Diest TKO
 
  1  
Fri 27 Jun, 2008 02:28 pm
McGentrix wrote:
The Dem's have been in controll for 2 years now. Remeber Pelosi's promises for the first 100 days? Fail.

There is nt much hope the next 2 years will be improved based on past performance. If anything, it will prove to be a miserable failure... Time will tell just it always has. I just hope the country is strong enough to survive it. I suppose we will be untill all our individual rights are replaced by the Democratic platform of "We know how to live your life better then you do."

Don't go there. The republicans have made themselves into the party that prides itself on the removal of personal rights.

T
K
O
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Fri 27 Jun, 2008 02:34 pm
McGentrix wrote:
The Dem's have been in controll for 2 years now. Remeber Pelosi's promises for the first 100 days? Fail.

There is nt much hope the next 2 years will be improved based on past performance. If anything, it will prove to be a miserable failure... Time will tell just it always has. I just hope the country is strong enough to survive it. I suppose we will be untill all our individual rights are replaced by the Democratic platform of "We know how to live your life better then you do."


Ok, but failing to completely deliver on your promises isn't the same as systematically destroying the government. The Dems used to be synonymous with corruption. Now the Republicans have that distinction. We have two parties which are both capable of screwing up the country and sending us in a dark direction -- just different dark directions. Until we are ready to adopt a multi-party system, our only recourse is to react swiftly to nefarious deeds by removing the guilty party and replacing them with the less-guilty party that was not in power and hope the less-guilty party takes the hint. The guilty party has some time to reform itself and try again in a few years. It's the way it works. I refuse to buy into the idea that one of these two parties is inherently superior, morally or otherwise, to the other.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Fri 27 Jun, 2008 02:37 pm
FreeDuck, Well stated; they're both bad; it's a matter of degree - and most of that is subjective.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Fri 27 Jun, 2008 03:13 pm
Well, it's a lot easier to get stuff done when the Prez ain't vetoing your bills.

They DID pass the min. wage increase, and did get some 9/11 commission stuff implemented. Not a total failure.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Fri 27 Jun, 2008 04:26 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Well, it's a lot easier to get stuff done when the Prez ain't vetoing your bills.

They DID pass the min. wage increase, and did get some 9/11 commission stuff implemented. Not a total failure.

Cycloptichorn


And congress has the power and ability to override a presidential veto.
The dems dont seem to have any luck doing that either.
0 Replies
 
rabel22
 
  1  
Fri 27 Jun, 2008 06:04 pm
Mysteryman.
This is a half truth. The democrats don't have enough votes to override a veto. But neither do they show any bal-s on the important stuff. They consistently cave in to the money interests while bleating its the fault of the republicans. I wish we had a viable third party to vote for. One which would work for all the people. Not just the rich ones. And producing for the rich describes both the dems and the repubs.
0 Replies
 
Diest TKO
 
  1  
Fri 27 Jun, 2008 08:22 pm
If the electoral college were to reform and use the Nebraska-Maine method, I thin it would give third parties a system where they would have to be heard. Imagine a general election where more than two world views are debated.

T
K
O
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Fri 27 Jun, 2008 08:52 pm
H2O_MAN wrote:
[Bush]is still rated higher than the Democrat House and Senate.

Um.

Even at his disastrous poll ratings, Bush is still polling higher than Congress - this much is true.

Where your implication shipwrecks is that the same polls are showing the Democrats in Congress with significantly better ratings than the Republicans in Congress.

So you got Bush doing worse than Clinton ever did, and within the even worse-scoring Congress, the Republicans doing worse than the Democrats.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Fri 27 Jun, 2008 08:57 pm
In support of nimh's post: From the Washington Post.

Most in Poll Want War Funding Cut
Bush's Approval Rating Ties All-Time Low

By Jon Cohen and Dan Balz
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, October 2, 2007; A01

Most Americans oppose fully funding President Bush's $190 billion request for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and a sizable majority support an expansion of a children's health insurance bill he has promised to veto, putting Bush and many congressional Republicans on the wrong side of public opinion on upcoming foreign and domestic policy battles.

The new Washington Post-ABC News poll also shows deep dissatisfaction with the president and with Congress. Bush's approval rating stands at 33 percent, equal to his career low in Post-ABC polls. And just 29 percent approve of the job Congress is doing, its lowest approval rating in this poll since November 1995, when Republicans controlled both the House and Senate. It also represents a 14-point drop since Democrats took control in January.

Despite discontent with Congress this year, the public rates congressional Republicans (29 percent approve) lower than congressional Democrats (38 percent approve). When the parties are pitted directly against each other, the public broadly favors Democrats on Iraq, health care, the federal budget and the economy. Only on the issue of terrorism are Republicans at parity with Democrats.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Fri 27 Jun, 2008 11:06 pm
nimh wrote:
H2O_MAN wrote:
[Bush]is still rated higher than the Democrat House and Senate.

Um.

Even at his disastrous poll ratings, Bush is still polling higher than Congress - this much is true.

Where your implication shipwrecks is that the same polls are showing the Democrats in Congress with significantly better ratings than the Republicans in Congress.

So you got Bush doing worse than Clinton ever did, and within the even worse-scoring Congress, the Republicans doing worse than the Democrats.


Without knowing how the questions were posed, I don't think we can say for sure why the GOP scores lower than the Democrats in charge. But since it has been the Democrats in control in Congress for the last two years, the only way the GOP is scoring lower is via Republicans refusing to give accolades to their elected leaders who didn't do the job. Since in two years the Dems haven't accomplished much of anything they promised their constituency, perhaps the Democrats simply set the bar lower for their guys than does the GOP?
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Sat 28 Jun, 2008 03:12 am
Foxfyre wrote:
nimh wrote:
H2O_MAN wrote:
[Bush]is still rated higher than the Democrat House and Senate.

