GOP Gaining Across America

[g5man]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20031105-112752-9755r.htm

This article shows why Bush will be hard to beat next year.

Once again elections in California, Mississippi, and Kentucky, shows how this trend is becoming reality.

[ColoJohnBoy]

How depressing. I think I'd rather hang myself than spend four years under the tyranny of that man.

[jonapete2001]

Originally posted by ColoJohnBoy
How depressing. I think I'd rather hang myself than spend four years under the tyranny of that man.

are you opressed. How. Please do tell. How has your life changed since the clinton white house left.

Tyrany. Ha you make me laugh

[zimv20]

Originally posted by jonapete2001
How has your life changed since the clinton white house left.


my portfolio has been losing money, most of my friends are out of jobs or took pay cut, theater attendence sucks, i feel unsafe traveling to certain countries, friends have left the US (both citizens and foreigners), my healthcare premiums have increased 100%, IL state budget cuts, declining public transit service, more crime in my neighborhood, et. al.

but hey -- i got $300 out of the deal!!!

[Taft]

Originally posted by jonapete2001
are you opressed. How. Please do tell. How has your life changed since the clinton white house left.

Tyrany. Ha you make me laugh

The reasons are numerous...


The Patriot Act. (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=39960)

War (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=38382) mongering (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=46110)

War profiteering. (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=44978)

Killing our nation's youth (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=44409)

Environmental (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=46116) damage (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=45435)

Petty acts against detractors. (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=39932)

This administration is the worst I can remember. I will do everything I can to help vote Bush out of office next year. I don't care which democrat you are talking about, they have to be better than this corrupt administration.

Taft

[Dont Hurt Me]

i must say this! is the electoral college really needed anymore? Gore did win the majority vote. I think they should do away with it and simply add up the votes across the country and whoever has the most votes wins. 1 man 1 vote for our president.

[g5man]

Originally posted by Taft

This administration is the worst I can remember. I will do everything I can to help vote Bush out of office next year. I don't care which democrat you are talking about, they have to be better than this corrupt administration.

Taft

Well we know what the GOP is doing. What can you do as an individual to vote Bush out of office?

[zimv20]

Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
is the electoral college really needed anymore?

it doesn't seem to be working the way it was intended to. and w/ all the strides in communications, there's a problem that no longer needs to be overcome.

so, yes, i could see myself supporting a new system. maybe even popular vote.

[g5man]

Originally posted by zimv20
it doesn't seem to be working the way it was intended to. and w/ all the strides in communications, there's a problem that no longer needs to be overcome.

so, yes, i could see myself supporting a new system. maybe even popular vote.

This is off topic.

The electoral college was established to ensure that the interests of the smaller states are taken into account when electing a president.

It is not enough that the candidate's views be heard, but rather that in order for him to win he needs to win the whole state not just the popular vote of the country.

If a candidate only campaigned in the big states he could win simply by getting most of the population to vote in those states. Each state is equally important in the eyes of the constitution.

[Dont Hurt Me]

why should these interest hold more weight in the 21st century?

[Desertrat]

Don'tHurtMe, let me push the envelope a little: Let's pretend that 60% or 75% of the population lives in only three of the 50 states. Let's assume that those states vote very heavily for only one party, and thus from a popular vote standpoint control the Presidency.

Should the other 47 states just sit out in the cold? And, what difference does it make that we're in the 21st Century?

'Rat

[g5man]

Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
why should these interest hold more weight in the 21st century?

Excellent question. Well you would have to ask those smaller states, but I would suspect they want equal treatment.

i doubt they would want a federal administration branch telling them how to run their state without any consequences.

In today's mass federal distribution of dollars to the states it becomes an even bigger issue.

[mactastic]

Let's dole the electoral votes out by congressional district, with the overall winner in the state taking the two senate-given votes. That way a state that votes nearly 50/50 for a candidate would still give a nearly 50/50 distribution of the electoral votes. A couple states do it this way now AFAIK. Seems a lot more fair to me, although the networks would have to revamp their red/blue maps.

[Rower_CPU]

Originally posted by Desertrat
Don'tHurtMe, let me push the envelope a little: Let's pretend that 60% or 75% of the population lives in only three of the 50 states. Let's assume that those states vote very heavily for only one party, and thus from a popular vote standpoint control the Presidency.

Should the other 47 states just sit out in the cold? And, what difference does it make that we're in the 21st Century?

'Rat

In that case you still have a majority of the population voting for one candidate and the electoral votes would be heavily skewed in their favor as well.

Those 3 large states would have about 300 electoral votes if we go by population, and a candidate only needs 270 to win.

Should 47 states of empty land have more say in what the other 3 do?

[Sayhey]

Don't Hurt Me,
you are absolutely right the Electoral College should be abolished. Throughout the world we support the principle of one person, one vote, but here at home we ignore how the anachronistic Electoral College undermines this principle. If we want to make sure that rural states are paid attention to in Presidential Campaigns that is easily done by other means. For instance, we could make it a requirement to get matching funds for candidates to campaign in all 50 states (or a certain portion of them).

There is no moral justification to count the vote for president of a person in Wyoming as more valuable than mine in California. The only reason we still have this system is the political power held by conservative rural congress members (mostly Republicans.) If we want to teach the world about democracy, we should set our own house in order.

[Ugg]

Originally posted by Sayhey
There is no moral justification to count the vote for president of a person in Wyoming as more valuable than mine in California. The only reason we still have this system is the political power held by conservative rural congress members (mostly Republicans.) If we want to teach the world about democracy, we should set our own house in order.

Absolutely! Why should my address deny me the same amount of influence that someone in ND or ME? It shouldn't and the Electoral College has no place in a democracy. Once again a reason to not believe in the infallibility of the founding fathers. They were responding to a very reasonable situation with a method that didn't take into account future changes to the republic. Does Congress have the guts to float an amendment? I doubt it or we would have seen it by now. So, the world's greatest democracy will remain very undemocratic in its choice of its president. It's a shame really.

PS What's with the 18-30 crowd and their support of the Republican party? I totally fail to understand this. Anyone have any links or ideas?

[Sayhey]

Originally posted by Ugg
Absolutely! Why should my address deny me the same amount of influence that someone in ND or ME? It shouldn't and the Electoral College has no place in a democracy. Once again a reason to not believe in the infallibility of the founding fathers. They were responding to a very reasonable situation with a method that didn't take into account future changes to the republic. Does Congress have the guts to float an amendment? I doubt it or we would have seen it by now. So, the world's greatest democracy will remain very undemocratic in its choice of its president. It's a shame really.

PS What's with the 18-30 crowd and their support of the Republican party? I totally fail to understand this. Anyone have any links or ideas?

I can only guess, Ugg, but I would note that this age group grew up with the impeachment of Clinton and his sex scandals. This was, of course, followed by an upsurge of support for Bush because of 9/11. It is easy to fall for the rhetoric and simple minded solutions of the right-wing in that kind of environment.

As to the Electoral College I can again only guess that Democratic candidates won't take this issue on in fear of upsetting voters in smaller states. Somebody needs to lead the issue from the moral high ground and that means it will have to come from someplace else than Congress or the Presidential candidates. Care to start a "grass roots" movement?

[g5man]

Originally posted by Ugg


PS What's with the 18-30 crowd and their support of the Republican party? I totally fail to understand this. Anyone have any links or ideas?

Here is one poll that deals with this.
http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?PageID=750

Here is another.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20031022-104650-8670r.htm

[Ugg]

Originally posted by g5man
Here is one poll that deals with this.
http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?PageID=750

Here is another.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20031022-104650-8670r.htm

Both of those links were informative, Thanks! However, neither of them really dealt with why the younger generation is turning to the Republican party. Is it that their parents are more likely to be GOPers? Are Democrats having fewer kids? Did Bill appeal more to their parents and why does gw appeal to them? He comes across as a barely literate, confused east coast elitist with a hankering for barbeque and I can see no reason that that image would appeal to college age students.

The one telling part of the WA Times article was the last sentence where many seniors doubted the possiblity of finding a job upon graduation in 04. Once again, economic blips aside I really think this election will be about jobs. Of course, the disaster that is Iraq will play a part too.

[Dont Hurt Me]

The democrats come across to me as sore loosers who will say and do anything to pander to the listening crowd, those clowns the other night proved that. I dont think you have to ask yourself why GOP is gaining. its very simple they are closer to American ideas and ideals then the liberal democrats. Remember Apple pie? how about the red white and blue? wasnt it the democratic party worried these colors would offend??? democrats stand for nothing for everyone even at the cost of diluting anything and everything that makes America what it is. its as if its more important to be democrat then American. makes we want to vomit everytime i hear dean and the toops beat there chest about being democrat. as an American i could care a less about either party since they are both screwing the American taxpayer as hard as they can. at least the republicans want you to keep more of your hard earn money while the other party is looking for ways to spend your money as if it belongs to them. Didnt Davis just get the boot from California?voters are getting sick of same old democratic mud slinging party.

[Sayhey]

Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
The democrats come across to me as sore loosers who will say and do anything to pander to the listening crowd, those clowns the other night proved that. I dont think you have to ask yourself why GOP is gaining. its very simple they are closer to American ideas and ideals then the liberal democrats. Remember Apple pie? how about the red white and blue? wasnt it the democratic party worried these colors would offend??? democrats stand for nothing for everyone even at the cost of diluting anything and everything that makes America what it is. its as if its more important to be democrat then American. makes we want to vomit everytime i hear dean and the toops beat there chest about being democrat. as an American i could care a less about either party since they are both screwing the American taxpayer as hard as they can. at least the republicans want you to keep more of your hard earn money while the other party is looking for ways to spend your money as if it belongs to them. Didnt Davis just get the boot from California?voters are getting sick of same old democratic mud slinging party.

Many Democrats view themselves as sore winners. Having been robbed of the 2000 election and having to watch a seemingly incompetent man led us into the disaster of Iraq, Democrats and all the people of this country have reason to be angry.

If I look for mud-slinging it is in the kind of election tactics that call someone like Max Cleland's patriotism into question. It is a sad commentary that too many, especially in the South are falling for the use of patriotic symbols and jingoism to blind them to what is going on.

[Code101]

GOP Gaining Across America!

I must say that it's good news but not good enough. Republicans need to fight even harder and seek more support. It's not good enough to just have President Bush win next year. We need to take at least 10 more seats in the Senate and 25 or so more in the House. The more, the better.

State elections need to do better as well.

No giving ourselfs a pat on the back yet. Much work to be done!

[Code101]

Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
i must say this! is the electoral college really needed anymore? Gore did win the majority vote. I think they should do away with it and simply add up the votes across the country and whoever has the most votes wins. 1 man 1 vote for our president.

Then as soon as a Republican wins the clear majority vote, you will want the electoral back. You can't have it both ways. The founding fathers set it up this way for a good reason. We would do best to leave it as it is.

President Bush will carry a large majority in 2004. People are sick of Demos.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by Code101
People are sick of Demos.

yeah, just release the damn thing already.

[Sayhey]

Originally posted by zimv20
yeah, just release the damn thing already.

Careful zim, that one may well be over his head.

[Code101]

Originally posted by Sayhey
Careful zim, that one may well be over his head.


It's called, you are both lost for words.

Your both so funny, I can't stand it. Your not too Mature but very funny.

[Sayhey]

Originally posted by Code101
Then as soon as a Republican wins the clear majority vote, you will want the electoral back. You can't have it both ways. The founding fathers set it up this way for a good reason. We would do best to leave it as it is.

President Bush will carry a large majority in 2004. People are sick of Demos.

The founding fathers also set up the constitution to include slavery, denial of rights to women, and only allowed white men who owned land to vote. Should we go back to that or have some of the changes in the old document since then made sense?

Don't crow about elections before they happen because your predictions could come back to haunt you.

[zimv20]

i find it interesting that, to code, politics is about 'winning'. gotta beat the libs! to me, what's at stake is a better america. i don't give a rat's ass about beating someone and subjugating their views.

[Desertrat]

With respect to the Electoral College, it's just part of our deal that was set up when we became a representative republic. The U.S. of A. is not and never has been a democracy. The E.C. is just a part of the checks and balances. It has worked well, through the years--but no system yet devised is perfect.

As with issues such as voting rights and slavery, there are Constitutional provisions for changing away from the E.C., if that's what a majority of the voters want.

'Rat

[Sayhey]

Originally posted by Desertrat
With respect to the Electoral College, it's just part of our deal that was set up when we became a representative republic. The U.S. of A. is not and never has been a democracy. The E.C. is just a part of the checks and balances. It has worked well, through the years--but no system yet devised is perfect.

As with issues such as voting rights and slavery, there are Constitutional provisions for changing away from the E.C., if that's what a majority of the voters want.

'Rat

'Rat,

the US aspires to be a representative democracy. Always has, though there are those that falsely point to the republican form of government and think that means we are not a democracy.

It is ironic that the very day that Bush decides to lecture the Middle East on the need for democracy that you would try to assert we are not one ourselves.

"Our commitment to democracy is being tested in the Middle East," he said in a televised Washington speech in defence of US democracy.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3248119.stm

The electoral college was a way of balancing states powers and an administrative measure in the days of horse drawn communications. If we support democracy, like we say we do, then it should be no question that we need to get rid of this outrage. The fact that we have a President who did not receive the most votes in the election should say it all.

[wwworry]

Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
at least the republicans want you to keep more of your hard earn money while the other party is looking for ways to spend your money as if it belongs to them.

This is clearly false and untrue. This republican congress and president are spending far more money than the previous one. They are just pretending that if we pay for things on credit no one will notice the bill later or that the bill will magically disappear later.

