If Democrats win the House or Senate....
musicismylife78
Posts: 6,116
I sure as hell aint no republican as ed would say, but I aint a democrat either.
Dems are just as crooked and currupt as Republicans. Kerry was funded by multinational corporations during the 2004 election, just as Bush was
That said, if the Dems win the House or Senate, what the hell difference will it make? Nancy Pelosi, and even the radical John Conyers, who spent the last couple years campaining for Bush's impeachment, Henry Waxman another left wing radical, all said they WILL NOT push for an impeachment of Bush. Sure they said they would investigate things, but a true investigation of the lies of the Iraq war, would most likely dwarf anything the Watergate investigation ever found. Thats a good thing. But the dems would have to be exposed as well, many voted for the war. So in effect, a FULL investiagtion of the lies that led us into Iraq would implicate not only Bush, Cheney, Rummy, Condi, and others, but also dems as well.
So I ask you Dems here, what will change if Dems control the House or Senate? How are you and your party (Democrats) an opposition party? The Dems support the war, are less homophobic than republicans, but is a senator who is for Civil unions really doing that much to advance Gay rights? And is a senator who wants to pull out troops in 1 year or 6 months as opposed to Bush who wants to stay in until 2009, is that senator really antiwar? Is that the extent of the opposition?
How about Free Trade? How many dems are against NAFTA, CAFTA, FTAA, WTO etc...? And if the answer is not many, ask yourself, how many Republicans are for free trade?
Is a senator who is for Free Trade any different than a republican who wants to cut down old growth forests? Free Trade affect the environment in negative ways. Its funny Al Gore is presented as an environmentalist. Ask him about his support of NAFTA, CAFTA, and WTO!!!
So to sum up, if the Dems refuse to take a stand and unite and say, "We want troops out immediately" or they refuse to cut the funding of the war, or if they wont hold impeachment hearings, why the hell do they deserve our vote?
Its sad, when your parties main idea is "vote for us, we arent as bad as those other guys".
I listened in 2001 as Dems sat silent worried that dissenting with the President was umpatriotic, I listened to them in 2002, when in the run up to the war, they said basically what Bush said, that Saddam had WMD's, I sat in 2003, when the majority of Dems voted for the war, and were silent on the illegal and immoral ways we were led into war, I listened in 2004 when Kerry acted like he was some great guy, who turned his back on his past as a hippie radical and was suggesting that he would "send 10,000 more troops to iraq", I listened in 2005 when the war worsened and Dems still were silent, not offering a way out, still believeing in this war and the cause. I listened in 2006, when dems still were silent and the majority is still for the war.
I ask you dems, how is your party different? Your parties view on the war isnt ideological or theoretical, its merely tactical. Your party still believes this war is winnable, that this war can be won by the US.
I was let down by both parties. I suggest, don;t vote repub or dem, vote Green, indy, libertarian, communist, socialist etc...
The two party system sucks
Dems are just as crooked and currupt as Republicans. Kerry was funded by multinational corporations during the 2004 election, just as Bush was
That said, if the Dems win the House or Senate, what the hell difference will it make? Nancy Pelosi, and even the radical John Conyers, who spent the last couple years campaining for Bush's impeachment, Henry Waxman another left wing radical, all said they WILL NOT push for an impeachment of Bush. Sure they said they would investigate things, but a true investigation of the lies of the Iraq war, would most likely dwarf anything the Watergate investigation ever found. Thats a good thing. But the dems would have to be exposed as well, many voted for the war. So in effect, a FULL investiagtion of the lies that led us into Iraq would implicate not only Bush, Cheney, Rummy, Condi, and others, but also dems as well.
So I ask you Dems here, what will change if Dems control the House or Senate? How are you and your party (Democrats) an opposition party? The Dems support the war, are less homophobic than republicans, but is a senator who is for Civil unions really doing that much to advance Gay rights? And is a senator who wants to pull out troops in 1 year or 6 months as opposed to Bush who wants to stay in until 2009, is that senator really antiwar? Is that the extent of the opposition?
How about Free Trade? How many dems are against NAFTA, CAFTA, FTAA, WTO etc...? And if the answer is not many, ask yourself, how many Republicans are for free trade?
