1
   

At LEAST WE AINT REPUBLICANS

 
 
Reply Fri 19 May, 2006 10:45 am
With the above statement, I believe Ive just summarized what I see as the entire Democratic platform.
While it has its appeal, I feel that something more is needed. Something that tells the (voting) AMericn Public that the Democrats have lots to offer:
I would like to see us stuff the Democratic party brain trust with ideas that should be forwarded for the upcoming elections in November.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 2,961 • Replies: 61
No top replies

 
Bi-Polar Bear
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 May, 2006 10:49 am
Re: At LEAST WE AINT REPUBLICANS
farmerman wrote:
With the above statement, I believe Ive just summarized what I see as the entire Democratic platform.
While it has its appeal, I feel that something more is needed. Something that tells the (voting) AMericn Public that the Democrats have lots to offer:
I would like to see us stuff the Democratic party brain trust with ideas that should be forwarded for the upcoming elections in November.


farmerman you've hit the nail right on the head....
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 May, 2006 10:50 am
Damn. Smashed that nail right through the board....
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 May, 2006 11:34 am
Well, lets think of some **** and get it off to the DNC. I need a less sanctimoneous , more "little guy" and "Small business" oriented Senator that isnt busy spinning relief for Billionaires as his first goal.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 May, 2006 11:38 am
At least i ain't in Pennsylvania . . . oh, sorry . . .
0 Replies
 
Bi-Polar Bear
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 May, 2006 12:32 pm
Hey I got Jesse Helms in panty hose.. Evil or Very Mad
0 Replies
 
xingu
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 May, 2006 03:31 pm
Maybe Brandon can give us some ideas Laughing
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 May, 2006 04:58 am
farmerperson

I'm not even certain that I want the Dems to regain congress in six months or the White House in 2 and a half years.

Imagine dropping into the narrative, immediately following the last period of the last sentence of dialogue of Lear or Hamlet or Oedipus Rex. Like a Greek tragic chorus, you've watched everything go seriously to **** and what do you - set with the responsibility of mending cosmicly demolished states of affairs - do now? Spendius, at a point such as this, would surely (and appropriately) toss in the following...
"and the only sound that's left
after the ambulances go
is Cinderella sweeping up
on Desolation Row"

As a practical matter towards regaining power (if one concludes that regaining power now is likely to be more advantageous than not regaining it and allowing things to get so horrid that the new conservative movement and the modern republican party becomes equated in the mind of americans with pus, dead babies and scabrous disease) the dems need not do any more than the silly, simplistic and superficial motto-mongering of Gingrich's contract with America. Silence on substantive policies has the advantage (a real advantage) of the Fabian - very hard to target for attack. And that's particularly true when the other side is busy ripping itself to bits.
0 Replies
 
Asherman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 May, 2006 08:39 am
Blatham,

It sounds as if you're recommending that the Democrats concede the upcoming elections to the Republican Party. Rather than make any positive attempt to correct all the "terrible" policies of the past 8 years, the Democrats will have the satisfaction of gloating as the country is flushed away. This seems to be a continuation of the Democratic approach that has worked so well all during the present administration. No ideas or no solutions, only whining, complaining and "I told you so". Works for me, though I would hate to see the Democratic Party a successful suicide.

You remain so convinced that the Republican Party is the personification of evil, and will forever "become equated in the mind of Americans with pus, dead babies and scabrous disease". Some Democrats were confident that President Bush would be defeated in the last Presidential canvas for similar, though not quite so vividly described, predictions of how terrible things had become with a Conservative government. You guys were wrong then, and I'm pretty sure you're still wrong about how odious this Administration is with the American electorate. Either put up your best candidate and a platform to correct what you believe to be so wrong, or don't whine about losing later. I suspect that the Democrats will do neither.

