Forums | MacLife

It's deplorable when you can effectively replace the politicians with a button that doesn't work.

bratboy wrote:

Farmerkev wrote:

So Shicky, your answer should be painfully obvious by now.

The rhetoric will likely soften no matter who the president is because the current one has been so terrible.

Does this mean you're not buying into The Grand Equivalency?

Oh come on.  They always make for such astute analysis on this board.

bratboy wrote:

Farmerkev wrote:

So Shicky, your answer should be painfully obvious by now.

The rhetoric will likely soften no matter who the president is because the current one has been so terrible.

Wow, that sounds downright delusional.

Where has the rhetoric been coming from? How much of it is based on the quality (or lack thereof) of the administration?

Don't you remember how crazy the rhetoric was during the Clinton administrations? If anything, won't it be even worse?

I thought my point was pretty clear. Perhaps reading the first post will serve to clear up any misunderstandings.

Huh. Ain't no flies on me.

I recall one hell of alot more "friendly fire" aimed at Clinton than the republicans have ever came anywhere near too even in this dark our of Bush's disgrace.
NAFTA, The Communication Monopoly Creation bill, Playing kiss China's ass, etc. He took alot of heat and deserved it.

I am frustrated by the people who hide behind the answer, "Both sides do it."

It's difficult to argue against because there is a level on which it is true. Both sides engage in political spin and tight testing of catch phrases. Both sides collect millions of dollars from corporate donors and then back them after they are elected. Both sides have their bad apples, those engaged in grossly illegal operations (rampant bribery, for instance).

But it's also a ridiculous argument at this point in time.

When you look at corruption, you can find Democratic names. They are out there. But it's rampant on the Republican side.

When you look at how far the parties have gone [lately] to politicize the government, I'm sure you can find examples of Clinton doing so. But he doesn't hold a candle to what Bush has done. They've politicized the government in nearly every department. they've got the Department of Justice running their electoral dirty tricks. They're silencing our own government scientists.

The Democrats have a few allied media organizations (MoveOn, one liberal radio station), but they don't move in the same lock-step that Republicans get out of 75% of the media. I mean, nearly every 24-hour news channel brought on two war supporters a few weeks ago, called them "war critics" and then let the White House use them to corroborate their message.

The comparison gets a little ridiculous.

Yes, both sides do it. But making that argument is like calling a pick pocket Don Corleone. It's not symmetrical by any stretch of the imagination.

Jaligard wrote:

I am frustrated by the people who hide behind the answer, "Both sides do it."

It's difficult to argue against because there is a level on which it is true. Both sides engage in political spin and tight testing of catch phrases. Both sides collect millions of dollars from corporate donors and then back them after they are elected. Both sides have their bad apples, those engaged in grossly illegal operations (rampant bribery, for instance).

But it's also a ridiculous argument at this point in time.

When you look at corruption, you can find Democratic names. They are out there. But it's rampant on the Republican side.

When you look at how far the parties have gone [lately] to politicize the government, I'm sure you can find examples of Clinton doing so. But he doesn't hold a candle to what Bush has done. They've politicized the government in nearly every department. they've got the Department of Justice running their electoral dirty tricks. They're silencing our own government scientists.

The Democrats have a few allied media organizations (MoveOn, one liberal radio station), but they don't move in the same lock-step that Republicans get out of 75% of the media. I mean, nearly every 24-hour news channel brought on two war supporters a few weeks ago, called them "war critics" and then let the White House use them to corroborate their message.

The comparison gets a little ridiculous.

Yes, both sides do it. But making that argument is like calling a pick pocket Don Corleone. It's not symmetrical by any stretch of the imagination.

Well put.
The Dems have the typical background noise of miscellaneous corruption and bad apples that just seems to be part and parcel of the political process.
The Republicans have taken it to a whole new level and institutionalized it.

Yep.

Pro-Demmies are enjoying blaming Republicans for the grotesque shambles Washington is in today. But did Democrats try and stop any of it? Did they try to avert a war they knew was going to be a disaster? Did they try to hold the line on spending? Did they attempt to prevent the Patriot Act from being passed, and then renewed? Did they make any effort to block any of the legislation that's made things so Godawful?

I know it's comforting to blame it all on the Repubs, but from where I sit that's pretty damn weak.

I maintain that Democratic support for pernicious Republican policies for many years strongly indicates what they'll do if they win the White House too.

To wit: more of the same.

Ironically I'd be willing to bet the Republicans will be a lot tougher in opposition than the Democrats ever were.

Last edited by ShnickyShnack (2007-10-26 7:53 am)

Bull pucky. The Dems went along like sheep.

They WEREN'T the Shepards!

Bush still gets to take responsibility, RESPONSIBILITY, for his actions and policies. For the mess he has made. The Republicans have to take responsibility for WHOLEHEARTEDLY supporting those actions and policies.

The Dems get kicked for being afraid to speak up lest it hurt their chances for reelection and for looking "un-patriotic."

The Dems didn't make the polices, they didn't strategize the actions taken, that firmly rests under Republican control.

Or do you think that it's the responsibility of the Dems? How? The Dems weren't in a majority, they didn't have the White house for nearly 6 years in a row.

sturner wrote:

Bull pucky. The Dems went along like sheep.

They WEREN'T the Shepards!

Bush still gets to take responsibility, RESPONSIBILITY, for his actions and policies. For the mess he has made. The Republicans have to take responsibility for WHOLEHEARTEDLY supporting those actions and policies.

The Dems get kicked for being afraid to speak up lest it hurt their chances for reelection and for looking "un-patriotic."

The Dems didn't make the polices, they didn't strategize the actions taken, that firmly rests under Republican control.

Or do you think that it's the responsibility of the Dems? How? The Dems weren't in a majority, they didn't have the White house for nearly 6 years in a row.

Generally agreed. However...
As on last Nov. they have let many down time and time again. They were given the majority to put things in reverse. The 'right-track vs. wrong track' is feeling alot like Locomotive Breath for many folks. "No way to slow down..." is not what voters had in mind, I don't think.

user wrote:

People vote for the Dems because the two parties have successfully locked out any other party from challenging them and the Dems suck a little less. Really, SS, I don't understand why you are harassing us voters about this.

The voters can make it impossible for them to get elected unless the favour major change. The people are supposed to be the masters, not the other way around.

Both parties deserve to get severely spanked for their behaviour of late, even if it's just in the form of a catastrophically low turnout come November.