Democrats Win Control of the Senate!

[Armand Z Trip]

Congrats Dems on the board.

I knew you'd take the house but I didn't figure the Senate too.

Thank you Tomahawk. You are a class act.

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

don't have to get so jumpy everyone

just remember that there's a somewhat different view that the rest of the world has of Mr Bush than the american public

but it's nice to know that starting a war without any real justification cannot be seen as a crime in any way

be well y'all

Thankyou. What the hell are some people on here thinking?

 

[maxwell's demon]

The dems like Nancy Pelosi are who scare me.

Lazur, i posted this in the other congressional election thread but the traffic seems to've moded here, so i'll repost.

Not really, no.

I don't define a "moderate" as someone who blanketly opposes Bush, which you clearly do. I define that as a democrat. I believe there's a level of discernment where you can look at ANY politician, right or left, and find the good and the bad things.

ok, first off, you CAN blanketly oppose Bush and STILL be a moderate because BUSH is an extreme figure.

Second- good. please name some good qualities about John Kerry and Nancy Pelosi. and no jokes. genuinely good qualities- about their politics.

 

[lazur]

Lazur, i posted this in the other congressional election thread but the traffic seems to've moded here, so i'll repost.



ok, first off, you CAN blanketly oppose Bush and STILL be a moderate because BUSH is an extreme figure.

Second- good. please name some good qualities about John Kerry and Nancy Pelosi. and no jokes. genuinely good qualities- about their politics.

I don't know enough about the "good qualities" of Kerry and Pelosi. That doesn't mean I believe they haven't done any good things, however.

And bear in mind, when I address how people react toward Bush, I'm not just talking about the fact that he's disliked. It's damned venomous, to the point where people wish him harm (being assassinated, for example, which I've seen more than a few people on this board wish upon him).

That said, on a whole, I don't agree with Pelosi and Kerry politically. They're extremist democrats. Pelosi talks about "middle ground" when she knows nothing about it; it's alien to her. And Kerry's voting record is futher left than Ted Kennedy's, and that's saying something. HOWEVER, if either were my President, I would support them, even if I didn't agree with half (or even most) of what they did. And I certainly wouldn't wish death upon them.

 

[Mr Sparkle]

Kerry's voting record is futher left than Ted Kennedy's, and that's saying something.

yeah, I keep hearing this.
did you see WHAT he was voting on.
I never get these "he voted right/left" deals, I'd be more concerned if he voted "correctly/incorrectly" but then that's just me.

 

[maxwell's demon]

to play devils advocate, Lazur, one could also say that neither of them would do anything to warrant such harsh criticism.

a death threat is going a bit above and beyond. i've only seen fringe posters here say that, though.

 

[Ben Urich]

just a thought, what are the chances of Bush getting impeached for crimes against humanity?

0%, sadly.

 

[lazur]

yeah, I keep hearing this.
did you see WHAT he was voting on.
I never get these "he voted right/left" deals, I'd be more concerned if he voted "correctly/incorrectly" but then that's just me.

Yeah, but "correctly/incorrectly" is a matter of opinion, too subjective to really debate. In MY opinion, he's fringe left on his voting, out of the mainstream, certainly not "middle of the road".

 

[lazur]

to play devils advocate, Lazur, one could also say that neither of them would do anything to warrant such harsh criticism.

Wild speculation. They've never been (and hopefully will never be) in a situation like 9/11 where they had to make a world changing decision. They're armchair quarterbacks, nothing more. And that's fine. As I said, that's a terrible position to be in. But when you ARE in that position, everything you do becomes polarizing. Being a senator or representative doesn't afford you the opportunity/grim responsibility of having to make decisions BIG ENOUGH to warrant "harsh criticism".

a death threat is going a bit above and beyond. i've only seen fringe posters here say that, though.

Well, there are too many fringe posters on this board for my liking.

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

Call me a fringe poster because I would have a party if Bush were killed.

 

[Mr Sparkle]

Yeah, but "correctly/incorrectly" is a matter of opinion, too subjective to really debate. In MY opinion, he's fringe left on his voting, out of the mainstream, certainly not "middle of the road".

then so is "left/right" for that matter. you could then define anyone you didn't like as "fringe left" and that would be convenient.