Yes, the republicans are the big spenders and they do not take responsibility for their incurred debts.

[Dont Hurt Me]

Originally posted by Code101
Then as soon as a Republican wins the clear majority vote, you will want the electoral back. You can't have it both ways. The founding fathers set it up this way for a good reason. We would do best to leave it as it is.

President Bush will carry a large majority in 2004. People are sick of Demos. Not so for iam not a republican just a fence rider who is observing things, electoral college is no longer needed,1 man 1 vote period that is democracy.

[Desertrat]

"It is ironic that the very day that Bush decides to lecture the Middle East on the need for democracy that you would try to assert we are not one ourselves."

Since when has Dubya been known to be precise in his use of words? :D

We use a democratic process to elect representatives. In theory, these representatives work for the good of the whole country, not just those who voted for them. The "whole country" includes those who voted for their campaign opponents. (I realize this is an idealism, a theory. However, that doesn't mean the opposition should be vilified or its ideas ignored.)

I'd just as soon stay with the Electoral College deal. Doing everything by popular vote gets too close to legislating by polling results. You get Mobocracy, with two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for supper. I also subscribe to that 1797 comment that a democracy can only work until the populace discovers that largesse can be voted from the public coffers--as we've been doing, now, for some seventy years...

:), 'Rat

[mactastic]

One big problem I have with the EC system is that states that are already solidly one way or another are overlooked in favor of the "swing states". For example, the steel tarrifs that the anti-tarrif (in principle) Bush pushed were more of an attempt to help his prospects in certain big-steel states. The farm subsidies bill that was passed (with bi-partisan cowardice) was pushed by the adminsitration (read Rove) in order to pick up votes in critical farm states. Members of congress from those states were all to willing to go along, as it brings more pork to their homes. Places like California were ignored last time around, although it looks like Bush is going to mount an offensive here this year with Arnold's help, if for no other reason than to force the Dems to spend precious campaign dollars in the states hugely expensive TV market. The point is that states that are considered solidly behind one party or another aren't seen as worth campaigning in. A system where each congressional district is up for grabs would at least force the candidates to make the decision about whether to push hard in certain places on a much more local level.

Under such a system, Bush could concievable get a good third of California's electoral votes, although he would lose about half of the ones from Florida.

[Taft]

Originally posted by mactastic
One big problem I have with the EC system is that states that are already solidly one way or another are overlooked in favor of the "swing states". For example, the steel tarrifs that the anti-tarrif (in principle) Bush pushed were more of an attempt to help his prospects in certain big-steel states. The farm subsidies bill that was passed (with bi-partisan cowardice) was pushed by the adminsitration (read Rove) in order to pick up votes in critical farm states. Members of congress from those states were all to willing to go along, as it brings more pork to their homes. Places like California were ignored last time around, although it looks like Bush is going to mount an offensive here this year with Arnold's help, if for no other reason than to force the Dems to spend precious campaign dollars in the states hugely expensive TV market. The point is that states that are considered solidly behind one party or another aren't seen as worth campaigning in. A system where each congressional district is up for grabs would at least force the candidates to make the decision about whether to push hard in certain places on a much more local level.

Under such a system, Bush could concievable get a good third of California's electoral votes, although he would lose about half of the ones from Florida.

That is a problem.

Also there is the issue of biased redistricting. It has been shown (as most people learn in high school) that how the electoral districts are set up can have a very large influence on which party has control of the district. As can be seen in Texas right now, the power to redistrict can be leveraged by a party to influence the likely outcome of a particular district.

This is particularly disturbing when used against minorities or ethnic groups. By splitting up minorities or groups into seperate districts if they are likely to vote for a particular party, a party can practically rig an election (at least in terms of a single district).

Its even got a name: Gerrymandering.

The electoral college provides some very nice protections against abuse of democracy and so called mobocracy. However, it also opens the door to other kinds of corruption.

I personally think that the electoral college is a good thing, but it needs "repairing" to prevent one party or another from manipulating the system to their own advantage.

Taft

[Taft]

Originally posted by g5man
Well we know what the GOP is doing. What can you do as an individual to vote Bush out of office?

I said "help vote" Bush out of office.

I am planning on volunteering my time and some available resources to help another candidate in the next election. There are tons of things the average person can do. Hand out flyers, put up signs, go door to door to gather support, etc., etc.

Personally, if I did nothing to prevent this man (whom I believe has acted with so little morals) from being re-elected, I would feel pretty bad about myself. I have a lot of passion directed against the current administration. I will act in run up to the next elections.

Taft

[g5man]

My fault in use of words.

Great, glad to hear you will play a part in the election process.

Right now is there a candidate on the other side who has demonstrated the leadership qualities to unseat Bush?

[Desertrat]

Taft, your comment, "As can be seen in Texas right now, the power to redistrict can be leveraged by a party to influence the likely outcome of a particular district." is spot-on.

However, I'm highly amused by this. The Dems had no trouble doing the same thing, for decades. They laughed and laughed about it, taunting the few Republicans. Now, the shoe is on the other foot, and we get to see sudden high-mindedness from some of these same once-laughing people. Suddenly, they've discovered "Principles"! :D

However, this redistricting will merely make the Congressional delegation more closely match the actual Republican representation at the state level. It will be more representational of statewide voting patterns. I have no objection to that.

'Rat

[g5man]

The biggest move towards more conservative views in this country is primarly created by a change in attitude. Over the the years people have slowly understood why this country is so wonderfull. They simply take a look at the world and then come home and realize how lucky they are to be born and live here.

This started in the 80's and has moved slowly buy surely in that direction. This does not mean that democrats can not win, just that it will become harder for them with each year. The DLC sees this and warned the party two months ago. Zell Miller is also seeing the writing on the wall.

As the GOP has gotten stronger and richer it has and is putting itself in a position to change the political landscape for at least 50 years. Those who don't see this are not paying attention.

Clinton was an anomly and those can happen but will be very rare.

[Sayhey]

Originally posted by Desertrat
Taft, your comment, "As can be seen in Texas right now, the power to redistrict can be leveraged by a party to influence the likely outcome of a particular district." is spot-on.

However, I'm highly amused by this. The Dems had no trouble doing the same thing, for decades. They laughed and laughed about it, taunting the few Republicans. Now, the shoe is on the other foot, and we get to see sudden high-mindedness from some of these same once-laughing people. Suddenly, they've discovered "Principles"! :D

However, this redistricting will merely make the Congressional delegation more closely match the actual Republican representation at the state level. It will be more representational of statewide voting patterns. I have no objection to that.

'Rat

'Rat,

correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this the first time the legislature in Texas has redrawn the lines after already having done so in the same decade? I think what drives Democrats and many others crazy is this seems to be throwing out hundreds of years of tradition in order for the Republicans to take advantage of new numbers in the make up of the state legislature. This is not a court order redistricting but rather a power grab, pure and simple. The old rules no longer apply if you can get away with it.

[Desertrat]

Sayhey, you're correct about the "re-re-districting". However, with the new lines, there seems to be less gerrymandering and weird-shaped Congressional districts than before, particularly after the 1990 re-districting. And, the 2000 effort was such a botch-job that it was highly affected by federal court decisions and time. There was a whole bunch of partisanship by both parties, and special sessions and Lord knows what else in the way of B.S. Another major problem in 2000, that I recall, was the fight between the now-minority rural interests and the major-metro folks.

It'll probably get worse. You have the three monster-opolises (Houston; Dallas/Ft Worth, and Austin/SanTone) with much different interests than all the rest of the state.

'Rat

[Sayhey]

Originally posted by Desertrat
Sayhey, you're correct about the "re-re-districting". However, with the new lines, there seems to be less gerrymandering and weird-shaped Congressional districts than before, particularly after the 1990 re-districting. And, the 2000 effort was such a botch-job that it was highly affected by federal court decisions and time. There was a whole bunch of partisanship by both parties, and special sessions and Lord knows what else in the way of B.S. Another major problem in 2000, that I recall, was the fight between the now-minority rural interests and the major-metro folks.

It'll probably get worse. You have the three monster-opolises (Houston; Dallas/Ft Worth, and Austin/SanTone) with much different interests than all the rest of the state.

'Rat

'Rat,

don't tell me you think this second gerrymander was done to clean up the messy lines of the first? Tom Delay did not have Dept. of Homeland Security called to find Texas Democrats in order to make the districts look better on a map. This is not politics as usual in Texas or any other state. Doesn't it bother you in the least?

[Backtothemac]

Originally posted by zimv20
it doesn't seem to be working the way it was intended to. and w/ all the strides in communications, there's a problem that no longer needs to be overcome.

so, yes, i could see myself supporting a new system. maybe even popular vote.

Why because twice in history someone has won the election without winning the popular vote? Before the Election, Gore though Bush would win the popular vote, but he would win the college, and he was fine with that idea. But when the table was turned, then he could not take it.

The college works. Period.

[Sayhey]

Originally posted by Backtothemac
Why because twice in history someone has won the election without winning the popular vote? Before the Election, Gore though Bush would win the popular vote, but he would win the college, and he was fine with that idea. But when the table was turned, then he could not take it.

The college works. Period.

If I recall Gore never criticized the Electoral College system before or after the 2000 election. His complaint was with the way votes were counted (or more to the point - were not counted) in Florida.

If you think the winner of an election should be the candidate with fewer votes then I don't think you understand the purpose of elections. This system is a disaster and should be changed. If we want to champion democracy throughout the world (a good thing in my opinion) we should look to our own house as well.

And by the way it is three elections in which this has happened; 1824, 1876, and 2000. It also almost happened in 1800 but they were smart enough to amend the constitution so that events like the Jefferson/Burr controversy would not happen again. We should follow suit.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by Backtothemac
Why because twice in history someone has won the election without winning the popular vote?

no, that's not my thinking.

from what i understand, the college was put into place for two inter-related reasons:
1. it was difficult to disseminate information (i.e. candidate messages)
2. representative individuals, well-informed, could vote w/ the needs of their 'constituency' in mind

our world is now set up where communication is not an issue (from a logistics standpoint, anyway). also, from what i understand, members of the college act more as pawns in their party's plans than as a representative of voters.

i may be off in my understanding of how the college is working now (which is why i said i could be talked into changing the system; i don't have a firm stance at the moment).

but, if my assessment is more or less correct, then i'd be open-minded about a new system. why stick w/ a system designed to solve problems if 1) they're no longer problems, or 2) it doesn't solve them anyway.

my feelings on this pre-date bush/gore.

[wwworry]

People who argue against counting all the votes are now arguing for the sanctity of the electoral college. It sounds like "whatever, as long as my cantidate wins". What people who worship the outdated electoral college are saying is that the abstract state has more rights than the individual and that people in small states have more voting power than people in large states. That's not equal representation.

As for "Mobocracy", the electoral college is still a "Mobocracy". That term is traditionally used to talk about the diffence between legislators with 2 year terms vrs. legislators with 6 year terms and the effect of the lifetime appointed judges.

[Sayhey]

When people talk about the dangers of "Mobocracy" take a moment and look around, because they are talking about you. That is the danger that people will actually control their own government. Horrors! The idea that we must leave governance to our "betters" who understand what we the great "unwashed" masses cannot is a crock.

The bias that went into making up the electoral college should be dead and gone a long time ago. We have every right to elect our leaders directly without this system of party hacks in between our actually votes being counted. We have every right to have our votes count the same as the next voter regardless of where we live or how much money and power we have. That should be what democracy is all about.

[Desertrat]

Lemme try again; I might have phrased stuff in an unmeant manner: The 2000 redistricting did not change things to reflect the new voting patterns around the state. This 2003 "re-run" does. And, yes, it's to the detriment of the Congressional Democrats, but the only way to maintain their numbers in Congress would have meant keeping the previous gerrymandering that was done by Democrats.

"Tom Delay did not have Dept. of Homeland Security called to find Texas Democrats in order to make the districts look better on a map."

There are some issues where, for me, Delay's heart is in the right place. This does not mean he doesn't spend an inordinate amount of time with his head tucked firmly in a rather dark and fundamental place...

:), 'Rat

[g5man]

I am going to try to bring this thread back on subject.

Why is GOP making progress across America?

Well the answer can actually be found from reading some of the posts here.

So far those who hint in supporting any part of this administration are quickly called “idiots”, “ignorant”, or “brainwashed”. This is a pattern I have observed not only here but across the country.

People across the country don’t like being labled as such so they naturally lean towards the group that makes them fell accepted. This is one simple explanation.

The more practical explanation is that the people listen to both sides and then look at their lives and come to the conclusion the one side makes more sense.

[Ugg]

Originally posted by g5man
Why is GOP making progress across America?

Well the answer can actually be found from reading some of the posts here.

So far those who hint in supporting any part of this administration are quickly called “idiots”, “ignorant”, or “brainwashed”. This is a pattern I have observed not only here but across the country.

People across the country don’t like being labled as such so they naturally lean towards the group that makes them fell accepted. This is one simple explanation.

The more practical explanation is that the people listen to both sides and then look at their lives and come to the conclusion the one side makes more sense.

You've still failed to explain why. A huge amount of support is coming from the under 30 crowd and they seem to be the ones suffering most from Republican policies. They are most likely to be the soldiers fighting in Iraq, struggling to pay for college, kept out of the housing market by massively rising prices, gw's tax cuts will affect them least of all. Is it a matter of image? Do they like gw's stumbling, bumbling public speaking style? I honestly don't get it.

Some real reasons would be appreciated, not just broad generalizations.