Your advice to let the opposition self-destruct "when the other side is busy ripping itself to bits" applies equally well to the GOP. Let the Democrats remain fixed in its hatred of this President and unresponsive to the issues, and the Republican Party can win elections for a long, long time. The danger to the Republican Party is that it will become so used to dealing with nut cases that it will eventually become complacent and arrogant. That would be very bad for the country, so I sincerely hope that the Democratic Party will wake-up and revive itself.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 May, 2006 08:41 am
xingu wrote:
Maybe Brandon can give us some ideas Laughing

No, but I do have a question. How is it possible that liberals don't have their own platform at this late date?
0 Replies
 
candidone1
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 May, 2006 06:19 pm
blatham wrote:
farmerperson

I'm not even certain that I want the Dems to regain congress in six months or the White House in 2 and a half years.

Imagine dropping into the narrative, immediately following the last period of the last sentence of dialogue of Lear or Hamlet or Oedipus Rex. Like a Greek tragic chorus, you've watched everything go seriously to **** and what do you - set with the responsibility of mending cosmicly demolished states of affairs - do now? Spendius, at a point such as this, would surely (and appropriately) toss in the following...
"and the only sound that's left
after the ambulances go
is Cinderella sweeping up
on Desolation Row"

As a practical matter towards regaining power (if one concludes that regaining power now is likely to be more advantageous than not regaining it and allowing things to get so horrid that the new conservative movement and the modern republican party becomes equated in the mind of americans with pus, dead babies and scabrous disease) the dems need not do any more than the silly, simplistic and superficial motto-mongering of Gingrich's contract with America. Silence on substantive policies has the advantage (a real advantage) of the Fabian - very hard to target for attack. And that's particularly true when the other side is busy ripping itself to bits.


This was precisely why it was good that Bush won in '04.
There is indeed a rather substantial mess to clean up.....

Perhaps that's why the Dems are struggling so much now. It's like cleaning up after a hurricane.
Where do you begin?
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 May, 2006 07:53 pm
Asherman wrote:
Blatham,

It sounds as if you're recommending that the Democrats concede the upcoming elections to the Republican Party. Rather than make any positive attempt to correct all the "terrible" policies of the past 8 years, the Democrats will have the satisfaction of gloating as the country is flushed away. This seems to be a continuation of the Democratic approach that has worked so well all during the present administration. No ideas or no solutions, only whining, complaining and "I told you so". Works for me, though I would hate to see the Democratic Party a successful suicide.

You remain so convinced that the Republican Party is the personification of evil, and will forever "become equated in the mind of Americans with pus, dead babies and scabrous disease". Some Democrats were confident that President Bush would be defeated in the last Presidential canvas for similar, though not quite so vividly described, predictions of how terrible things had become with a Conservative government. You guys were wrong then, and I'm pretty sure you're still wrong about how odious this Administration is with the American electorate. Either put up your best candidate and a platform to correct what you believe to be so wrong, or don't whine about losing later. I suspect that the Democrats will do neither.

Your advice to let the opposition self-destruct "when the other side is busy ripping itself to bits" applies equally well to the GOP. Let the Democrats remain fixed in its hatred of this President and unresponsive to the issues, and the Republican Party can win elections for a long, long time. The danger to the Republican Party is that it will become so used to dealing with nut cases that it will eventually become complacent and arrogant. That would be very bad for the country, so I sincerely hope that the Democratic Party will wake-up and revive itself.


asherman

I first bumped into your political analyses here... http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1048&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=390 ... where you went on about terrorist nukes and Hussein's WOMD and his funding of international terrorism. I don't think you've gotten a single important thing right from that point on through today. Now, if you demonstrated even the slightest propensity towards honest appraisal of how much you've gotten wrong, why you got it so wrong, and how incompetent and dishonest this administration you support has proved to be, then I'd find some value in bothering to speak with you and I might minimally credit, as a point of manners if nothing else, your analyses of matters political. As it stands, a rational betting man would take whatever you say and lay money on the opposite.
0 Replies
 
xingu
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 May, 2006 08:51 pm
Interesting stats on Bush's deficit. Here's a real disaster.

http://www.senate.gov/~budget/democratic/charts/2005/packet_markupfy06budgetresopeningstmt030905.pdf
0 Replies
 
Amigo
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 May, 2006 08:55 pm
I think the weakest thing about the Democratic platform is the apathy of the people they are trying to represent.
0 Replies
 
xingu
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 May, 2006 09:04 pm
Quote:
Iraq war could cost $2.6 trillion
January 10, 2006

The cost of the Iraq war could top $US2 trillion ($A2.66 trillion), far above the US administration's pre-war projections, according to a new study.