Is a senator who is for Free Trade any different than a republican who wants to cut down old growth forests? Free Trade affect the environment in negative ways. Its funny Al Gore is presented as an environmentalist. Ask him about his support of NAFTA, CAFTA, and WTO!!!
So to sum up, if the Dems refuse to take a stand and unite and say, "We want troops out immediately" or they refuse to cut the funding of the war, or if they wont hold impeachment hearings, why the hell do they deserve our vote?
Its sad, when your parties main idea is "vote for us, we arent as bad as those other guys".
I listened in 2001 as Dems sat silent worried that dissenting with the President was umpatriotic, I listened to them in 2002, when in the run up to the war, they said basically what Bush said, that Saddam had WMD's, I sat in 2003, when the majority of Dems voted for the war, and were silent on the illegal and immoral ways we were led into war, I listened in 2004 when Kerry acted like he was some great guy, who turned his back on his past as a hippie radical and was suggesting that he would "send 10,000 more troops to iraq", I listened in 2005 when the war worsened and Dems still were silent, not offering a way out, still believeing in this war and the cause. I listened in 2006, when dems still were silent and the majority is still for the war.
I ask you dems, how is your party different? Your parties view on the war isnt ideological or theoretical, its merely tactical. Your party still believes this war is winnable, that this war can be won by the US.
I was let down by both parties. I suggest, don;t vote repub or dem, vote Green, indy, libertarian, communist, socialist etc...
The two party system sucks
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
Lincoln said that the people have a right to take back their government...so whatup?
old music: http://www.myspace.com/slowloader
With the mess that the repubs and dems have made of our government...we don't want it anymore.
by taking back can we install a theocracy?
Case in point...
If this war was done under the same conditions, decisions and actions by a Democratic Administration... Ted Kennedy, Howard Dean and John Kerry would be making up the excuses while George Bush, Dick Cheney and the folks over at FOX News would be the war's most outspoken critics.
...
But, i can guarantee you... I would have the exact same criticisms and outrage. I refuse to bow down to the whims of a fat ass or a jack ass.
Hail, Hail!!!
Democrats will also pass legislation to invest in alternative energy so that we can wean ourselves from oil and get the fuck out of the Middle East. (Oh, and thanks, W, for your honesty here in the 11th hour.)
Also, the Democrats are likely to actually support our troops by passing legislation to adequately equip them and pay them a living wage so they don't need to get food stamps to feed their families.
http://iava.org/index.php
Yeah, there have been corrupt Democrats -- there's one running for the Senate in NJ -- and Bill Clinton lied about his blow job, etc., etc. But people who think that Republicans represent "the little guy" really aren't paying attention.
doesn't feel that way right now. That's the hopeful
idea . . . Hope didn't get much applause . . .
Hope! Hope is the underdog!"
-- EV, Live at the Showbox
Do you seriously want a theocracy? Wouldn't that be completely against what the founding fathers wanted for this nation.
And with the increase of the minimum wage there will be an increase in unemployment. It's simple math when it comes to understanding that business owners, being businessmen and women, will cut jobs to compensate for increased salaries.
Does the college tuition tax deductible topic have something to do with the Make College Affordable Act Schumer is pressing for? I know Bush signed off on something like this for New York several years ago. Don't know much about this.
And I don't believe the latter to be true about tax cuts if Charlie Rangle has anything to do with it. Plus, I just don't understand why the rich must take on even more of the burden. The top 1% of tax payers pay roughly 35% of all taxes collected in this country. That's around 10 times more than the bottom 50% combined. I'm talkin less than 5%. Is it really possible to make any substantial tax cuts for the poor? Maybe the better question is how a politician can platform on it. The rich are basically the only ones paying taxes anymore, especially when defined by Democrats oddly enough.
Now we repeal the top 1%'s cuts to make tuition tax deductible? This can actually be dealt with much better by dealing with pork barrel spending which is an issue every American citizen should be writing their congressman about (including myself). People are still having to take on paying for college, and with the price of tuition, who really thinks about the word "deductible" during this process? I figure more than most become far more familiar with the term "interest."
People in this country who wish to improve their lives do so and those who do not, don't. Unfortunately the "wealthy" have another familiar form of taxation to deal with those malcontents. Welfare.
Save the tax cuts.