[zimv20]

here's why:

1. people are greedy. there's a misconception that the GOP is good at getting the taxpayer the biggest bank account he can. people reach this conclusion when looking at a single factor: tax cuts. once one takes into account the big picture, this impression fades.

2. people are righteous. both parties have pet stances that people take to the heart. dems have pro-choice. GOP has pro-life, pro-gun, anti-gay, anti-UN, pro-US dominance. for whatever reason, racists tend to like the GOP.

3. people are selfish. the GOP has done a great job at portraying anyone who needs social services as 1) lazy and 2) not you. ergo, lazy people cost _you_ money. the party appeals to people who are more interested in themselves than society as a whole.

4. people are scared. the GOP talk tough on military, acts bully to the world, and is a friend to the NRA. like people in SUVs feel safer, voters feel safer w/ the GOP.

i'll admit, this is pretty harsh. if this is true, you'd wonder why anyone would vote GOP at all. here's why:

1. the party appeals to base emotions. admit it or not, we've all got 'em. as soon as we feel slighted, they kick in.

2. the party takes the edge off by apparently appealing to higher ideals -- country, patriotism, responsibility, God.

3. the party is good at blaming the left for... everything. why work to rebuild something when you believe that squashing the left will solve all the problems?

again, harsh. the degree to which this is true varies. under bush II, it's the most severe i've seen it.

edit: add #4

[Desertrat]

:D

zim, I love your views! For instance, in your "1. people are greedy." statement, I'd pretty much disagree. Or, your idea of greed is different than mine. I think it would be far more accurate to say that people vote for the perception of protection of their billfolds.

Doesn't matter if they're right or wrong about Republican protection of one's money, as compared to Democrats. The perception affects the vote. And nothing more than a modicum of common sense says that preserving one's money is a wise idea. You don't at all have to be greedy to do that.

For decades, polls have shown that people believe the Republican party is better for the overall national economy. Other than during the 1992 campaign, this held true during the Clinton era...

Most of the small-businessman vote goes Republican because of the view that equating "profit" with either greed or evil is a Democrat idea. After all, no profit = no business = no jobs for both the owner and his employees...

Your use of "greed" as you did, within a negative context, sorta bears this out...

'Rat

[wwworry]

I would say you are right about the perception. Democrats need to start putting policy in terms of dollars and cents and emphasizing why they really are the party of the pocketbook for most of the American people. Republicans clearly are not.

I saw Brian McLaughlin a labor leader speak in NYC and he was much better than Gephart in getting people to understand how republican policies are bad for working New Yorkers. Subway Fares are up - that's a tax. College tuitions are up - that's a tax. Property taxes are up - that's more money we have to pay because of failed republican policies. Our children will be paying off the new debt for years to come. One quarter of people making under $40,000/year have been laid off in the last couple of years. They gave us a couple of hundred bucks but it's more than lost in all the other taxes that had to be raised to support the Bush give-away to millionaires and corporate CEOs.

Anyway, short term perception versus long term reality.

[Desertrat]

Here, again, wwworry, perceptions: You speak of Bush giveaways to the wealthy, as though there were nothing for the non-wealthy. :)

Trouble is, after each tax refund, there was a multi-billion-dollar jump in consumer spending. The most recent, some $17 billion, followed the refunds (gifts?) for the child-tax credit.

Anybody getting money back from the government is getting their own money back, not mine; not yours. There's more reason to resent the child-tax "credit", since for many it's an actual gift; no taxes had been paid in. THAT money comes from you--and to a lesser extent, me. :D

'Rat

[wwworry]

I call it a give-away to the wealthy because most of the money "given away" goes to the wealthy few. There are a few crumbs for the non-wealthy but everyone knows where the real money is going.
I call it a "give-away" because we are running a deficit because of it and building huge new debt. Maybe if Bush wasn't already spending "our money" I would think of it differently. Maybe if other taxes had not gone up I would think of it differently.

[jonapete2001]

these give aways, you do realize that "rich people" pay most of the taxes. So when a tax cut comes along does it not make sense that those who pay the most get the most back. makes sense to me. Also i do not understand why some on the left are complaining that many poor are not getting tax cuts. The people getting small amounts or nothing at all did not pay to start with.

this is a major distinguishing factor between the repubs. and the dems. Republicans will give money back to the people who paid in the first place. Democrats what to give money away to those who never pay.

[Desertrat]

wwworry, the $/yr of the tax cuts are a small percentage of the $/yr of the deficit. $100 billion in cuts vs. $500 billion in deficits sez to me that we're spending $400 billion more than we should.

'Rat

[mactastic]

Originally posted by Desertrat
However, I'm highly amused by this. The Dems had no trouble doing the same thing, for decades. They laughed and laughed about it, taunting the few Republicans. Now, the shoe is on the other foot, and we get to see sudden high-mindedness from some of these same once-laughing people. Suddenly, they've discovered "Principles"! :D


I assume you find the same level of humor in the democratic fillibuster of Bush judicial nominees, a simple escalation of the tactics the Republicans used for years against Clinton?

Har de har har har.

[Ugg]

Originally posted by jonapete2001
these give aways, you do realize that "rich people" pay most of the taxes. So when a tax cut comes along does it not make sense that those who pay the most get the most back. makes sense to me. Also i do not understand why some on the left are complaining that many poor are not getting tax cuts. The people getting small amounts or nothing at all did not pay to start with.

this is a major distinguishing factor between the repubs. and the dems. Republicans will give money back to the people who paid in the first place. Democrats what to give money away to those who never pay.

I think you have a very good point. So why don't the GOP do more to ensure that the poor do pay taxes. A step in the right direction would be to raise the minimum wage to a living wage level and to discourage part time jobs and do something about the health insurance fiasco this country is facing. Oh, and also discourage companies from shipping those jobs overseas. But no, they arent' interested in jobs only money. The income spread is greater now than at any other time in the nation's history and with gw's push to eliminate inheritance taxes it will only get bigger.

You have it wrong, the Dems do want the poor to get tax cuts but they also want them to be able to earn a living wage. Unfunded Republican mandates and corporate giveaways will ensure that that never happens.

[mactastic]

We're not going to have to have the whole "Income taxes aren't the only taxes people pay" discussion again are we? Seems like a lot of those on the right like to gloss over the other taxes that people pay in favor of looking only at the income tax.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by jonapete2001
these give aways, you do realize that "rich people" pay most of the taxes. So when a tax cut comes along does it not make sense that those who pay the most get the most back. makes sense to me. Also i do not understand why some on the left are complaining that many poor are not getting tax cuts. The people getting small amounts or nothing at all did not pay to start with.

this is a major distinguishing factor between the repubs. and the dems. Republicans will give money back to the people who paid in the first place. Democrats what to give money away to those who never pay.

see above:
1. people are greedy

[g5man]

Originally posted by Ugg
You've still failed to explain why. A huge amount of support is coming from the under 30 crowd and they seem to be the ones suffering most from Republican policies.

I am not sure I would characterize it as a "huge amount of support" with this group. No one who is suffering for what ever reason would blame the president for it regardless of what party he belongs to.

Originally posted by Ugg
I honestly don't get it.

And this is why the Democrats are losing voters. They don't get it.

Think about it. If this Administartion and his party are truly as bad as many of the posters describe here and to a certain extent in the media, then there should be a mass exodus of voters going to the other side. Quite to the contrary the opposite is happening. What does this tell you? People either don't buy the negativity and accusations, or they are blind.


Originally posted by Ugg
Some real reasons would be appreciated, not just broad generalizations.

GDP, Unemployment, Deficits, don't really matter to the average person. As long as they are improving their lives financially that is what counts.

[Ugg]

Originally posted by g5man
I am not sure I would characterize it as a "huge amount of support" with this group. No one who is suffering for what ever reason would blame the president for it regardless of what party he belongs to.

And this is why the Democrats are losing voters. They don't get it.

Think about it. If this Administartion and his party are truly as bad as many of the posters describe here and to a certain extent in the media, then there should be a mass exodus of voters going to the other side. Quite to the contrary the opposite is happening. What does this tell you? People either don't buy the negativity and accusations, or they are blind.

GDP, Unemployment, Deficits, don't really matter to the average person. As long as they are improving their lives financially that is what counts.

You misread my first point. I said why are so many of the 18-30 group supporting a party that is harming them. I didn't mention gw but as a rep. he is responsible for part of the blame.

Ah, so rather than come up with reasons, you are going to insult all of those who haven't "seen the light". This is a discussion forum, not a place for personal putdowns.

I didn't realize that blindness was turning into an epidemic in this country. Why don't you come up with some well thought out responses to my queries instead of continual putdowns.

The poor are poorer , the rich are richer and the middle is getting squeezed like never before. So, how does this point to people supporting the GOP? It is contradictory to what you are trying to claim. It also points to a country that is increasingly self-centered and cares little or not at all for one's neighbors.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by g5man
People either don't buy the negativity and accusations, or they are blind.


or greedy, or righteous, or selfish, or scared.


GDP, Unemployment, Deficits, don't really matter to the average person. As long as they are improving their lives financially that is what counts.

but people only look at the small picture. kinda reminds of the "PCs are cheaper" argument. it goes away when one looks at total cost of ownership.

in this case: state taxes, deficit spending, higher social care costs, interest on national debt, etc.

[Sayhey]

First, let's don't make this into an overstatement of Republican strength. The country is still largely divided along the lines of the 2000 election. The two recent GOP victories in Governorships are in Southern states that have shown a trend to the Republicans. If you read the GOP victory in the California recall as some kind of shift away from Democrats then you have made a gross overestimation of Republican strength.

Second, the move of younger voters away from the more traditional liberal trends of this age category has everything to do with the times and events that have occurred as they reached voting age. The Republicans were successful in making the one major event that people will remember about the Clinton Administration be the impeachment fiasco. That combined with the shock and anger around 9/11 cannot help but impact these voters. The same can be said, however, about the impact of the Iraq War and the lies this administration has told to get us into it. In short, this election and who will win the hearts and minds of young voters is not decided by a long shot. One year in politics is an eternity.

[g5man]

Originally posted by Ugg


Ah, so rather than come up with reasons, you are going to insult all of those who haven't "seen the light". This is a discussion forum, not a place for personal putdowns.

Now you are getting a bit too sensative. Please refer to this quote from me earlier

" So far those who hint in supporting any part of this administration are quickly called “idiots”, “ignorant”, or “brainwashed”. This is a pattern I have observed not only here but across the country." And now blind.

All I said is that Democrats don't get it. I did not think you are one so I was not putting you down.



Originally posted by Ugg
Why don't you come up with some well thought out responses to my queries instead of continual putdowns.

Sorry I did not have much time today. However not to sound like I am putting you down, I think the answer is rather straight forward. GOP has a positive agenda while the DNC is all negative.



Originally posted by Ugg
The poor are poorer , the rich are richer and the middle is getting squeezed like never before. So, how does this point to people supporting the GOP? It is contradictory to what you are trying to claim. It also points to a country that is increasingly self-centered and cares little or not at all for one's neighbors.

I could not disagree with you more. The poor in this country have more than any other people in the world and their numbers are getting smaller. The middle class is growing along with their education, income, and home ownership. The rich are getting richer because they have for hundreds of years. Given those facts, people become more drawn to the party that recognizes those facts. The US has always been rather self-centered since we are a materialistic society. However we as a nation donate more money and volunteer hours to help the poor here and across the world than any other country. The largest humanitarin organizations are based here in the US. We give more money to the UN than any other country.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by g5man

GOP has a positive agenda while the DNC is all negative.


from my earlier post at the top of the page:

2. the party takes the edge off by apparently appealing to higher ideals -- country, patriotism, responsibility, God.


you're being markted to. rather well, i might add.

[g5man]

Originally posted by Sayhey
First, let's don't make this into an overstatement of Republican strength. The country is still largely divided along the lines of the 2000 election. The two recent GOP victories in Governorships are in Southern states that have shown a trend to the Republicans. If you read the GOP victory in the California recall as some kind of shift away from Democrats then you have made a gross overestimation of Republican strength.

True to one extent. There were more registered Democrats in 2000 and there still are. If they were united they could win just about every election. In the last three years the GOP has been able to grow its voter base and also get democrats to vote for their candidates. This to me is a sign of great strenght in a nation that was once 50/50. Right now I think it is more like 52/48

Originally posted by Sayhey
Second, the move of younger voters away from the more traditional liberal trends of this age category has everything to do with the times and events that have occurred as they reached voting age. The Republicans were successful in making the one major event that people will remember about the Clinton Administration be the impeachment fiasco. That combined with the shock and anger around 9/11 cannot help but impact these voters. The same can be said, however, about the impact of the Iraq War and the lies this administration has told to get us into it. In short, this election and who will win the hearts and minds of young voters is not decided by a long shot. One year in politics is an eternity.

Maybe. I still believe that if everyone is relatively happy with were there are in their lives, they will be drawn to the party that has a positive agenda. Yes Sept 11 did impact the lives of young people but not as much as we think.

I don't want to get into an Iraq Debate but the democrats don't have a real leg to stand on with this issue. Most of them voted for it because they believed the threat. Clinton and everyone in his cabinet would be a liar since they all made the same arguments regarding Iraq when they were in power. Case closed.

[g5man]

Originally posted by zimv20
here's why:

4. people are scared. the GOP talk tough on military, acts bully to the world, and is a friend to the NRA. like people in SUVs feel safer, voters feel safer w/ the GOP.

I agree with the exception of the bully part.

Originally posted by zimv20
2. the party takes the edge off by apparently appealing to higher ideals -- country, patriotism, responsibility, God.