 

[maxwell's demon]

Wild speculation. They've never been (and hopefully will never be) in a situation like 9/11 where they had to make a world changing decision. They're armchair quarterbacks, nothing more. And that's fine. As I said, that's a terrible position to be in. But when you ARE in that position, everything you do becomes polarizing. Being a senator or congress person doesn't afford you the opportunity/grim responsibility of having to make decisions BIG ENOUGH to warrant "harsh criticism".



Well, there are too many fringe posters on this board for my liking.

i don't agree with you on your first point Lazur. When 9-11 happened, Bush enjoyed the highest popularity of any president. ever. He retained some level of that support until he started making choice after choice that the american public disagreed with.

to illustrate: http://www.hist.umn.edu/~ruggles/Approval.htm

.

It is not 9-11 that made him a polarizing figure. it is how he chose to proceed AFTER 9-11. and how he continued to ignore the public on these issues.
It is not the single choices, but the pattern of choices, that caused the ciritcism to gain a more vehement tone.

This is, i think where you and i differ. to you, the office of hte president is one of a leader who makes deicsions, and it is our role to support them.
To me the office of the president is one of public servant. It is his job to do the will of the people. And it is our job, as citizens, to hold him accountable to the considerable. NOT to support whoever is in office, but to make our feelings, as the american public, known to him.

No, the President should not be held hostage to public sentiment. I am not saying that. He should have authority, but this does not mean he gets to ignore the people who put him in office. and this is what the american public, by and large, feels he has done.

 

[lazur]

then so is "left/right" for that matter. you could then define anyone you didn't like as "fringe left" and that would be convenient.

Umm, no, Kerry IS fringe left, and so is Pelosi. Even other dems they work with believe this.

 

[Mr Sparkle]

Umm, no, Kerry IS fringe left, and so is Pelosi. Even other dems they work with believe this.

no, actually Kerry is NOT fringe left, his voting shows this.
in fact the only man who could've been labeled "fringe left" was Dean.
I frankly don't know about Pelosi, I think you need to define "fringe left" to me.

 

[lazur]

i don't agree with you on your first point Lazur. When 9-11 happened, Bush enjoyed the highest popularity of any president. ever. He retained some level of that support until he started making choice after choice that the american public disagreed with.

to illustrate: http://www.hist.umn.edu/~ruggles/Approval.htm

It is not 9-11 that made him a polarizing figure. it is how he chose to proceed AFTER 9-11. and how he continued to ignore the public on these issues.
It is not the single choices, but the pattern of choices, that caused the ciritcism to gain a more vehement tone.

This is, i think where you and i differ. to you, the office of hte president is one of a leader who makes deicsions, and it is our role to support them.
To me the office of the president is one of public servant. It is his job to do the will of the people. And it is our job, as citizens, to hold him accountable to the considerable. NOT to support whoever is in office, but to make our feelings, as the american public, known to him.

No, the President should not be held hostage to public sentiment. I am not saying that. He should have authority, but this does not mean he gets to ignore the people who put him in office. and this is what the american public, by and large, feels he has done.

I'm going to make this a quick reply.

Yes, he did enjoy high ratings after 9/11, but he also had nearly the FULL support of Congress (on BOTH sides of the aisle), as well as the majority of the American people, when he went into Iraq.

Over TIME, however, it began to grate on people that it didn't appear we were making any progress in Iraq. The Taliban growing again in strength in Afghanistan also didn't help, but mostly it was Iraq.

As David Letterman said it on his show to O'Reilly (and I'm not quoting him exactly) - After 9/11, we all wanted justice. We saw Iraq as a part of that process. It was only after it seemed to drag on and on that everyone changed their minds.

When you see nothing but death and destruction on the news, because the news only plays on the death and destruction (and none of the good things that are happening), it will grate on anyone's "feelings".

And I'm with you that we can't just blindly support a President because he/she is President, but I do believe that as an American, it's our duty and obligation to stand behind our President against the rest of the world, even if we don't agree with what he or she is doing at the time. Bickering and whining will not change a thing, but make the time more miserable. So unless there's something worthy of removing a President from office, or something illegal has been done, then I feel an obligation to lend my support, whatever the outcome. But that's just me.

 

[maxwell's demon]

I'm going to make this a quick reply.