My question is what is the purpose of oil? I understand that it is vital to the operation of most functioning vehicles, but what else? I'd also like to know exactly which politicians are really serious about alternative energy. Judging by the 'toys' most senators and representatives operate it would be foolish to believe anyone is really serious about this issue beyond to usual ploy for a vote at the ballot box. Invest here is just another code word for tax. The government will never tell me what to drive. There are plenty of examples of wasted energy use but until the cost of that energy becomes unaffordable, it will continue. And why not. Like I said, what else does anyone here use oil for besides slipping it by the observers at the landfill in empty laundry detergent bottles?
"What I lack in decorum, I make up for with an absence of tact."
Camden 5-28-06
Washington, D.C. 6-22-08
As I said in my original post, the dems have been cowering and wimpy since 9/11. They really have been to worried about being painted as unpatriotic by questioning Bush's war on terror, and being called antiamerican or being seen as not supporting the troops if they question the current war policy.
I even can understand why they would be afraid of being called such names. But after 5 years???? I mean come on!
Eddie Vedder stood up to a rude and intolerant and blind crowd of Bush lovers in NY in 2003, thousands booed him, and even threw junk at him. The dixie Chicks, three moms from Texas, faced down death threats and mass public record burnings, as well as radio bannings.
Somehow I feel no sympathy for the Dems in that case. Especially since 20 year old kids are giving their lives, while the dems hide in silence.
Its too little too late. The dems had a chance in 2000 when Bush came into office, to demand investigations of disenfranchisement and roadblocks in predominantly black areas in Florida. They refused( See the first few minutes of Fareignheiht 9/11 for proof). They had a chance in 2001 when Bush was passing the Patriot Act and disappearing people to demand Bush tell americans the truth. The dems did nothing. They had a chance in 2003 to say the WMD line touted by bush was BS, they were silent. And on and on and on.
I dont know how anyone could be a republican, but I also have no clue how anyone would be a dem. You really believe that a democrat fighting this war in iraq would make a difference? As long as those in power believe the war is winnable and is a noble cause (dem or repub) we all lose. The vietnam war, a large part of it was fought during the Johnson ( a dem) administration.
Thats my problem, you dont see Kerry, Biden, Clinton, Obama etc... saying, "we need to pull all troops out, and bring them home now". No these candidates are saying, "Bush made mistakes, Bush lied, and if I was president or if dems had control we would run the war differently". The war will continue under a democrat. Until a dem comes out a demands immediate withdrawal nothing will change, and I will not vote for a dem until that happens.
Bush let us down, and is a war criminal, but dems are supposed to be an opposition party. Bush says "I will stay in iraq even if my dog and laura are the only people supporting me". He can say that because no one is opposing him. If every single dem senator and congressperson stood up and said bring them home now, I think we would have a chance of getting them home now. Until that time, we get mealy mouthed losers like Kerry, Biden, Obama. The rotten system that exists isnt questioned, and why would it be. They are all funded by the same people
"What I lack in decorum, I make up for with an absence of tact."
Camden 5-28-06
Washington, D.C. 6-22-08
We're not going to beat the two-party system overnight, so we might as well get what little we can out of it in the meantime.
Just look what happened after the 2004 election, the dem base didnt say, "kerry was too middle of the road and not left wing enough". No the dems said, Kerry wasnt right wing enough.
The DNC and all the powerful people who control the dem party dont want a left wing democrat running for office or for president. Dems dont believe that having a left wing agenda gets you elected.
Whats funny is year after year dems whine about not winning elections, yet year after year the solution offered by those same people is, lets get more like the republicans, lets move a little more to the right.
I am tired of that crap. Dems are supposed to differ from the republicans.
The democratic party isnt one of radical politics or activism, or antiwar and propeace ideas. Its a party that in many ways is as Chomsky puts it, is "republican lite".
Well... Murtha wanted the immediate withdrawal of the troops. That's what you asked about. And there have been others who have called for the same.
And no, Kerry is as left-wing as anyone. It's called losing an election. 61 million votes is a new high after all.
And, you are completely right about Democrats trying to emulate Republicans just before elections. They understand being who they are will not win elections.
You seem to be a little all over the place. I suggest a little less Chomsky. Remember, you don't always have to overthink things. A great coach once said, "It is what it is."
"What I lack in decorum, I make up for with an absence of tact."