This is positive and the Democrats could have appealed using the same high ideals. Do you realize how more people would listen to anti-war protesters if they were surrounded by American flags and patriotic slogans. Instead all they see is nazi signs full of hate and anger. These are the people that are pulling the democrats to the far left and are contributing to its bleeding of voters and supporters.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by g5man
If they were united they could win just about every election.


true


In the last three years the GOP has been able to grow its voter base and also get democrats to vote for their candidates.


the reason the GOP does so well w/ fewer registered is they're better at getting their voters to the polls.

many apathetic to politics tend to relate more to the democratic party. unfortunately for the party, that apathy extends to voting.

they will be drawn to the party that has a positive agenda.


again, it's image manipulation. the base message from the left is: help those in need. the base message from the right is: help yourself.

i feel altruism is more positive, from a societal standpoint, than self-absorption.

Clinton and everyone in his cabinet would be a liar since they all made the same arguments regarding Iraq when they were in power.

but the actions were quite a bit different, yes?

[zimv20]

Originally posted by g5man
I agree with the exception of the bully part.


i will cite bush's unilateral decision making and actions as a counter-argument.


This is positive and the Democrats could have appealed using the same high ideals.


the message is in there, the party's just not very good at conveying it. it's sad that people don't take the time to really look at what their parties stand for, in the whole.

quoting myself:

2. people are righteous. both parties have pet stances that people take to the heart.



Do you realize how more people would listen to anti-war protesters if they were surrounded by American flags and patriotic slogans. Instead all they see is nazi signs full of hate and anger. These are the people that are pulling the democrats to the far left and are contributing to its bleeding of voters and supporters.

the anarchist element is miniscule. it's a shame they draw so much focus, as the overall message has real meaning. and people who think "flag equals patriotism" need a serious clue. are you really saying the GOP succeeds because they wrap themselves in the flag?


There are few more sickening sights than George W. Bush wearing a lapel pin bearing an image of the American flag. Bush and his creepy henchmen can wrap themselves in nationalistic symbolism all they want, but these right-wing thugs aren't patriots. They may pledge allegiance to the flag, but they despise the republic for which it stands. - Ted Rall


questioning your government and expressing yourself is true patriotism. symbol worship encourages fascism.

[Ugg]

Originally posted by g5man
I could not disagree with you more. The poor in this country have more than any other people in the world and their numbers are getting smaller. The middle class is growing along with their education, income, and home ownership. The rich are getting richer because they have for hundreds of years. Given those facts, people become more drawn to the party that recognizes those facts. The US has always been rather self-centered since we are a materialistic society. However we as a nation donate more money and volunteer hours to help the poor here and across the world than any other country. The largest humanitarin organizations are based here in the US. We give more money to the UN than any other country.

Ah, the old the poor of this country are richer than anywhere else argument. Once again, you've failed to back up any of your statements with facts, quotes or links. Why did Congress just increase the food stamp program? Why are food banks running out of food despite record numbers of donations? Why do some 30% of Americans live below the poverty line? In my mind, that indicates that the poor are getting poorer and the rich richer.

What's your point?

[mactastic]

Not to mention the well-to-do are getting richer at a MUCH faster rate than any other group, particularly the "poor". Go find the data that shows what percentage of an average CEOs salary the lowest paid worker in that CEOs firm makes. Then look at that same data from 10, 20, 30 and even 50 years ago and tell me the rich aren't far outpacing the poor in gains.

Hehe, and I love it when people end their arguement with "case closed". As if there is no possible rebuttal to what was said. As if it is so plainly obvious that what was said is the truth that only the dimmest, stupidest, most backward person would even contemplate an arguement. I must be a total idiot, because I was thinking I could say a few things to rebut, but the case has been closed by someone of a higher intellect than I... Ah well.

Really what it shows is someone afraid of their logic being shown false. Case closed my left foot. You can't close a case my friend, you aren't a judge. And I don't even recall hearing a judge say that.

[zimv20]

another thing the GOP is good at -- getting people to believe:

1. the poor are lazy
2. anyone can get rich, especially YOU

[g5man]

Originally posted by mactastic

Hehe, and I love it when people end their arguement with "case closed". As if there is no possible rebuttal to what was said. As if it is so plainly obvious that what was said is the truth that only the dimmest, stupidest, most backward person would even contemplate an arguement. I must be a total idiot, because I was thinking I could say a few things to rebut, but the case has been closed by someone of a higher intellect than I... Ah well.

Really what it shows is someone afraid of their logic being shown false. Case closed my left foot. You can't close a case my friend, you aren't a judge. And I don't even recall hearing a judge say that.

This is what Clinton said in Nov. 11, 1998 about Iraq.

""Nowhere is our vigilance more urgent than in the Persian Gulf, where Saddam Hussein's regime threatens the stability of one of the most vital regions of the world. Following the Gulf War, as a condition for the cease-fire, the United Nations demanded, and Iraq agreed, to disclose and destroy its chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons capabilities.

"For seven years now Iraq has had within its power the ability to put itself on the path to ending the sanctions and its isolation simply by complying with obligations it agreed to undertake. Instead it has worked to shirk those obligations, withholding evidence about its weapons capabilities, threatening, harassing, blocking the inspectors, massing troops on the Kuwaiti border in the south and attacking the Kurds in the north. All of us agree that we prefer to resolve this crisis peacefully for two reasons. First, because accomplishing goals through diplomacy is always preferable to using force.

"Second, because reversing Iraq's decision and getting UNSCOM back on the job remains the most effective way to uncover, destroy, and prevent Iraq from reconstituting weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them, but,
and here it gets interesting, if the inspectors are not permitted to visit suspect sites or monitor compliance at known production facilities, they may as well be in Baltimore, not Baghdad. That would open a window of opportunity for Iraq to build its arsenal of weapons and delivery system in months, I say again in months, not years."


As far as Bush lying about the threat of WMD from Iraq, case is closed. You can respond but you will not change my mind.

The fact that the same people in congress who supported Clinton are not willing to call him a liar for stating that Iraq had WMD, also sheds a great deal of light on why more people trust the GOP on national security.

zimv20,

I agree the actions of Clinton are much different than those taken by Bush in Iraq. After the Sept 11, no commander in chief is willing to risk not confronting the growing threat of Iraq. Even if Gore was president, I think he would have gone into Iraq.

[mactastic]

Originally posted by g5man
As far as Bush lying about the threat of WMD from Iraq, case is closed. You can respond but you will not change my mind.


Hey, if Clinton lied to us about it, then that needs to be exposed too. I just think that's somewhat irrelevant now.

A mind not open to change is a sure sign of zealotry IMHO, so if nothing I can say will change your mind I will just leave you with this...
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.--Bertrand Russell

[jefhatfield]

Originally posted by jonapete2001
are you opressed. How. Please do tell. How has your life changed since the clinton white house left.

Tyrany. Ha you make me laugh

the economy is down and we are in a recession

i wouldn't call bush a tyrant, but i do believe he is an ineffective leader who is now way over his head in a war we have no clear exit plan for...remember vietnam?

while we are nowhere near a vietnam yet, this war is costing us so much, and all this while we are in a recession? bush does not have my confidence and he does look like he can be beat in 2004

it will still all depend on who the democrats put up in 2004 and it is still possible for the democrats to lose even if bush as a president has his popularity dip into the 30s or 40s

[g5man]

Originally posted by mactastic
A mind not open to change is a sure sign of zealotry IMHO, so if nothing I can say will change your mind I will just leave you with this...

quote:
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.--Bertrand Russell

And this my friend is why the GOP is gaining. Over and over again anyone who is not persuaded into believing that Bush and his party have taken us into a war for oil and has given tax cuts to the rich, is looked upon as a fool or fanatic.

So far we can add those to the list of names attributed to those on the right; ignorant, brainwashed, and idiots.

You keep asking for proof and it is right here. The message to counter the GOP is lost and unpersuasive when the opposite side is left with name calling.

The inabliity to persuade can not easily be dismissed with labeling in order to justify the failure to persuade.

Since you can not persuade me then I must be a fool. More and more people around the country (as the polls have shown) do not like to be labled fools or fanatics.

Those who try to fight the GOP try to change the perception that this country is going down under their leadership but the reality is much too hard to counter.

You can tell me that 30 million Americans live under poverty, but if those 30 million don't protest or vote those who made them poor out of office then maybe they really don't exist.

[notkevin]

Originally posted by g5man
You can tell me that 30 million Americans live under poverty, but if those 30 million don't protest or vote those who made them poor out of office then maybe they really don't exist.

or maybe they tried to vote?http://abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/DailyNews/ELECTION_blackvoters001129.html

[zimv20]

Originally posted by g5man

I agree the actions of Clinton are much different than those taken by Bush in Iraq. After the Sept 11, no commander in chief is willing to risk not confronting the growing threat of Iraq. Even if Gore was president, I think he would have gone into Iraq.

iraq? 9/11 came from al qaeda and bin laden, in afghanistan.

i supported the action in afghanistan. but it's got ****-all to do w/ iraq. no way any reasonable commander-in-chief would have gotten so "confused."

read it for what it is: a power-play and resource grab.

if all you do is listen to GOP/bush rhetoric, you'll be forever in denial. ya gotta read between the lines.

1. look at the PNAC plan (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article1665.htm)
2. watch it being implemented
3. look at the campaign donors
4. see how they're getting contracts

everything else is just noise. don't pay attention to it.

[pseudobrit]

The only connection between 9/11 and Iraq was that Bush made damn sure they got mentioned in the same sentence as much as possible.

[Durandal7]

There are several reasons for the recent GOP gains and their gains among the 18-30 year old category.

First off, the Democrats lack the image of being organized. The party has 9 presidential candidates seeking the nomination, infighting regarding Iraq and has recently cycled through party leadership. The GOP on the other hand rallies behind Bush and manages to convey an image of a unified successful party. A lot of people view the Dems as a losing prospect following the 2002 election and the recent California fiasco.

Secondly, the Democrats have always attempted to be the "party of peace" and have traditionally tried to seek a peaceful situation to conflicts (at least the past decade or so.) 9/11 put the party in an impossible situation, they could oppose war and become "un-patriotic" or they could go along with it and appear as hypocrites. After Afghanistan they made the mistake of caving on Iraq, not only did this compromise the party's ideals but it also puts them in a difficult situation when it comes to opposing an action after it has been taken. Because of their actions regarding Iraq I predict that the Green party will make a stronger showing in 2004.

Another major problem seems to be with their overall political strategy. The Republicans seem to have become adept at routing the Democrats in key areas such as California.

And as g5man pointed out, a great number of Americans have "had it" with the Democrats. People do not enjoy being labelled "brainwashed" or "idiots" and this is a lesson that the Democrats will learn the hard way.

[g5man]

Originally posted by pseudobrit
The only connection between 9/11 and Iraq was that Bush made damn sure they got mentioned in the same sentence as much as possible.

I never said that there was a connection between 9/11 and Iraq. What I said was that after 9/11, Iraq became a growing threat that could not be ignored any longer.

Bush never said Saddam was behind 9/11. Everyone keeps repeating that he made a connection. People have ears and can read, but Democrats keep thinking that if they keep repeating the lie over and over again it becomes ture. Also he never said that Iraq was an immediate threat, but a growing threat and Sept 11 taught us to defend ourselfs before it is too late.

All right you guys managed to get me into the Iraq debate. But now that we are there, I believe that Iraq will be a bigger liability for the Democrats. They gambled in 2002 with the Dept of Homeland Defense and lost 4 Senate seats. They are gambling with Iraq and they will be creamed (think they will loose about 6 Senate seats and 10 or more house seats). All polls and most political pundits are saying this.

Durandal7,

Excellent observations. Democrats caved on Iraq because they believed that it would be quick and clean. Now that it is slow and dirty they want take credit for being against the war. People are much too smart, they already don't have high opinions of politicians and Democrats are not helping themselvs in this area.

[Mason]

Originally posted by g5man
But now that we are there, I believe that Iraq will be a bigger liability for the Democrats. They gambled in 2002 with the Dept of Homeland Defense and lost 4 Senate seats. They are gambling with Iraq and they will be creamed (think they will loose about 6 Senate seats and 10 or more house seats). All polls and most political pundits are saying this.


You either have a lot of nerve or are just completely misinformed. The Dep't of Homeland Security was the brainchild of a democratic senator. Bush resisted the idea until it became a political issue. Republicans then said it was their idea and then added an anti-union amendment that they knew the democrats would vote against. They manufactured this so that they could say that Senators like Max Cleland, a Vietnam veteran who lost three of his limbs fighting for this country, could be painted as weak on terrorism. The ads that Chambliss ran against Cleland were so shameful that John McCain denounced them and Chuck Hagel said he was going to publicly make ads denouncing them unless Chambliss stopped running them. Republicans played politics with the DHS from the very beginning. The only thing democrats gambled on was that there convictions would have beat political tricks. Instead, they should have fought fire with fire. And now we have people like yourself, completely spreading misinformation about the true events.

http://www.veteransforpeace.org/Max_Cleland_070303.htm


Immediately the ad was denounced, not just by Democrats but also by two Republican senators -- John McCain and Chuck Hagel, both of them Vietnam veterans.

"I've never seen anything like that ad," says McCain. "Putting pictures of Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden next to a picture of a man who left three limbs on the battlefield -- it's worse than disgraceful, it's reprehensible."

Irate, Hagel told Republican officials that if they didn't pull the ad, he would make an ad denouncing them. After that, Chambliss's campaign removed the pictures of Hussein and bin Laden from the ad.

"Max Cleland has given as much to this country as any living human being," Hagel says. "To say he is in some way connected to people like Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein was beyond offensive to me. It made me recoil, quite honestly."

