any real important issues, since the candidates take the same stance on those.

El_Kabong

Saturnal wrote:

Great point, and it's not brought up enough. The last election didn't really offer much of a choice on any real important issues, since the candidates take the same stance on those.

why is it that the world's only superpower chooses it's leader from 'the lesser of 2 evils'??? we have no real choice w/ these 2 parties.

how do you get nominated? you need money. where does the money come from? over 90% comes from corporations...hell, oil and gas have given almost a billion in 'contributions' since 2000! do ppl really think they just give this money w/o expecting anything in return? (who wrote our energy policy, again? )

it's just an illusion of choice

“I'll show you politics in America. Here it is, right here. 'I think the puppet on the right shares my beliefs.' 'I think the puppet on the left is more to my liking.' 'Hey, wait a minute, there's one guy holding out both puppets!'”
- Bill Hicks

Milhouse VanHouten

El_Kabong wrote:

if the democrats take over we'll still be screwed and our money will still be mismanaged.

other than the little R and D next to their names what were the real differences between kerry and bush, again? some small ones exist but policy wise they looked the same

I'm not sure that President Kerry would have kept us in Iraq this long... I also doubt he'd be handling the Iran problem the same way.

El_Kabong

Milhouse VanHouten wrote:

I'm not sure that President Kerry would have kept us in Iraq this long... I also doubt he'd be handling the Iran problem the same way.

well, obviously he wouldn't follow the neo-con agenda, but overall i don't think there'd be a whole lotta difference. he was too phoney and stiff. it was obvious he pandered (as does bush) to ppl instead of saying what HE thought. god, istill remember him on the daily show all stiff and that horrid flop-flip joke of his he thought was so amusing

Purple Hawk

El_Kabong wrote:

if the democrats take over we'll still be screwed and our money will still be mismanaged.

other than the little R and D next to their names what were the real differences between kerry and bush, again? some small ones exist but policy wise they looked the same

I'm still trying to figure out what Kerry's policy positions are on anything. Same goes for the Dems. I can't make a comparison until I hear what they want to do.

In terms of no differences between the parties, the 90% of Americans who like capitalism actually do see differences between R's and D's.

blueandwhite

El_Kabong wrote:

why is it that the world's only superpower chooses it's leader from 'the lesser of 2 evils'??? we have no real choice w/ these 2 parties.

Don't worry, your not alone. As far as I see it, this is pretty much the norm across all Western democracies. 2 parties or 20, it wouldn't make a difference. Complicitly we trust afluent people who are well connected, even if they stab us in the back time and time again.

floyd1975

El_Kabong wrote:

where does the money come from? over 90% comes from corporations

I can tell you, without reservation, that this is not the case.

Milhouse VanHouten

El_Kabong wrote:

well, obviously he wouldn't follow the neo-con agenda, but overall i don't think there'd be a whole lotta difference. he was too phoney and stiff. it was obvious he pandered (as does bush) to ppl instead of saying what HE thought. god, istill remember him on the daily show all stiff and that horrid flop-flip joke of his he thought was so amusing

he was definitely a bad campaigner, but i thought he would have been acceptable as a president. also, he was unfortunate enough to be running against a campaign that operated with a virtual "war of attrition" mentality. kerry went as the "i'm not bush" candidate, and bush campaigned on two platforms: he portrayed kerry as a liberal, faggot-loving, abortion-happy, terrorist-sympathizing, traitorous flip-flopper, and he also just flat-out tried to scare the shit out of the american people by saying that if he's not re-elected, we'll get hit by terrorists again. oh yeah, they might have invoked that "sunny morning in september 2001" a few times, too.

in any event, kerry could have been the second worst president in history and still been the better than bush.

RainDog

El_Kabong wrote:

if the democrats take over we'll still be screwed and our money will still be mismanaged.

other than the little R and D next to their names what were the real differences between kerry and bush, again? some small ones exist but policy wise they looked the same

The biggest difference I see between the two parties is that the Republicans tend to be a bit more unified; while the Democrats are all over the place. Hence the "Republicans have plans - Democrats don't" meme that keeps floating around. Now, this is the main reason I'm rooting for the Dems. With the Republicans in charge, we seem to get a one party government - if the Democrats take over, it will be the closest to having more than two parties that we can get at the moment. We'll get more variety in what's brought to the floor - and more options for individual issues.

As for the Kerry/Bush differences, there are a good bit if you look for them. Kerry's campaign didn't make it easy on the voters, though. For one, dispite his vote, I don't think Kerry (or Gore) would have invaded Iraq. Kerry's terrorism plan dealt more with law enforcement than all out war. He's also a lot better for the environment - and I think, if he could have worded correctly (which isn't likely) he could have gotten a lot of support for alternative fuel subsidies had he made it into office. He's also voted against just about every drug war expansion that's come up since he's been in the Senate.

I know you were probably asking a rhetorical question, but I wanted to get in on it. I honestly think a Democratic takeover of the House and Senate would be good for the country, if only to change power holders.

chopitdown

if the democrats take over i'm moving to canada.

chopitdown

blueandwhite wrote:

Complicitly we trust afluent people who are well connected, even if they stab us in the back time and time again.

we are forced to trust the affluent. look at the conn race. ned spent 5 million or so and so did lieberman, the affluent are the only ones who can run a national or large, successful campaign.

RainDog

chopitdown wrote:

if the democrats take over i'm moving to canada.

What, where the conservative party is to the left of our liberal party?

Purple Hawk

chopitdown wrote:

if the democrats take over i'm moving to canada.

Not me. If the Democrats win, I'm going to spend November claiming that the election was stolen. Then, I'm going to attack Speaker Pelosi every single day and blame her for all the world's problems. One thing I won't do, is offer counter points and solutions.

RainDog

Purple Hawk wrote:

Not me. If the Democrats win, I'm going to spend November claiming that the election was stolen. Then, I'm going to attack Speaker Pelosi every single day and blame her for all the world's problems. One thing I won't do, is offer counter points and solutions.

Sounds good to me. I, for one, welcome a vocal conservative minority.

chopitdown

RainDog wrote:

What, where the conservative party is to the left of our liberal party?

no but it's cool to say you're moving to canada when you're upset.

inmytree

Purple Hawk wrote:

Not me. If the Democrats win, I'm going to spend November claiming that the election was stolen. Then, I'm going to attack Speaker Pelosi every single day and blame her for all the world's problems. One thing I won't do, is offer counter points and solutions.

that sounds like a good plan...speaking out to hold elected leaders accountable...

I wonder why one would only do that for one party and not another...

brain of c

the last time the dems had control they had a balanced budget. how's dub doing?

floyd1975

brain of c wrote:

the last time the dems had control they had a balanced budget. how's dub doing?

The budget was not balanced in 1992. The last time the budget was balanced, the Republicans had control over 2/3 of the branches of government.

brain of c

Milhouse VanHouten wrote:

he was definitely a bad campaigner, but i thought he would have been acceptable as a president. also, he was unfortunate enough to be running against a campaign that operated with a virtual "war of attrition" mentality. kerry went as the "i'm not bush" candidate, and bush campaigned on two platforms: he portrayed kerry as a liberal, faggot-loving, abortion-happy, terrorist-sympathizing, traitorous flip-flopper, and he also just flat-out tried to scare the shit out of the american people by saying that if he's not re-elected, we'll get hit by terrorists again. oh yeah, they might have invoked that "sunny morning in september 2001" a few times, too.

in any event, kerry could have been the second worst president in history and still been the better than bush.

that's well thought out. i'm voting for you, next time. get joe walsh to be your vice president.