Um.

Even at his disastrous poll ratings, Bush is still polling higher than Congress - this much is true.

Where your implication shipwrecks is that the same polls are showing the Democrats in Congress with significantly better ratings than the Republicans in Congress.

So you got Bush doing worse than Clinton ever did, and within the even worse-scoring Congress, the Republicans doing worse than the Democrats.


Without knowing how the questions were posed, I don't think we can say for sure why the GOP scores lower than the Democrats in charge. But since it has been the Democrats in control in Congress for the last two years, the only way the GOP is scoring lower is via Republicans refusing to give accolades to their elected leaders who didn't do the job. Since in two years the Dems haven't accomplished much of anything they promised their constituency, perhaps the Democrats simply set the bar lower for their guys than does the GOP?



Translation: I don't like the results, so I'm gonna question the methodology of the polls and the integrity of those polled...
0 Replies
 
Diest TKO
 
  1  
Sat 28 Jun, 2008 03:31 am
Fox - Do you really not recognize that the republicans are not in public favor? Or do you just not care? Why bother refuting what we would know without any polls at all?

T
K
O
0 Replies
 
H2O MAN
 
  1  
Sat 28 Jun, 2008 07:16 am
Republicans are in public favor, but the press refuses to report anything that would make the Republicans look good.

It's all part of a vast left wing conspiracy to hind the truth.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Sat 28 Jun, 2008 08:12 am
H2O_MAN wrote:
Republicans are in public favor, but the press refuses to report anything that would make the Republicans look good.

It's all part of a vast left wing conspiracy to hind the truth.

Laughing
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Sat 28 Jun, 2008 08:42 am
old europe wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
nimh wrote:
H2O_MAN wrote:
[Bush]is still rated higher than the Democrat House and Senate.

Um.

Even at his disastrous poll ratings, Bush is still polling higher than Congress - this much is true.

Where your implication shipwrecks is that the same polls are showing the Democrats in Congress with significantly better ratings than the Republicans in Congress.

So you got Bush doing worse than Clinton ever did, and within the even worse-scoring Congress, the Republicans doing worse than the Democrats.


Without knowing how the questions were posed, I don't think we can say for sure why the GOP scores lower than the Democrats in charge. But since it has been the Democrats in control in Congress for the last two years, the only way the GOP is scoring lower is via Republicans refusing to give accolades to their elected leaders who didn't do the job. Since in two years the Dems haven't accomplished much of anything they promised their constituency, perhaps the Democrats simply set the bar lower for their guys than does the GOP?



Translation: I don't like the results, so I'm gonna question the methodology of the polls and the integrity of those polled...


No, it is simple logic.

The GOP should be out of favor because they did little better than the Democrats when they were in charge in recent years; however, their record in accomplishing some good legislation is better than the Democrats.

The GOP can't be rationally blamed for the failures of Congress in the last two years, however, so the Dems must be giving points to the Dems just because they are Democrats. There is no other logical explanation given the facts of an abysmal record.
0 Replies
 
H2O MAN
 
  1  
Sat 28 Jun, 2008 08:43 am
joefromchicago wrote:
H2O_MAN wrote:
Republicans are in public favor, but the press refuses to report anything that would make the Republicans look good.

It's all part of a vast left wing conspiracy to hind the truth.

Laughing


It is fun to re-use something Mrs. Bill Clinton used long ago...
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Sat 28 Jun, 2008 08:46 am
We'll have to wait and see what happens when the democrats take over both the administration and congress in November. If the democrats win the majority in congress, then we can see if their performance rating goes up or remains the same. That's the bottom line; not when the GOP stop-gaps most legislation, and Bush vetos most others in the current federal government.
0 Replies
 
Roxxxanne
 
  1  
Sat 28 Jun, 2008 08:58 am
Foxfyre wrote:


Without knowing how the questions were posed, I don't think we [we???]can say for sure why the GOP scores lower than the Democrats in charge.



http://www.mrdowling.com/images/604nile.jpg
0 Replies
 
H2O MAN
 
  1  
Sat 28 Jun, 2008 09:03 am
cicerone imposter wrote:
If the democrats win the majority in congress, then we can see if their performance rating goes up or remains the same.


Democrat performance:

How could it get any worse?
0 Replies
 
Roxxxanne
 
  1  
Sat 28 Jun, 2008 09:13 am
Foxfyre wrote:


The GOP can't be rationally blamed for the failures of Congress in the last two years, however, so the Dems must be giving points to the Dems just because they are Democrats. There is no other logical explanation given the facts of an abysmal record.



LOL that FF is lecturing the board on rationality. Smile


Were it actually true that the Dems had been in control of Congress for two of the eight years of the disastrous Bush administration, rational people could lay part of the blame to the Dems for the horrid state of things but, of course, the Dems weren't in contol of Congress during any part of the Bush administration. They have controllled the House for a year anf a half.


During less turbulent times, the electorate is generally hsppy with a stalemeate situation in government (President one party and the Congress the other) But these are times where the elctorate wants and needs change and it cannot happen when, in effect, one party rules. And, despite FFs delusions, that is effectively what we have now.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

So....Will Biden Be VP? - Question by blueveinedthrobber
My view on Obama - Discussion by McGentrix
Obama/ Love Him or Hate Him, We've Got Him - Discussion by Phoenix32890
Obama fumbles at Faith Forum - Discussion by slkshock7
Expert: Obama is not the antichrist - Discussion by joefromchicago
Obama's State of the Union - Discussion by maxdancona
Obama 2012? - Discussion by snood
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Obama '08?
  3. » Page 952
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.18 seconds on 07/17/2025 at 03:23:29