Asked recently for comment, Chambliss responded through a spokesman that he did not want to discuss the ad or Cleland.

Absolutely disgusting.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by g5man
after 9/11, Iraq became a growing threat that could not be ignored any longer.


the CIA and UN disagree with you.


Bush never said Saddam was behind 9/11. Everyone keeps repeating that he made a connection.


it's another situation where you have to read between the lines. he _did_ blur the lines between the issues. he did absolutely nothing to dispel the association when nearly half of americans thought there were iraqis on the planes.

the GOP is very adept at marketing, and usually good at insinuating w/o making direct statements. lately, there's a couple instances of that falling apart, but hey, people bought it, right?

if you're gonna lie, lie big.

on All Things Considered the other day, they did a piece about a certain county (i forget which one) in PA, that is considered necessary to win the state. they had some pop vox w/ some residents, including a couple people who chose to believe bush, because the alternative was too much to bear.

Also he never said that Iraq was an immediate threat


you cannot seriously believe that congress and the US public were sold on a war of iraq being an eventual threat? why the immediacy then? people were scared! the administration worked us into a frenzy. they sold the war based on what they wanted, not the damn intelligence.

a few tidbits from january's SOTU:

With nuclear arms or a full arsenal of chemical and biological weapons, Saddam Hussein could resume his ambitions of conquest in the Middle East and create deadly havoc in that region. And this Congress and the America people must recognize another threat. Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda. Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help them develop their own.


check out the fear mongering:

Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents, lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained. Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans -- this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known.


Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike?


The dictator who is assembling the world's most dangerous weapons has already used them on whole villages


America will not accept a serious and mounting threat to our country

[IJ Reilly]

"What I have said is a fact -- that there are al Qaeda in a number of locations in Iraq."
—Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, August 21, 2002

"Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction."
—Dick Cheney, Speech to VFW National Convention, August 26, 2002

"Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons."
—George W. Bush, United Nations Address, September 12, 2002

"We know they have weapons of mass destruction. We know they have active programs. There isn't any debate about it."
—Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, September 26, 2002

".. there were in the past and have been contacts between senior Iraqi officials and members of al Qaeda going back for actually quite a long time. We know too that several of the detainees, in particular some high-ranking detainees, have said that Iraq provided some training to al Qaeda in chemical weapons development. So, yes, there are contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda. We know that Saddam Hussein has a long history with terrorism in general. And there are some al Qaeda personnel who found refuge in Baghdad. There clearly are contacts between al Qaeda and Iraq that can be documented... [but] no one is trying to make an argument at this point that Saddam Hussein somehow had operational control of what happened on September 11th, so we don't want to push this too far, but this is a story that is unfolding, and it is getting clear, and we're learning more. ... When the picture is clear, we'll make full disclosure about it."
—National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, September 26, 2002

"I truly believe that now that the war has changed, now -- that we are a battlefield, this man [Saddam] poses a much greater threat than anybody could have possibly imagined... There's no doubt his hatred is mainly directed at us. After all, this is the guy that tried to kill my Dad."
—George W. Bush, Texas Fundraiser, September 28, 2002

"Iraq has stockpiled biological and chemical weapons, and is rebuilding the facilities used to make more of those weapons... we have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have."
—George W. Bush, Radio Address, October 5, 2002

"The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. Saddam Hussein has held numerous meetings with Iraqi nuclear scientists, a group he calls his 'nuclear mujahideen' - his nuclear holy warriors. Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at sites that have been part of its nuclear program in the past. Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons."
—George W. Bush, Cincinnati, Ohio, October 7, 2002

"The Iraqi regime... possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons... We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas... We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We're concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVS for missions targeting the United States."
—George W. Bush, Cincinnati, Ohio, October 7, 2002

[mactastic]

Originally posted by g5man
And this my friend is why the GOP is gaining. Over and over again anyone who is not persuaded into believing that Bush and his party have taken us into a war for oil and has given tax cuts to the rich, is looked upon as a fool or fanatic.

So far we can add those to the list of names attributed to those on the right; ignorant, brainwashed, and idiots.

You keep asking for proof and it is right here. The message to counter the GOP is lost and unpersuasive when the opposite side is left with name calling.

The inabliity to persuade can not easily be dismissed with labeling in order to justify the failure to persuade.

Since you can not persuade me then I must be a fool. More and more people around the country (as the polls have shown) do not like to be labled fools or fanatics.


Are you still trying to change my mind? Oh wait, I left open the possibility mine could be changed. You are the one that it's pointless to argue with.

Believe it or not, I would say the same to someone on the left who made statements that they would not change their minds no matter what evidence was placed before them. I like to leave a little wiggle room in my beliefs in case something changes them like a well made argument or some new facts come to light.

What you just said indicates that you hate democrats and liberals so much that no matter what evidence was given to you, even proof of a lie, your mind would not change. I'm sorry if you think I'm calling you a fool because you are on the right. That is not the case. Rather it is because you state a dogmatic position, and further that you admit no amount of evidence could change your mind. I'm sure you've people on the left say similar things as well, people like George Soros or Babs are routinely ridiculed by the right for their views, yet they doggedly assert that nothing can change their minds. Like I said before, there is nothing worse than trying to argue with a "true believer".

[g5man]

Originally posted by mactastic
Are you still trying to change my mind? Oh wait, I left open the possibility mine could be changed. You are the one that it's pointless to argue with.

No I am not trying to change your mind. What I am trying to do is explain why the GOP is gaining accross America.

Originally posted by mactastic
Believe it or not, I would say the same to someone on the left who made statements that they would not change their minds no matter what evidence was placed before them. I like to leave a little wiggle room in my beliefs in case something changes them like a well made argument or some new facts come to light.

Trust me there is plenty of wiggle room. I am reading your posts and responding (not to your liking). There wil be more new facts that will come to light.

Originally posted by mactastic
What you just said indicates that you hate democrats and liberals so much that no matter what evidence was given to you, even proof of a lie, your mind would not change. I'm sorry if you think I'm calling you a fool because you are on the right. That is not the case. Rather it is because you state a dogmatic position, and further that you admit no amount of evidence could change your mind. I'm sure you've people on the left say similar things as well, people like George Soros or Babs are routinely ridiculed by the right for their views, yet they doggedly assert that nothing can change their minds. Like I said before, there is nothing worse than trying to argue with a "true believer".

A little bit of assumption on your part. On a personal note many of my closest friends and family members are democrats and die heart liberals who give serious money to their causes. Given the emotional nature of discussing politics, I usually let them speak and rarely respond.

The fact remains that the GOP is gaining and we are trying to understand why and what Democrats are doing about it.

[g5man]

Originally posted by Mason
You either have a lot of nerve or are just completely misinformed. The Dep't of Homeland Security was the brainchild of a democratic senator. Bush resisted the idea until it became a political issue. Republicans then said it was their idea and then added an anti-union amendment that they knew the democrats would vote against. They manufactured this so that they could say that Senators like Max Cleland, a Vietnam veteran who lost three of his limbs fighting for this country, could be painted as weak on terrorism. The ads that Chambliss ran against Cleland were so shameful that John McCain denounced them and Chuck Hagel said he was going to publicly make ads denouncing them unless Chambliss stopped running them. Republicans played politics with the DHS from the very beginning. The only thing democrats gambled on was that there convictions would have beat political tricks. Instead, they should have fought fire with fire. And now we have people like yourself, completely spreading misinformation about the true events.
Absolutely disgusting.

Ok maybe it was a Democratic Senator who came up with the idea. I was not a big fan of it, just another big bloated department. They dropped the ball in letting Bush get credit for it. But instead of embracing it they allowed the union interest groups to control the debate and the process of passing the bill. As a result they lost the Senate. In fact the tax rebates of 2001 were a democratic idea as well and Bush got credit.

So maybe part of the problem like zimv20 said is that Republicans are better at PR than the Democrats. I am however rather skeptical, because the Democrats still have a larger voter base so they have done something right for over 40 years in the PR area.

[mactastic]

Originally posted by g5man
Case closed.
Originally posted by g5man
You can respond but you will not change my mind.

vs.
Originally posted by g5man
Trust me there is plenty of wiggle room

Ok then. I see some incongruity here, but we obviously disagree about what the meaning of the words "You can respond but you will not change my mind" are.

[g5man]

Originally posted by mactastic
vs.


Ok then. I see some incongruity here, but we obviously disagree about what the meaning of the words "You can respond but you will not change my mind" are.

No. I still stand by that statement. I don't think you are privy to any new information that I have not read or heard already.

If I read something in the press or a congressional inquiry gives new evidence regarding Iraq for the last 12 years, then I might reconsider my position.

[mactastic]

Originally posted by g5man
If I read something in the press or a congressional inquiry gives new evidence regarding Iraq for the last 12 years, then I might reconsider my position.

Good! That's all I wanted to hear.

[g5man]

Now that we have that out of the way, here is a good piece to read.

http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/opinion/7240946.htm

[mactastic]

More good news...

Link (http://msnbc.com/news/991867.asp?0cl=c3)
Confounding President Bush’s pledges to rein in government growth, federal discretionary spending expanded by 12.5 percent in the fiscal year that ended Sept. 30, capping a two-year bulge that saw the government grow by more than 27 percent, according to preliminary spending figures from congressional budget panels.
THE SUDDEN rise in spending subject to Congress’s annual discretion stands in marked contrast to the 1990s, when such discretionary spending rose an average of 2.4 percent a year. Not since 1980 and 1981 has federal spending risen at a similar clip. Before those two years, spending increases of this magnitude occurred at the height of the Vietnam War, 1966 to 1968.
_ _ _ _The preliminary spending figures for 2003 also raise questions about the government’s long-term fiscal health. Bush administration officials have said fiscal restraint and “pro-growth” tax cuts should put the government on a path to a balanced budget. Bush has demanded that spending that is subject to Congress’s annual discretion be capped at 4 percent.

_ _ _ _But the Republican-led Congress has not obliged. The federal government spent nearly $826 billion in fiscal 2003, an increase of $91.5 billion over 2002, said G. William Hoagland, a senior budget and economic aide to Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.). Military spending shot up nearly 17 percent, to $407.3 billion, but nonmilitary discretionary spending also far outpaced Bush’s limit, rising 8.7 percent, to $418.6 billion.
Regardless of the final numbers, there can be little doubt that government growth has been accelerating, said Richard Kogan, a federal budget analyst at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. And although Congress ultimately controls the purse strings, Bush is not immune from criticism, said Rudolph G. Penner, a Republican and former CBO director.
_ _ _ _“The most interesting thing is Bush has not vetoed anything, let alone a spending program,” Penner said. “One wonders how serious the White House is about holding the line.”
_ _ _ _Stan Collender, a federal budget analyst at Fleishman-Hillard Inc., said: “This is an administration that cannot possibly take up the mantle of fiscal conservatism. It’s probably the least fiscally conservative in history.”

[Taft]

Originally posted by g5man
Bush never said Saddam was behind 9/11. Everyone keeps repeating that he made a connection. People have ears and can read, but Democrats keep thinking that if they keep repeating the lie over and over again it becomes ture. Also he never said that Iraq was an immediate threat, but a growing threat and Sept 11 taught us to defend ourselfs before it is too late.

After saying this, you never responded to zim's or IJ's rebuttals. They listed a multitude of quotes which indicate that the Bush administration implied or stated that Saddam had connections to al Quida AND that Saddam was a threat that we had to act against, NOW.

Were you lying, or simply misinformed? I think you need to respond.

Taft

[zimv20]

Originally posted by mactastic
federal discretionary spending expanded by 12.5 percent in the fiscal year that ended Sept. 30

hm. i wonder how much the 3rd quarter GDP rise owes to this.

[mactastic]

Cheney is STILL running around insisting that Iraq and alQaeda are connected.

Link (http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/11/politics/11CHEN.html?ex=1069131600&en=cc2b8603035d5b3d&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE)
Vice President Dick Cheney has in recent speeches mentioned the major bombings in Iraq this past summer in the same breath as the deadly strikes in Bali, Casablanca and Riyadh, which authorities say were carried out by Al Qaeda or groups affiliated with it.

The clear implication is that militants linked to Al Qaeda were responsible for the Iraq bombings, too. The attacks in Baghdad last month would appear to lend credence to that claim except for this: senior military, intelligence and law enforcement officials say there is no conclusive evidence pointing to a particular group — Al Qaeda or not — as the mastermind behind any of the major attacks in Iraq. "At this point it isn't clear who's responsible for those bombings," a senior American official said.
Just last Friday, Mr. Cheney said at fund-raisers in Houston and Austin, Tex., that Mr. Hussein had "an established relationship with Al Qaeda.
Ansar al-Islam, a small group accused of having links to Al Qaeda, has about 150 fighters now inside Iraq, intelligence officials say. But Lt. Gen. Ricardo S. Sanchez, the American ground commander in Iraq, said recently, "We do not have any confirmed Al Qaeda operatives actually in custody at this point."
His address to the James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy in Houston on Oct. 17 was typical: "Since Sept. 11th, the terrorists have continued their attacks in Riyadh, Casablanca, Mombasa, Bali, Jakarta, Najaf and Baghdad. Against that kind of determined, organized, ruthless enemy, America requires a new strategy — not merely to prosecute a series of crimes, but to conduct a global campaign against the terror network."

[Mason]

Originally posted by g5man
Ok maybe it was a Democratic Senator who came up with the idea. I was not a big fan of it, just another big bloated department. They dropped the ball in letting Bush get credit for it. But instead of embracing it they allowed the union interest groups to control the debate and the process of passing the bill. As a result they lost the Senate. In fact the tax rebates of 2001 were a democratic idea as well and Bush got credit.