The study takes into account long-term costs such as lifetime health care for thousands of wounded US soldiers.

Columbia University economist Joseph E Stiglitz and Harvard lecturer Linda Bilmes included the disability payments for the 16,000 wounded US soldiers, about 20 per cent of whom suffer serious brain or spinal injuries.

They said US taxpayers will be burdened with costs that linger long after US troops withdraw.

"Even taking a conservative approach, we have been surprised at how large they are," the study said, referring to total war costs.

"We can state, with some degree of confidence, that they exceed a trillion dollars."

Before the invasion, then-White House budget director Mitch Daniels predicted Iraq would be "an affordable endeavor".

He rejected an estimate by then-White House economic adviser Lawrence Lindsey of total Iraq war costs at $100 billion to $200 billion as "very, very high".

Unforeseen costs include recruiting to replenish a military drained by multiple tours of duty, slower long-term US economic growth and health-care bills for treating long-term mental illness suffered by war veterans.

Citing army statistics, the study said about 30 per cent of US troops had developed mental-health problems within three to four months of returning from Iraq as of July 2005.

Stiglitz won the Nobel Prize in Economics in 2001 and has been an outspoken critic of the Bush administration's Iraq policy.

He and Bilmes based their projections partly on past wars and included the economic cost of higher oil prices, a bigger US budget deficit and greater global insecurity caused by the Iraq war.

They said a portion of the rise in oil prices - about 20 per cent of the $US25 a barrel gain in oil prices since the war began - could be attributed directly to the conflict and that this had already cost the United States about $US25 billion ($A33 billion).

"Americans are, in a sense, poorer by that amount," they said, describing that estimate as conservative.

The projection of a total cost of $US2 trillion ($A2.66 trillion) assumes US troops stay in Iraq until 2010 but with steadily declining numbers each year.

They projected the number of troops there in 2006 at about 136,000. Currently, the US has 153,000 troops in Iraq.

- Reuters


Would someone please remind us why are we in Iraq. What threat to America was so serious that we had to incur this horrible cost?

Bush's war.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 May, 2006 09:29 pm
blatham wrote:
asherman

I first bumped into your political analyses here... http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1048&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=390 ... where you went on about terrorist nukes and Hussein's WOMD and his funding of international terrorism. I don't think you've gotten a single important thing right from that point on through today. Now, if you demonstrated even the slightest propensity towards honest appraisal of how much you've gotten wrong, why you got it so wrong, and how incompetent and dishonest this administration you support has proved to be, then I'd find some value in bothering to speak with you and I might minimally credit, as a point of manners if nothing else, your analyses of matters political. As it stands, a rational betting man would take whatever you say and lay money on the opposite.


Your long silence here didn't do much for your disposition and good humor. Too bad.

Hope the business is going well.

BTW I must go to a conference in Vancouver in a couple of weeks. Never been there. Any suggestions for venu, sights, restaurants, etc?
0 Replies
 
talk72000
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 May, 2006 10:46 pm
Gastown is where all the fancy restaurants are. Burrard Street where the expensive shops are. There is even a Tiffany's Jewellery store. There is hiking but death is just a slip away as the mountain sides are rugged and steep. Several tourists have died falling down the slopes as they ventured beyond the safe zone boundaries. Capilano Suspension Bridge is an attraction. You are too late for skiing at Whistler Mountain. There are a few movie stars shooting their films: Ben Stiller, Brosnan Pierce, Tom Berenger, Anne Heche, Rebecca DeMornay, Timothy Hutton, Mirander Richardson, Halle Berry, Hugh Jackson, etc. There is Stanley Park just like in New York City but at the water's edge. There is Chinatown and Richmond just 20 minutes' is almostlike Hong Kong. Lots of Chinese there. There is Little India on Main Street and Fraser Street by Marine Drive. Downtown there is the Art Gallery, and Heliport if you are inclined for a Helicopter tour. Victoria is where the Provincial Government is. Careful about Chinatown. It is located by the poorest neighborhood in Canada - East Vancouver. Drug addicts infest the outskirts of Chinatown. Perhaps Blatham and Chumly could give you a better rundown.
0 Replies
 
