Forums | MacLife

nervous about a Democratic monopoly?

smurf no.

I think we need one for now. If the Reps controlled Congress, they'd buck Obama on everything. With the Dems in charge, that drops to maybe 50 percent.

ShnickyShnack wrote:

Farmerkev wrote:

ShnickyShnack wrote:

Okay, that's six years. Any others?

Yes there are, more importantly, do you have some point you're driving at?
If so why not just get to it.

Just questioning your rather questionable thesis.

Nothing too outrageous of a thesis. Divided power checks the excesses of each other.
We used to bemoan it as gridlock.

Farmerkev wrote:

Nothing too outrageous of a thesis. Divided power checks the excesses of each other.
We used to bemoan it as gridlock.

So you are saying that there's enough difference between (D) and (R) to make it necessary to check each other?

matt wrote:

Clinton was impeached for lying about a blowjob?

That was quite uncouth young man. Have you no sense of decency?

Last edited by adamjg (2008-10-25 12:32 pm)

Well, maybe. Maybe chip in and help with this:
http://www.pollingreport.com/right.htm

Frankly, with that polling result, and for such an extended period, makes raising this thread's question absurd.

Complete Democratic control still means divided government. The Dems have no tradition of lock step, mindless, unthinking, conformity like the Republicans have.
There will still be plenty of debate and plenty of checks and balances going on.
But we will continue to circle the drain. Civil liberties will continue to be eroded, corporations will still have far too much influence, the ultra rich will continue to enjoy their protected aristocrat status.
Just all a bit slower and at a lower level under the Dems, with a few more trinkets tossed in the direction of working Americans. But our continuing evolution into a corporocracy will continue. We long ago passed the tipping point on that.

Last edited by Pariah (2008-10-25 6:30 am)

Ribtorus wrote:

If America and Iraq can't negotiate a forces agreement before Bush leaves, then it'll be up to the O'Bama White House to do it. They can put if off for a while if there's a renewed U.N. mandate but eventually it will be the Democrats seeking ways to remain in Iraq and there'll be no political cover.  Unless O'Bama actually has the courage of his convictions and orders a phased withdrawal even from the major bases. Economic hardship may be on his side. I figure running out of money is what will get America out of Iraq, not policy.

So there could be some interesting schadenfreude over this matter.

Considering that the Iraqi government is agitating for exactly the sort of timetable Obama has talked about I think we will be able to withdrawal with the cover being it is at the request of the democratically elected government of Iraq.
I don't think anyone outside the NeoCo asylum actually wants to stay in Iraq, not the Pentagon and certainly not the Democratic base. It will be easy as hell to round up plenty of respectable, high ranking military types to endorse the move to get out.

Ribtorus wrote:

If America and Iraq can't negotiate a forces agreement before Bush leaves, then it'll be up to the O'Bama White House to do it. They can put if off for a while if there's a renewed U.N. mandate but eventually it will be the Democrats seeking ways to remain in Iraq and there'll be no political cover.  Unless O'Bama actually has the courage of his convictions and orders a phased withdrawal even from the major bases. Economic hardship may be on his side. I figure running out of money is what will get America out of Iraq, not policy.

So there could be some interesting schadenfreude over this matter.

Doesn't it have to be signed, sealed and delivered by the end of this year?

Gatchaman wrote:

Farmerkev wrote:

ShnickyShnack wrote:

Examples, please.

The most recent would be Clinton and the Rep Revolution.

A six year witch hunt.  That was just smurfing great.

We had the first glimmer of fiscal responsibility in quite some time. It was still a house of cards but it was a start.

We had a group of wrinkled old wombats hiding behind puritan sensibilities trying to hang a man who was arguably pretty right of center and quite willing to deregulate in favor of big business, in order to aid in fooling the public by calling him a "liberal" and move public opinion further to the right. It was organized by members of congress together with their political donors and string pullers and their paid 24/7 right wing media propaganda campaign.

People argued that, while clinton was a spineless coward for failing to admit his indiscretions, and that he indeed, did lie, that some sense of proportion needed to be understood and applied and that simply saying "he lied" was not doing service to the whole story.

Americans need to look at this huge propaganda thing for what it is, propaganda used in the service of ideology by a political party bent on securing deregulatory legislation to consolidate power and wealth, nothing more.

Pariah wrote:

Complete Democratic control still means divided government. The Dems have no tradition of lock step, mindless, unthinking, conformity like the Republicans have.

apparently, from all reports, they are the tax and spend party, so they seem to agree on that. :\

perception often trails reality.

Tax and spend is miles ahead of borrow and spend in any regard.