Camden 5-28-06
Washington, D.C. 6-22-08
The fundamental problem with pork barrel spending.
"What I lack in decorum, I make up for with an absence of tact."
Camden 5-28-06
Washington, D.C. 6-22-08
The majority of americans are against this war. The majority of americans are against Bush, the majority of americans want to see a change in the Iraq strategy.
While the majority of americans dont support immediate withdrawal, they also dont support staying the course.
So i disagree in what you said. The democrats cant understand that they have to be right wing to win elections, mainly because, the majority of americans, now at least, support left wing ideas.
Being against the war, and supporting withdrawal of troops in phases, I would guess would win elections. This is shown to be the case, because the majority of americans are for these ideas. Being a republican or having republican values doesnt win elections. Having spines does. Standing up for prinicpals and morals does. Being truthful does.
And you fail to see my point about Kerry. The Dem base could have said one of two things. One, we lost because Kerry was too left wing. Or two, we lost because kerry was too middle of the road, and centrist. The Dems said the former.
I also take issue with your assertion that being a Democrat wont win elections. Well correct me if I am missing something here, but Kerry isnt president and Dems dont control House or Senate or at least didnt in 2004 elections. Clearly being a democrat posing as a republican doesnt win elections either,
thats what I really dislike about democrats. They want to win by any means necessary. If that means moving to the right, thats all right. But if someone suggests Kerry be left wing, OH NO!! LOOKOUT!!!
I am an antiwar, pro gaymarriage, anti WTO/NaFTA, treehugger. I dont feel represented by either party.
Kerry, Gore, Clinton, Obama wont save us. They are not offering any alternatives and arent opposing the war in any substantial manner. Kerry isnt for withdrawal of troops, he wants more troops and Gore is critical of BUSH"S handling of the war
The two party system sucks[/quote]
They didn't vote for the war. It was to give bush authority to go to war as a last resort after all options were exercised. But he lied to everyone when he said that. I'm not saying dems don't have their share of problems but this is why the repubs keep winning because people keep saying they're all the same so people don't think and look for themselves whether or not there is a difference in the candidates. Then we hurt ourselves. I'm not sure if I made myself clear but I think you get the idea.
i agree a two party system (or any party system for that matter) pretty much sucks.
Here is the problem as i see it though. Though a two party system sucks, we are prety much entrenched in it. Do you really think anyone, fom the socialist party, for example, will EVER win ANY office in the United States? i don't allign myself with any party although those that know me fairly well, have called me socialist, commie, pinko, tree hugger etc. i'm not naive enough not to know, however that a vote for the socialist party is a complete waste of time and energy. The only ones that benefit from these are Republicans as anyone voting for any of the alternative parties you mentioned would have probably voted democrat otherwise. Now, i'm not a democrat, but if your planning on voting communist, i suggest you stay home.
Third parties WILL never have a true voice in this country. Sad, but true. My attitude is simply one of realism.
Cynicism i'll allow you based on the fact that what some people call cynical, others call realistic. i've been called cynical before. i'm o.k with that. Laziness, on the other hand has absolutely nothing to do with it. Fact of the matter is Ralph Nader probably, inadvertantly, did more to get W. elected, than W. did to get W. elected. Plain and simple. Should their be choices?Absolutely. Endless choices. The party system and the electoral college are both crap. But they are cemented in place however, and no matter how many choices you put on the ballot, there are still only two with a chance of winning. Anyone who votes communist, for example, despite the fact that that person may best represent their ideas, is wasting their time. All they are really doing is pounding their chest to prove what a rebel they are. Thats fine, but they just wasted their vote. Or worse yet, in essence, they are inadvertantly casting a vote for the wrong guy.
Actually, that's not true. If you increase the minimum wage, you increase the buying power of consumers and the economy will grow.
4/29/2003 Albany, NY
8/24/2000 Jones Beach, NY
9/13/1998 Hartford, CT
10/2/1996 Hartford, CT
In the first case, the result is less jobs.
In the second case, the result is higher cost for goods.
doesn't feel that way right now. That's the hopeful
idea . . . Hope didn't get much applause . . .
Hope! Hope is the underdog!"
-- EV, Live at the Showbox
Well, if it worked in teh past....
Actually, there's a bit more global competition right now for jobs of all kinds.
My hat's off to you......