So maybe part of the problem like zimv20 said is that Republicans are better at PR than the Democrats. I am however rather skeptical, because the Democrats still have a larger voter base so they have done something right for over 40 years in the PR area.

Big bloated government? Is there anything bigger or more intrusive than the proposed TIA program?

[yellow]

Why don't we just elect Homer Simpson?

Advisor: Mr. President, there were no weapons of mass destruction, apparently we've mislead the entire world and bumbled into an expensive war with no discernible positive outcome for America or the iRaqis.

President Simpson: D'oh!

Well, I'D vote for him! :)

[gwuMACaddict]

Originally posted by Ugg
They are most likely to be the soldiers fighting in Iraq, struggling to pay for college, kept out of the housing market by massively rising prices, gw's tax cuts will affect them least of all.

Some real reasons would be appreciated, not just broad generalizations.

i am part of the under 30 crowd. i identify with dubya's more conservative veiwpoints. notice i didn't say republican. i bennefited from the tax break. also on the subject of tax breaks- i'm not anywhere neeeeear the top tax bracket nor could ever hope to be. but is in ridiculous that some people in this country are forced to pay more than 50% to the IRS. how is that fair to them? its like being punished for being successfull... personally, i like flat tax, but anyway... as for the soldiars, if i was called i would go imeediately- no second thoughts. but there is no draft. the soldiars out around the world are there doing their chosen job. they knew what they were getting in to when they enlisted. and i have more respect for them then i could possibly type.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by gwuMACaddict
i bennefited from the tax break.

quoting myself:

1. people are greedy. there's a misconception that the GOP is good at getting the taxpayer the biggest bank account he can. people reach this conclusion when looking at a single factor: tax cuts. once one takes into account the big picture, this impression fades.


link (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=572789&highlight=greedy#post572789)

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by gwuMACaddict
but is in ridiculous that some people in this country are forced to pay more than 50% to the IRS. how is that fair to them? its like being punished for being successfull...

A few months back, I figured out that my total tax burden is about 60% of my total income.

I'm "punished" more than the rich for being poor. How is that fair to me?

[Rebel]

Originally posted by pseudobrit
A few months back, I figured out that my total tax burden is about 60% of my total income.

I'm "punished" more than the rich for being poor. How is that fair to me?


Hey zimv20 & pseudobrit,

You two seem to always get back to abusive taxes to some extent or another in many posts. Why don't you join up with the
UCA (http://www.UCAnation.org) and try to do something about it? Or sign-up as champs, spread the word, and maybe you can earn some cash along the way. The site says you have to be a paying member to earn the cash, but I didn't pay. I figure that if it starts rolling along, I'll pay somewhere down the road and still be eligable for the payout.

I did write the president of the organization a note, and it was explained that the goal is to start very low with the uact tax and negotiate from there. But only a large membership with voting potential behind it, can get the government to the negotiating table. Or it will help pay to support future politicians who suppot uact.

Only us Americans can change America.

[mactastic]

I don't like flat taxes. They make the overall tax structure regressive.

[Rebel]

Originally posted by mactastic
I don't like flat taxes. They make the overall tax structure regressive.

Do you even read the bottom section of your posts? The people who earn the money need to keep more of their money. Only politicians feel that flat tax is regressive. Because to implement a flat tax system, they would lose major dollars from their own pockets.

A flat tax system is progressive for the citizens of any nation. It is regressive to government, but only if they cannot demonstrate budget restraint - which they cannot. Therefore, we need to limit their funding so that they become more frugal in their spending and hand-outs.

[mactastic]

Originally posted by Rebel
Do you even read the bottom section of your posts?

My sig? Yeah, why?

[IJ Reilly]

Originally posted by Rebel
Do you even read the bottom section of your posts? The people who earn the money need to keep more of their money. Only politicians feel that flat tax is regressive. Because to implement a flat tax system, they would lose major dollars from their own pockets.

A flat tax system is progressive for the citizens of any nation. It is regressive to government, but only if they cannot demonstrate budget restraint - which they cannot. Therefore, we need to limit their funding so that they become more frugal in their spending and hand-outs.

I'm sorry, but I don't follow your reasoning at all. In any event, we've discussed this issue at length before. A flat tax is not itself regressive (by definition), but because so many other taxes Americans pay are regressive, the net tax burden would become sharply regressive if the federal income tax was flattened.

[Rebel]

Originally posted by IJ Reilly
I'm sorry, but I don't follow your reasoning at all. In any event, we've discussed this issue at length before. A flat tax is not itself regressive (by definition), but because so many other taxes Americans pay are regressive, the net tax burden would become sharply regressive if the federal income tax was flattened.

Exactly. Federal income must become regressive in order for citizens to progress.

It is time to force our political establishments to clean house. Unless we limit their funding, they will never do it on their own.

[IJ Reilly]

Originally posted by Rebel
Exactly. Federal income must become regressive in order for citizens to progress.

It is time to force our political establishments to clean house. Unless we limit their funding, they will never do it on their own.

You are actually arguing that taxes ought to be levied on an inverse ability to pay? If that's the case, how much money should a person need to earn before their requirement to pay taxes is waived entirely?

[Rebel]

Originally posted by IJ Reilly
You are actually arguing that taxes ought to be levied on an inverse ability to pay? If that's the case, how much money should a person need to earn before their requirement to pay taxes is waived entirely?


If you have a job in this country, you should pay an income tax. Even the folks who have as you say "an inverse ability to pay" are paying taxes on everything they purchase. They are not tax free. Under an income tax only system, they would not pay any taxes unless they had a job. And as long as a person has income, they should pay taxes. The only folks who will get a tax waiver under an income only system, are the unemployeed folks.

[mactastic]

And what would the tax rate have to be to offset the losses from the sales tax and all the other taxes we pay? Cause when Arnold cut the VLF tax, it just forces cities to raise their taxes and fees to make up the difference.

Cutting taxes to the bone makes no sense without purging government of waste. Do that, and then you can cut taxes.

[Rebel]

Originally posted by mactastic
And what would the tax rate have to be to offset the losses from the sales tax and all the other taxes we pay? Cause when Arnold cut the VLF tax, it just forces cities to raise their taxes and fees to make up the difference.

Cutting taxes to the bone makes no sense without purging government of waste. Do that, and then you can cut taxes.

Government will not purge there waste unless we force them to do it. And the only way to force them, is to limit their funds. Under a U-ACT (http://www.ucanation.org) income tax system, more money stays in the communities where the people live. Villages, Counties and States will hardly be affected. Even tho there is much abuse in these arenas, it is at the federal level where billions are being wasted. This system will clean-up the federal level, then we can start working at the local levels.

Only a combined citizenship can force change. Politicians will not do it unless we force the issue.

[Durandal7]

The current tax system should be kept intact for the middle and upper class. The lower class contributes so little income for the government in proportion to the upper class that a tax break will not hurt. Lower class taxes should be halved and there should even be exemptions for public services they will not use (no school tax if they have no children.) They are such a small sliver of the total tax income that it is possible to cut them a large break while not harming government funds.

[Frohickey]

Income taxes returns should be due on November 2nd... immediately prior to November 4th, when people still have their tax bills in mind when they go to the polls.

Income tax returns should also have checkboxes for each of the departments of government. Taxpayers get to pick and choose which departments get their tax revenue. If a department does not get over a certain threshold of funding, it is dissolved for a period of 2 years.

Congress would then have to reauthorize it.

[Rebel]

Originally posted by Durandal7
The current tax system should be kept intact for the middle and upper class. The lower class contributes so little income for the government in proportion to the upper class that a tax break will not hurt. Lower class taxes should be halved and there should even be exemptions for public services they will not use (no school tax if they have no children.) They are such a small sliver of the total tax income that it is possible to cut them a large break while not harming government funds.

An income tax only system is the only fair way for every American. The lower class contributes very little in way of income, but it is the other taxes (consumption) that leaves no distiction between the classes. And the way our economy is going, there will be more "have nots" than "haves". The gap will continue to widen until most Americans are economic slaves.

The Census Bureau offered some news last month that surprised few - household incomes dropped between 2001 and 2002. The median credit card balance is $1,900, meaning half of us owe more and half owe less than that, with an average interest rate of 12.9 percent. Median home value is $122,200, while the median value of our retirement accounts is $24,000. That last figure is problematic, according to BillSaver.com founder John Oldshue. "It is very concerning to see how much debt the average American has and the small amount they have saved for retirement," "The average person has over 38 percent more debt than they have in their retirement account. This is a very dangerous position for an individual." The future for American Citizens, who look forward to a relaxing retirement, is slipping away. Many will have to work until death do them part.

[mactastic]

Originally posted by Rebel
Government will not purge there waste unless we force them to do it. And the only way to force them, is to limit their funds. Under a U-ACT (http://www.ucanation.org) income tax system, more money stays in the communities where the people live. Villages, Counties and States will hardly be affected. Even tho there is much abuse in these arenas, it is at the federal level where billions are being wasted. This system will clean-up the federal level, then we can start working at the local levels.

Only a combined citizenship can force change. Politicians will not do it unless we force the issue.

The GOP is counting on people like you to help starve the federal programs of the funds they need to operate effectively. Once they can be pronounced a failure (they are really pushing on the Dept. of Ed. right now) they can eliminate it. Meanwhile govt' spending increases at an astronomical rate.

[Rebel]

Originally posted by mactastic
The GOP is counting on people like you to help starve the federal programs of the funds they need to operate effectively. Once they can be pronounced a failure (they are really pushing on the Dept. of Ed. right now) they can eliminate it. Meanwhile govt' spending increases at an astronomical rate.

The federal programs have more than enough money if they would quit wasting it. And spending cannot increase astronomically if their funding is limited. For instance, the military budget, after all major components are accounted for, still has an $18 BILLION dollar other catch-all catagory. There is no definition as to what they can use this for. It is their slush fund.

As far as the department of Education, the US has more teachers per student than any other industrialized nation, and we spend more money per student. But our children continually score lower on a global scale. Maybe we do not need more teachers and pay them more money, maybe we need to pay the right teachers the right amount of money.

[IJ Reilly]

Originally posted by Rebel
The federal programs have more than enough money if they would quit wasting it.

Does this analysis include the military?

[mactastic]

Originally posted by Rebel
The federal programs have more than enough money if they would quit wasting it. And spending cannot increase astronomically if their funding is limited. For instance, the military budget, after all major components are accounted for, still has an $18 BILLION dollar other catch-all catagory. There is no definition as to what they can use this for. It is their slush fund.

As far as the department of Education, the US has more teachers per student than any other industrialized nation, and we spend more money per student. But our children continually score lower on a global scale. Maybe we do not need more teachers and pay them more money, maybe we need to pay the right teachers the right amount of money.

Well, you're close on the last part, we need to retain the right teachers and get rid of the ones that are just putting in time in a cushy job. We need to pay them enough to keep the good ones, particularly in math and science but also across the board, from moving into private industry where their skills are more valuable. But we need more teachers than we have now, and if we got rid of the dead-wood, we'd need that many more.

As part of the "No Child Left Behind" legislation there are requirements as to class size that are mandated by government. Then the schools aren't given the money to provide new classrooms for these reduced classes, nor the money for teachers to staff them. And the schools are facing another round of budget cuts here, and what do I see? The bearuocrats protecting their jobs at the cost of cutting teachers. If this is how your tax plan forces cuts in government spending I don't want any part of it. If all you do is cut the funding without some mechanism for forcing the pork out of the system, the pork will maintain their jobs while the system collapses around them.

Show me that mechanism for changing the system before you call for wholesale revolution by the American people please.

[Rebel]

Originally posted by mactastic
If all you do is cut the funding without some mechanism for forcing the pork out of the system, the pork will maintain their jobs while the system collapses around them.

Show me that mechanism for changing the system before you call for wholesale revolution by the American people please.

You bring up a very good point, one we have pondered internally and have yet to crack. There is no easy answer for this quandery, yet changes need to be forced at some point in order to right the wrongs. The system that I have been asked not to push within this forum, is a starting point for more discussions, and will probrably end up being altered if and when we get enough support to force the issue. If enough Americans get behind the plan, we will have the power to start negotiating a better tax deal for every citizen. It is the clasic negotiating tactic - Taxes are already too high, so you start low and then meet somewhere in the middle.

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by Rebel
You bring up a very good point, one we have pondered internally and have yet to crack. There is no easy answer for this quandery, yet changes need to be forced at some point in order to right the wrongs. The system that I have been asked not to push within this forum, is a starting point for more discussions, and will probrably end up being altered if and when we get enough support to force the issue.

I like Michael Moore's tactic: run for office. High level or low level, you can make a bigger difference by becoming a cog in the machine than you can by complaining or giving money to an anti-lobby lobby.

Any change you can make at any level is worth the effort, right?

That's what I plan to do eventually. Get older, get wiser, get more education, then give back to society through public service and steer it in the direction I think it needs to go.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by pseudobrit

That's what I plan to do eventually. Get older, get wiser, get more education, then give back to society through public service and steer it in the direction I think it needs to go.

up?

[Rebel]

Originally posted by pseudobrit
I like Michael Moore's tactic: run for office. High level or low level, you can make a bigger difference by becoming a cog in the machine than you can by complaining or giving money to an anti-lobby lobby.

Any change you can make at any level is worth the effort, right?

That's what I plan to do eventually. Get older, get wiser, get more education, then give back to society through public service and steer it in the direction I think it needs to go.