Yes, he did enjoy high ratings after 9/11, but he also had nearly the FULL support of Congress (on BOTH sides of the aisle), as well as the majority of the American people, when he went into Iraq.

Over TIME, however, it began to grate on people that it didn't appear we were making any progress in Iraq. The Taliban growing again in strength in Afghanistan also didn't help, but mostly it was Iraq.

As David Letterman said it on his show to O'Reilly (and I'm not quoting him exactly) - After 9/11, we all wanted justice. We saw Iraq as a part of that process. It was only after it seemed to drag on and on that everyone changed their minds.

When you see nothing but death and destruction on the news, because the news only plays on the death and destruction (and none of the good things that are happening), it will grate on anyone's "feelings".

And I'm with you that we can't just blindly support a President because he/she is President, but I do believe that as an American, it's our duty and obligation to stand behind our President against the rest of the world, even if we don't agree with what he or she is doing at the time. Bickering and whining will not change a thing, but make the time more miserable. So unless there's something worthy of removing a President from office, or something illegal has been done, then I feel an obligation to lend my support, whatever the outcome. But that's just me.

i'll make this even shorter- it comes down to that thing both of us have brought up several times in the past two weeks. benefit of the doubt.

I, and I believe a growing portion of the american public, no longer give the president that benefit. Not because they are callous or cold or irrationally anti-bush, but because they simply no longer feel he deserves it.

as for it being 'our duty and obligation to stand behind our President against the rest of the world, even if we don't agree with what he or she is doing at the time.' I wholeheartedly disagree with you on that one. That, to me, is the most dangous sentiment an American can express. its is the exact opposite of patriotism.

 

[sinewave]

The dems like Nancy Pelosi are who scare me.

i know they didn't hold a position as powerful as speaker of the house, but were you as scared of fringe right-wingers like santorum and frist? to me, pelosi's no more radical than the most far-right politicians in office. plus, she doesn't have a whole religious community backing her up, like a lot of far-right christian conservatives do.

 

[Arkady Rossovich]

so what? i dont see the big deal

The deal is that Democrats say no to Bush instead of blindly following him like Republicans.

 

[hippie_hunter]

The deal is that Democrats say no to Bush instead of blindly following him like Republicans.

Many Democrats just simply blindly oppose him just like many Republicans blindly followed him.

I think that instead of just simply opposing him, we should take a look at things issue by issue and determine the best route.

 

[Sun_Down]

ok, first off, you CAN blanketly oppose Bush and STILL be a moderate because BUSH is an extreme figure.

Hell, you can be a conservative and oppose Bush, because while he has very conservative views, he goes about imposing his beliefs in a decidely liberal way. He is a proponent of ridiculous executive power and a federal government which really "gets in your business". So anti-Bushism, to me, is not a matter of liberal v. conservative viewpoints. It is a matter of his poor leadership and the fact that we're sick of it. This election was the American people's way of saying "enough" with President Bush more so than with the Republican party.

 

[comicgirl]

They cant do it worse than the Republicans.

damn skippy! Two simultanious wars? I don't think so

 

[thedarks0ldier]

Many Democrats just simply blindly oppose him just like many Republicans blindly followed him.

I think that instead of just simply opposing him, we should take a look at things issue by issue and determine the best route.

Democrats are seeming to like his guest worker program. And they still for the most part supported his war on terror in afganistan, its iraq thats got most people fired up against him.

So does Rumfeld know he's going to go down in history as a horrible person? Do any of them know?

 

[Man-Thing]

ok, first off, you CAN blanketly oppose Bush and STILL be a moderate because BUSH is an extreme figure.

In what way is Bush an "extreme figure"? If you are refering to his "conservtisim"- he's defenantly not.

 

[The Overlord]

In what way is Bush an "extreme figure"? If you are refering to his "conservtisim"- he's defenantly not.

One can be right wing and support big government, there are some military dictators and theocracies are that way (not I'm comparing Bush to them, I'm just showing how one can be right wing and support big government). Likewise one can be very left wing and not believe in big government. Anarchists are the most far left group active today and beleve the concept of government should be destroy.

But the thing that made Bush a divider is, he had an attitude that would appear folkisie, commanding, brave, confident to some and arrogant, stupid, stubborn and self rightious others. You really other loved or hated this guy.

 

[Holly Goodhead]

i still dont understand the difference between democrats and republicans.