talk72000
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 May, 2006 11:15 pm
To the point, proportional representation would be ideal and if a few more parties gain seats that would be great as more ideas will be generated. I was thinking that the Senate should be expanded to 4 seats with 2 new seats having Senators win from regional areas such as:

South (Georgia, Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi),

Midwest (Illinois, Iowa, Indiana, Nebraska, Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma),

Northeast (Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, New York),

Rocky Mountain States (Idaho, Wyoming, Colorado, Utah),

West Coast (California, Oregon, Washington),

Desert States (Nevada, New Mexico, Arizona),

Northern States (Montana, Minnesota, North and South Dakotas),

East Coast (North and South Carolinas, Virginia, Pennsylvania, Maryland) , etc.

These new Senators could only gain seniority as they represent the region thus reducing the pork barrel now rife with Senators elected by the state like that Alaskan Senator Stevens.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 May, 2006 11:25 pm
xingu wrote:
Quote:
Iraq war could cost $2.6 trillion
January 10, 2006

The cost of the Iraq war could top $US2 trillion ($A2.66 trillion), far above the US administration's pre-war projections, according to a new study.

The study takes into account long-term costs such as lifetime health care for thousands of wounded US soldiers.

Columbia University economist Joseph E Stiglitz and Harvard lecturer Linda Bilmes included the disability payments for the 16,000 wounded US soldiers, about 20 per cent of whom suffer serious brain or spinal injuries.

They said US taxpayers will be burdened with costs that linger long after US troops withdraw.

"Even taking a conservative approach, we have been surprised at how large they are," the study said, referring to total war costs.

"We can state, with some degree of confidence, that they exceed a trillion dollars."

Before the invasion, then-White House budget director Mitch Daniels predicted Iraq would be "an affordable endeavor".

He rejected an estimate by then-White House economic adviser Lawrence Lindsey of total Iraq war costs at $100 billion to $200 billion as "very, very high".

Unforeseen costs include recruiting to replenish a military drained by multiple tours of duty, slower long-term US economic growth and health-care bills for treating long-term mental illness suffered by war veterans.

Citing army statistics, the study said about 30 per cent of US troops had developed mental-health problems within three to four months of returning from Iraq as of July 2005.

Stiglitz won the Nobel Prize in Economics in 2001 and has been an outspoken critic of the Bush administration's Iraq policy.

He and Bilmes based their projections partly on past wars and included the economic cost of higher oil prices, a bigger US budget deficit and greater global insecurity caused by the Iraq war.

They said a portion of the rise in oil prices - about 20 per cent of the $US25 a barrel gain in oil prices since the war began - could be attributed directly to the conflict and that this had already cost the United States about $US25 billion ($A33 billion).

"Americans are, in a sense, poorer by that amount," they said, describing that estimate as conservative.

The projection of a total cost of $US2 trillion ($A2.66 trillion) assumes US troops stay in Iraq until 2010 but with steadily declining numbers each year.

They projected the number of troops there in 2006 at about 136,000. Currently, the US has 153,000 troops in Iraq.

- Reuters


Would someone please remind us why are we in Iraq. What threat to America was so serious that we had to incur this horrible cost?

Bush's war.

The fact that one single WMD of various types can obliterate an entire city.
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 May, 2006 11:32 pm
Brandon9000 wrote:
The fact that one single WMD of various types can obliterate an entire city.

You mean the ones that Saddam didn't have, and couldn't have delivered to a US target, anyway?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
  1. Forums
  2. » At LEAST WE AINT REPUBLICANS
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.09 seconds on 12/02/2021 at 06:19:12