It is here where I disagree with you. I have been asked to run for office. But I keep refusing and this is why. One person in political office cannot make a difference. We have had good politicians who have given up because the internal politics of office is un-beatable. They eventually join the others and try to stick as much American tax dollars into their pockets before they are voted out.

On the other hand - One organization backed by a huge majority of American citizens, can make a difference. The dilema is to find the right organization that is focused on one goal. There are too many org's out there that are trying to solve too many issues simultaneously. Not only that, but the majority are 501 c 3 org's, which by law, cannot solicit changes in law. In essance, they can give you a tax break but they are placing a vast amount of donations into their own pockets, and laughing all the way to the bank.

Again the org that I will not name, of which I am an active supporter, is a 501 c 4 org - which can lobby, and the promise is to return all donations once the goal is achieved. It is designed to be un-corruptable - and focused on one goal. Is the goal good for Americans? I say it is a good starting point for governmental negotiations.

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by Rebel
One person in political office cannot make a difference.

That's simply nonsense.

[Rebel]

Originally posted by pseudobrit
That's simply nonsense.

Is not!

[zimv20]

Originally posted by Rebel
Is not!

errrrr.... it's complex nonsense?

:-)

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by Rebel
Is not!

You've asserted that one person is incapable of making a difference in political office. I say centuries of history prove you wrong.

Individual efforts at the highest and lowest levels of government have led to revolutionary change before and they can again.

[Rebel]

Originally posted by pseudobrit
You've asserted that one person is incapable of making a difference in political office. I say centuries of history prove you wrong.

Individual efforts at the highest and lowest levels of government have led to revolutionary change before and they can again.

I would agree that in the past, it was easier for individuals within the federal system to bring forth revolutionary change. But I have watched our system closely for the past 25 years, and it has degraded significantly, and is as a snowball running down the mountain. In the past there were more ethical people in office than there are today - which kept a balance. Within the past 10 years, the snowball has picked-up speed and is heading for an undeniable crash. The newer politicians are in it for the prestige and money. Nothing more. They do not care about you, me or anybody. There goal is personal interest.

Half of the members of Congress are millionaires and many will face votes that will affect their financial holdings. For example, 11 first timers in the House and Senate have financial interests in banking or credit card companies. Several others have holdings in pharmaceuticals and oil. Watch dog groups say that wealth makes lawmakers more apt to think about their financial interests first than what's best for the nation. According to Ralph Nader "Rich people tend to hold lots of stock and have conflicts of interest in respect to their voting."

Our government is dysfunctional, and is poised to crash. When companies cannot correct their ineptitudes, they eventually accumulate so much waste in either time and/or money that they eventually fail miserably. Our government is well on its way to failing miserably.

[g5man]

Teen becoming more conservative.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,105216,00.html

A liberal view point is becoming a bigger minority with each passing year in country. Most who hold those liberal views are shocked when conservatives win more elections, but the rest of us have seen the writing on the wall for quite sometime.

[mactastic]

Teens are increasingly conservative on abortion and prayer in schools, but they are still more liberal as a group on homosexuality and the environment....

Just thought I'd post the other half of the story!

[3rdpath]

from the article...."A brand new_Gallup Organization (search)_study and another out of the_University of California at Berkeley (search)_found that teens are more likely to be in favor of government restrictions on abortion and prayer during official school activities."

i have to say I am also in favor of "restrictions on abortion and prayer during school activities".

it's those school-time abortions that really burn me up.... :rolleyes:

and as mactastic pointed out--the beliefs of teens are NOT leaning one way or the other...they are decidedly individualistic depending on the issue.

but certainly don't let the whole story get in the way of your self-appointed responsibility to announce the coming of the new world you so desperately want to see.

march-on little man.

[g5man]

Originally posted by mactastic
Teens are increasingly conservative on abortion and prayer in schools, but they are still more liberal as a group on homosexuality and the environment....

Just thought I'd post the other half of the story!

True.

The question than is if they decide to vote in a few years, will they lean towards Democracts or Republicans. As noted in this article College Students are leaning more towards Republicans.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20031022-104650-8670r.htm

[mactastic]

I'd be happy to trade a more conservative approach to prayer in school and abortion if it meant we had a more liberal approach to homosexuality and the environment.:D

[g5man]

Originally posted by 3rdpath



march-on little man.

Why are you so sarcastic and Confrontational?

I know you are angry, but try to relax a little and repond with a little dignity and class.

[mactastic]

Question is, will they turn out to vote. According to this (http://www.fairvote.org/turnout/youth_voters.htm) site, only 40% of 18 to 24 year olds were registered to vote in 1996. And only 32% of them voted that year, and the trend has been downward over time.

College students are not the be-all and end-all of 18 to 24 year olds.

[g5man]

It is unlikely that trend will change, but from what I have read people tend to become more conservative(politically)as they get older. And we all know that most of the elderly turn out to vote.

What I am trying to point out is that the overall trend is towards conservative view points. I have shown this in polls, articles , and data. Elections in the last three years across the country have proven the same data.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by g5man
It is unlikely that trend will change [...] Elections in the last three years across the country have proven the same data.

the pendulum _always_ swings back the other way. three years of data isn't much of a sampling.

[g5man]

Originally posted by zimv20
the pendulum _always_ swings back the other way. three years of data isn't much of a sampling.

Actually we have seen election data confirming the trend on a larger scale in the last three years. The movement towards more conservative views has been happening for much longer. The DLC had some polling which led them to conclude that the Democratic party is appealing to the smallest number of people since the 1960's. Sorry I don't have the link.

The pendulum does swing back, but I don't see it in my lifetime.

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by ColoJohnBoy
How depressing. I think I'd rather hang myself than spend four years under the tyranny of that man.

If you hang yourself, can I have your PowerMac? ;)

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
i must say this! is the electoral college really needed anymore? Gore did win the majority vote. I think they should do away with it and simply add up the votes across the country and whoever has the most votes wins. 1 man 1 vote for our president.

Yes. Electoral college is still needed. Otherwise, why should the smaller states like North Dakota, Colorado, etc should stay in the Union when all a candidate need to do is win California, New York and a few other large states.

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by mactastic
Let's dole the electoral votes out by congressional district, with the overall winner in the state taking the two senate-given votes. That way a state that votes nearly 50/50 for a candidate would still give a nearly 50/50 distribution of the electoral votes. A couple states do it this way now AFAIK. Seems a lot more fair to me, although the networks would have to revamp their red/blue maps.

Nice idea, but that is entirely up to the individual state legislatures to decide which way their electoral votes go.

The smallest entity that is recognized by the federal government is the state. Not congressional districts. Congressional districts are determined by the state legislatures, so your idea of doling out electoral votes is entirely in the purview of the state legislatures.

[3rdpath]

Originally posted by g5man
Why are you so sarcastic and Confrontational?

I know you are angry, but try to relax a little and repond with a little dignity and class.

i'm sarcastic with you because you post opinion pieces as fact. or you take parts of articles and use them to justify your beliefs regardless of the full content or intent of the article.

and as far as how i respond to you....i will respond to you with as much respect as a poster who has been banned several times deserves. your method is duplicious, dishonest and lacks integrity. i will extend class and dignity to those who deserve it...which obviously excludes you.

i can't ban you, but i can remind you of who you are and the absurdity of what you are doing.

[g5man]

Once again, you are angry and making too many wrong conclusions.

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by Rower_CPU
In that case you still have a majority of the population voting for one candidate and the electoral votes would be heavily skewed in their favor as well.

Those 3 large states would have about 300 electoral votes if we go by population, and a candidate only needs 270 to win.

Should 47 states of empty land have more say in what the other 3 do?

The situation you talk about already exists under the rules for the electoral college.

There are a total of 535 electoral votes. So, in your hypothetical 3 large states, and 47 miniscule states, there would still be 535 electoral votes.

47 states have a total of 94 senators, for 94 electoral votes, plus however many congressional districts, but each needs at least one, or else the states would not have any representation in the House of Representatives (and hence, why should these 47 states subject themselves to taxation without representation). So, lets say these small 47 states have one congressional district each, that would mean a total of 141 electoral votes.

The other 3 states would have 394 electoral votes.

So, under the Electoral College, your scenario is encompassed as well.

The way things are, where winner takes all in a state (the only legal entity the federal government recognizes), makes the winner of a big state win bigger than a smaller state, so the argument about more votes counting is encompassed as well.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by g5man

The pendulum does swing back, but I don't see it in my lifetime.

hard to predict that far out (i'm assuming you're not on your deathbed).

i can't even be sure the US will exist, at least in its current form, in 20 years.

[Rower_CPU]

Originally posted by Frohickey
The situation you talk about already exists under the rules for the electoral college.

There are a total of 535 electoral votes. So, in your hypothetical 3 large states, and 47 miniscule states, there would still be 535 electoral votes.

47 states have a total of 94 senators, for 94 electoral votes, plus however many congressional districts, but each needs at least one, or else the states would not have any representation in the House of Representatives (and hence, why should these 47 states subject themselves to taxation without representation). So, lets say these small 47 states have one congressional district each, that would mean a total of 141 electoral votes.

The other 3 states would have 394 electoral votes.

So, under the Electoral College, your scenario is encompassed as well.

The way things are, where winner takes all in a state (the only legal entity the federal government recognizes), makes the winner of a big state win bigger than a smaller state, so the argument about more votes counting is encompassed as well.

Well, duh. ;)

The original post (over a month ago) was in response to concerns that states with smaller populations would be left "out in the cold" if these sort of large population voting blocks existed.

[mactastic]

Originally posted by Frohickey
Nice idea, but that is entirely up to the individual state legislatures to decide which way their electoral votes go.

The smallest entity that is recognized by the federal government is the state. Not congressional districts. Congressional districts are determined by the state legislatures, so your idea of doling out electoral votes is entirely in the purview of the state legislatures.

I know it's up to the state legislatures. That is why only a couple states do it this way, right? If it was a federal thing, we'd all be doing it right now! And it still seems more fair to me, federally recognized entity or not.

At least you've finally thought I had a nice idea.

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by g5man
It is unlikely that trend will change, but from what I have read people tend to become more conservative(politically)as they get older. And we all know that most of the elderly turn out to vote.

What I am trying to point out is that the overall trend is towards conservative view points. I have shown this in polls, articles , and data. Elections in the last three years across the country have proven the same data.

I beg to differ on this one.

Congress and the President just signed the largest entitlement program since Social Security not too long ago in the name of prescription drugs for seniors. How could you say that yet another large governmental entitlement program be part and parcel of conservative voters?

If anything, this just goes to prove the following quote:
A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largess of the public treasury. From that time on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the results that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's great civilizations has been 200 years. These nations have progressed through this sequence:from bondage to spiritual faith;from spiritual faith to great courage;from courage to liberty;from liberty to abundance;from abundance to selfishness;from selfishness to complacency;from complacency to apathy;from apathy to dependency;from dependency back again to bondage.
--Sir Alex Fraser Tytler (1742-1813) Scottish jurist and historian

[g5man]

Originally posted by zimv20
hard to predict that far out (i'm assuming you're not on your deathbed).

i can't even be sure the US will exist, at least in its current form, in 20 years.

Actually I could lose some weight, but far from being on my deathbed.

You may be right about the US not existing, for I am pretty sure Jesus will come by then.

[g5man]

Originally posted by Frohickey
I beg to differ on this one.

Congress and the President just signed the largest entitlement program since Social Security not too long ago in the name of prescription drugs for seniors. How could you say that yet another large governmental entitlement program be part and parcel of conservative voters?

If anything, this just goes to prove the following quote:

That was a great quote by the way. The name of the game is getting power in order to further an agenda. This may mean compromising along the way. The Medicare bill was pushed by Bush to secure re-election. The campaign script has been written and he needed a few more pieces to back it up.

This is a long term process taking 8 years or more. Once in power the party can influence a great many things. The Senate and House are safe from takeover, but Rove is still uneasy about the White House. Look for more changes in the second term , that will be conservative in nature.

It amazes me when they call Bush a right-wing who wants to take away benefits when domestic programs have increased in his term. But maybe the other-side sees the long term plan that I have alluded to above.

[IJ Reilly]

Originally posted by Rower_CPU
The original post (over a month ago) was in response to concerns that states with smaller populations would be left "out in the cold" if these sort of large population voting blocks existed.

Right, and this logic only works if you believe that it's states who vote, not people.

[mactastic]

It's no big secret that the GOP wants to starve what entitlement programs they can, declare them failing after underfunding them, whatever they need to do to make them look like they are not useful so they can then cut them.

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by mactastic
I know it's up to the state legislatures. That is why only a couple states do it this way, right? If it was a federal thing, we'd all be doing it right now! And it still seems more fair to me, federally recognized entity or not.

At least you've finally thought I had a nice idea.

Well, even a broken clock is right twice a day. :p
Just kidding. Its actually a good idea, though, the state legislatures have not seen fit to adopt this type of election law. There could be other reasons why not, one being that all the electoral votes going to a particular candidate would tend to unify the different factions within a state, and lead to a more harmonious state electorate.

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by mactastic
It's no big secret that the GOP wants to starve what entitlement programs they can, declare them failing after underfunding them, whatever they need to do to make them look like they are not useful so they can then cut them.

Entitlement programs have led to the expansion of goverment, which leads to govt inefficiency. When was the last time you have seen a large organization WITHOUT COMPETITION that operated efficiently?

[mactastic]

When was the last time any government agency operated efficiently? Including the military which has a constitutional basis for existing. Even the military is a pit of waste and fraud and abuse. Figure out how to cure the military of it, then spread it to other areas.

As I've said before, if we cut the pork type funding, the pork will keep their jobs while the system collapses around them. Show my the mechanism to remove the pork before you talk about getting rid of the programs you don't like.

[IJ Reilly]

Republicans Indulging in Pork Along With Power

By Nick Anderson, Times Staff Writer

WASHINGTON — Before they took control of Congress nearly nine years ago, Republicans often mocked the Democratic practice of larding government spending bills with provisions that earmarked funds for pet projects in particular lawmakers' districts and states.

But a $328.1-billion bill that the Republican-led House expects to pass today, funding a grab bag of government agencies, takes earmarking to greater heights and uses it for what Democrats claim are new, partisan purposes.

The bill includes an eye-popping number of earmarks — around 7,000 by one estimate, at a cost of several billion dollars. Other spending bills bring the grand total for the year to more than 10,000. In that long list are items big and small, from $100,000 for street furniture and sidewalks in Laverne, Ala., to $44 million for a bridge to Treasure Island in Florida — a plum for the Tampa Bay district of House Appropriations Chairman C.W. "Bill" Young.

But more than that, to a degree unseen since their 1995 takeover, the majority Republicans are publicly flaunting their power to use pork for explicitly partisan purposes.


The full fat-laden details (http://www.latimes.com/la-na-pork8dec08,1,3929361.story)

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by g5man
You may be right about the US not existing, for I am pretty sure Jesus will come by then.

You're joking, I presume.

[g5man]

Originally posted by pseudobrit
You're joking, I presume.

Not one bit. I am very serious. I believe in a second coming, and being a born again Christian I look forward to meeting my maker.

[3rdpath]

Originally posted by ovi/sanfelipe/g5man
The question than is if they decide to vote in a few years, will they lean towards Democracts or Republicans. As noted in this article College Students are leaning more towards Republicans.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20031022-104650-8670r.htm

actually the article states: "Defying conventional wisdom," the poll stated, 31 percent of the respondents were Republicans, 27 percent Democrats, and 38 percent independent or unaffiliated."

which clearly means college students are leaning indie or undecided.

and with a stated margin of error of 3% the difference between those leaning republican or democrat isn't measurable.

this is the second article today that you have posted with an incorrect ( and decidedly slanted) interpretation. if this is intentional- it's trolling. if it's not, it's just sad.

and ovi, don't mistake my contempt for anger.

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by g5man
Not one bit. I am very serious. I believe in a second coming, and being a born again Christian I look forward to meeting my maker.

You think we're going to see apocalypse within 20 years then, eh?

[zimv20]

Originally posted by Frohickey
When was the last time you have seen a large organization WITHOUT COMPETITION that operated efficiently?

how about bechtel and halliburton?

[zimv20]

Originally posted by g5man

You may be right about the US not existing, for I am pretty sure Jesus will come by then.

any man who's been jerked around for 2000 years would sooner or later...

what? WHAT?

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by mactastic
When was the last time any government agency operated efficiently? Including the military which has a constitutional basis for existing. Even the military is a pit of waste and fraud and abuse. Figure out how to cure the military of it, then spread it to other areas.

As I've said before, if we cut the pork type funding, the pork will keep their jobs while the system collapses around them. Show my the mechanism to remove the pork before you talk about getting rid of the programs you don't like.

How about just minimizing the amount of waste and fraud by limiting government to its constitutional duties and nothing more? Even the SR71, which leaks fuel when its at sea level only gets enough fuel for takeoff, and doesn't take on a full load of fuel until its already airborne.

As to programs I don't like... the only programs that I don't like are the ones that are not constitutionally mandated. As much as people like to complain about the post office, I like the post office. Its constitutionally mandated too. ;)

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by zimv20
how about bechtel and halliburton?

They are not operating efficiently? Somehow, their stockholders do not think your comment is correct. Because if Bechtel stockholders do not think its efficient and gives them more of a return for their investment, they will go to Halliburton. And its then becomes an endless cycle of maximizing efficiency and profitability.

Why is it that leftists are the ones that like to harp on the various industries that GOP politicians worked on, but they do not harp on the ones that Democrats worked on?

Businesses and private enterprise are older than government. And its more of a necessity than government. The world has already tried the experiment of government and exclusive means of production, and we got 2.5 million dead in Stalin's gulags.

Socialism depends on the good nature of man (woman) in order to work and be a force for good. Socialism and good gives you the utopian society that you wish for. But socialism with base nature gives you the 2.5 million dead (Mao killed more than Stalin.)

Capitalism depends on the base nature of man (woman) [specifically greed and lust of power] in order to work and be a force for good. Capitalism and base nature gives you the current society where each person is rewarded or punished depending on their efforts and what providence may have given them. Capitalism and good gives you charities which seek to help people in the society.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by Frohickey
They are not operating efficiently?

they're operating w/o competition, essentially. and judging by the bechtel-makes-crappy-schools-in-iraq thread, i _hope_ they're making money, 'cuz they sure ain't spending it on what they're supposed to.

[wwworry]

or socialism gives you low crime, a healthy populace and a high standard of living. The problem with Mao was Mao. Do you think if Mao was a capitalist he would have been any less brutal?

I love how when Haliburton or Bectel gouges the taxpayer and gets huge no-bid contracts from former employees conservatives say "It's natural and healthy." Give me a break! Why apologize for them? It just makes you look like an apologist for which ever party you happen to be affiliated with, and hippocritical. It's wrong and you know it.

[RebelWithoutaPC]

See, Rush likes Macs.
Anyways, as the token Republican, I'd just like to say that I agree with Rush on this one. Maybe this is why the GOP is gaining popularity-- becuase Rush was right about Macs. See?http://http://www.macminute.com/2003/06/28/limbaugh

[wwworry]

So what did the hipocritical drug addict who sent his maid to buy drugs for him say? Really.

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by wwworry
or socialism gives you low crime, a healthy populace and a high standard of living. The problem with Mao was Mao. Do you think if Mao was a capitalist he would have been any less brutal?

I love how when Haliburton or Bectel gouges the taxpayer and gets huge no-bid contracts from former employees conservatives say "It's natural and healthy." Give me a break! Why apologize for them? It just makes you look like an apologist for which ever party you happen to be affiliated with, and hippocritical. It's wrong and you know it.

If Mao was a capitalist, his brutality would have been counteracted by his competition. Support me in the next election, I will only give you 10 lashes instead of 20 from Mao. :p

Halliburton operates in a capitalist society, and therefore has competition. If it gouges the taxpayer, and its found out, then there would be a backlash as well as competition for the business to go to. In socialism, if you want to do business, you only have one place to go to, and if you get gouged, there is no recourse.

Not to say that monopolies are unknown in capitalist societies, but the reason for the existence of the monopoly is not because of legislative fiat, but of technological, economical, or financial reasons.

[wwworry]

Originally posted by Frohickey
If Mao was a capitalist, his brutality would have been counteracted by his competition. Support me in the next election, I will only give you 10 lashes instead of 20 from Mao. :p

Halliburton operates in a capitalist society, and therefore has competition. If it gouges the taxpayer, and its found out, then there would be a backlash as well as competition for the business to go to. In socialism, if you want to do business, you only have one place to go to, and if you get gouged, there is no recourse.

Not to say that monopolies are unknown in capitalist societies, but the reason for the existence of the monopoly is not because of legislative fiat, but of technological, economical, or financial reasons.

First you confuse capitalism and democracy. If Mao was in a democracy, his brutality would have been counteracted by his competition. I am not America bashing but the mass lynchings in the south show that capitalism nor democracy is not complete protection against unjust murders. THere are other examples.

Halliburton operates in a capitalist society, and therefore has competition.

well, the past few days have all been about LACK of competition in Iraq what with the vice presidents ties, their campaign contributions, people like you who apologize for every Bush administration outrageousness, other companies like Bechtel who are no better.

When is Haliburton going to give the money back that they stole? What about Enron for that matter? Well connected companies do what they want, especially now.

[mactastic]

Originally posted by Frohickey
Halliburton operates in a capitalist society, and therefore has competition.

Ok, help me out here. How is getting generous no-bid contracts having competition?

[wwworry]

These are the kind of contracts where when there are cost overruns the can ask for and get more money. For Free!

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by wwworry
First you confuse capitalism and democracy. If Mao was in a democracy, his brutality would have been counteracted by his competition. I am not America bashing but the mass lynchings in the south show that capitalism nor democracy is not complete protection against unjust murders. THere are other examples.

When is Haliburton going to give the money back that they stole? What about Enron for that matter? Well connected companies do what they want, especially now.

Dunno. I hope that Haliburton is penalized for the delay of giving out a rebate on the fuel it sold. But, and here is the kicker, if the fuel it sold, and the price it got was determined by contract, then I want to see the bureaucrat that signed that contract to be tarred, feathered and fired, after his/her wages are garnished to pay for the bad contract that was signed. Too many people here are quick to see fault in private businesses, and are blind when its government is at fault. Lets see where the breakdown really happened at.

As to Enron, there was also Global Crossing, MCI/Worldcom and a whole slew of other companies that could been considered to have doctored their books. That is called fraud, and government should be investigating and punishing these people.

As to the mass lynchings in the south, there, it was a combination of effects. Democracy is what you had there, where the evil people voted for certain laws which penalized or set back the blacks. There was no governmental entity that protected the rights of the blacks, even though, constitutionally they were protected. Also, evil people were in charge of enforcing the laws, and via selective enforcement penalized or set back the blacks.

Do research on the historical beginning of the term 'Saturday Night Special'. You will be surprised.

[wwworry]

It's good that you are willing to admit that price gouging is bad. I don't know if we can tar and feather Dick Cheney.

Look at that lousy Boeing contract for the air tankers. It took months of press coverage for anything to happen. The person in the pentagon responsible for negotiating the contract with Boeing was, at the same, time negotiating for a job with Boeing. Pentagon signs contract. Negotiator gets job with Boeing. Finally she got fired.

But there is such a revolving door between the pentagon and defence industries it's like the fox guarding the chicken coop. It is corrupt. I know you will say how natural it is and wonderful capitalism but I disagree. There should be a law that bars govt. employees for doing work for companies it negotiated with until they are 5 years out of govt. service.

[Rebel]

Originally posted by wwworry
It's good that you are willing to admit that price gouging is bad. I don't know if we can tar and feather Dick Cheney.

Look at that lousy Boeing contract for the air tankers. It took months of press coverage for anything to happen. The person in the pentagon responsible for negotiating the contract with Boeing was, at the same, time negotiating for a job with Boeing. Pentagon signs contract. Negotiator gets job with Boeing. Finally she got fired.

But there is such a revolving door between the pentagon and defence industries it's like the fox guarding the chicken coop. It is corrupt. I know you will say how natural it is and wonderful capitalism but I disagree. There should be a law that bars govt. employees for doing work for companies it negotiated with until they are 5 years out of govt. service.

Here are some interesting facts.

Lockheed Martin hired at least three Pentagon/Dep’t of Defense officials in 2003.
· Former Under Secretary of Defense Pete Aldridge, Jr.
· Former NATO Supreme Allied Commander, Europe Joseph Ralston

Boeing hired in addition to Darleen Druyun, who is at the center of the current controversy, at least two other Pentagon/ Dep’t of Defense officials in 2003.
· Former Reagan Chief of Staff Kenneth Duberstein
· Former Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman John Shalikashvili

Northrop Grumman hired our Secretary of the Air Force James Roche as a Northrop Grumman VP. And at least three Pentagon/Dep’t of Defense officials in 2003.
· Former Air Force General John Chain, Jr.
· Former Congressman Vic Fazio (D-CA)
· Former Ambassador Charles Larson

Raytheon hired at least three Pentagon/Dep’t of Defense officials in 2003.
· Former CIA Director John Deutch
· Former Sen. Warren Rudman (R-N.H.)
· Former Vice Chief of Staff of the Army John Tilelli, Jr.

General Dynamics hired at least five Pentagon official in 2003;
· Former Chief of Naval Operations Jay Johnson
· Former Army General George Joulwan
· Former Dep’t of Defense Under Secretary Paul Kaminski
· Former Air Force General Lester Lyles
· Former Marine Corps Commandant Carl Mundy, Jr.

All of these private organizations earned huge federal contracts in one form or another. The companies are saying that it is just a natural form of doing business. The U.C.A. says it is unethical and a dangerous practice. We American citizens put a lot faith into our government employee’s hands to manage our money efficiently and effectively, but when deals of this nature are exposed, it starts to reek of abuse.

[g5man]

During the presentation, McAuliffe told students that due to Bush’s mismanagement of the country, 70 percent of college graduates will not be able to find a job upon graduation. He also told students that if the war in Iraq continues as it has, there could be a reinstatement of the draft.

http://www4.fosters.com/News2003/December2003/December_17/News/po_1217c.asp

He will be one of the biggest reasons that the GOP made great strides while he was chairman of the DNC.

Now we add Dean to the mix, and GOP registration will increase once again after Nov. GOP registration has increased throughout the United States in the last 3 years, democratic numbers continued to decrease.

[mactastic]

God McCauliff makes me ill. But then again, so does Ed Gillespie.

[Frohickey]

but...but...
McAuliffe is the handpicked chairman, picked by no less than Bill Clinton. :eek:

Forget the fact that Maynard Jackson deserved the post more than Terry McAwful.

[mactastic]

But but
Ed Gillespie is just as money and power hungry as McCaulliff. And besides, when did "deserving" the position mean you got it? Gore "deserved" the presidency more than Bush and he didn't get it. (If by deserved you mean Jackson had more supporters, but got strings pulled by Clinton.)

So what's your point about "deserving" anything? Does the world owe someone who puts in their dues something in return?