Topic: November Elections
started by: Darth Liberus
Posted by Darth Liberus on Jun. 29 2002,07:39
What do you hope for in this year's elections?edit : I can't use IB code in polls? And I can't edit them either? wtf?
Posted by CatKnight on Jun. 29 2002,08:33
if the GOP takes control we will see another period of economic prosperity in 10 years or so, like Reagan and the mid-90's.
Posted by TheTaxMan on Jun. 29 2002,10:13
By now we should all know who posts rhetoric like this for reactionary purposes only...
Posted by ic0n0 on Jun. 29 2002,14:38
I think there is a very good chance the republicans will take both houses, and gain more governorship. The democrats are not looking particularly strong this year. At least I know when we (by we I mean people who favor the democrats) are going to lose, it’s called being objective. I do not favor the republicans but I think they will regain the senate, and retain the house of reps.
Posted by Bozeman on Jun. 29 2002,14:51
Hard to see, the future is.[/Yoda]
Posted by Wolfguard on Jun. 29 2002,16:46
Write in votes sweep all"Wolfguard for Ruler of earth"
you know you want it. you want to be ruled by an iron hand. you know you do.
Posted by Pravus Angelus on Jun. 29 2002,22:22
wow. talk about polarizing. Given that the question was what do you hope for and not what you thought would happen, some more options would have been nice. Like say, the abolition of political parties, or maybe a liberatarian party getting one or two seats somewhere....
Posted by Darth Liberus on Jun. 29 2002,22:44
if you want a nice, fair, unbiased poll that won't polarize things and allows for all the options I missed, go start one yourself.Best I can hope for this year is the Democrats take all, if for no other reason that to calm down the huge right-wing circus that's going on right now.
Of course, I'll probably be voting for < Bill Simon > for Governor this year. Gray Davis sucks. I wouldn't have voted for him four years ago, but the guy the GOP ran against him was a pro-life gun nut.
I definately should've put "Wolfguard rules us all with an iron fist!" 'cause that's what I hope for
Or better yet, WG, Wiley, Kuru, and I become a Gang of Four...
Posted by Wolfguard on Jul. 01 2002,14:32
Dont worry you will all have jobs... 
I know that Kuru will be heading state security.
Wiley will handle infrastructure.
Ill let you play with inteligence. <hmmm...that does sound bad> (not ment as an insult)
Posted by ic0n0 on Jul. 01 2002,14:43
Can I be in charge of random acts of silliness?
Posted by Beldurin on Jul. 01 2002,15:45
| Quote (ic0n0 @ 01 July 2002,08:43) |
| Can I be in charge of random acts of silliness? |
how about Minister of Silly Walks?
Posted by demonk on Jul. 01 2002,16:22
Can I be the Secretary of p0rn Distribution?
Posted by Wolfguard on Jul. 01 2002,16:39
tell you what. ill give you the entire porn industry.<bet he still wont be able to get laid>
you can run it anyway you want but you will be getting special orders "From Above"
Posted by kuru on Jul. 01 2002,19:37
| Quote |
| Wolfy said: Write in votes sweep all "Wolfguard for Ruler of earth" you know you want it. you want to be ruled by an iron hand. you know you do. |
You know I'm not letting you have all that power to yourself.
You must share with kuru, Semi-Omnipotent God of Gene Pool Cleansing and Technical Development.
Posted by Pravus Angelus on Jul. 01 2002,20:22
It's a whole new kind of arbitrary elitism. Wix, you figure we'll start a coup in a couple months, take over and implement the IR? or just remain as Dictator's I guess..., I hear the health plan is excellent
Posted by ic0n0 on Jul. 01 2002,20:25
Help help I am being repressed! NOW YOU SEE THE VIOLENCE ENHERIANT IN THE SYSTEM!
Posted by Pravus Angelus on Jul. 01 2002,20:33
Bloody Peasant
Posted by Darth Liberus on Jul. 01 2002,22:37
SIX people want the Republicans to take all?Are you people insane?
Take a look at your stocks. Investor confidence is nil. So many corporations are going bankrupt because of mismanagement and corruption that they're dragging the entire economy down with them... who wants to give their money to a company that's just going to rip them off?
If the Democrats take both the House and the Senate, the market will solidify and things will start to creep back... investors want to see the Government beat some corporate ass. The Republicans aren't going to do much about this, but the Democrats will make sure to have a few people drawn and quartered
Posted by demonk on Jul. 01 2002,23:09
Here's my thinking. One of the reasons our country works is that there are checks and balances. The President can't just go off and do whatever he likes and become a king, because both Congress and the SC can't stop him, legally with no blood shed. Same goes for Congress. If they pass a bad piece of legislation, and the president signs it, the SC can still stop it if it is unconstitutional.But what happens if both Congress and the President are from the same party? You lose a lot of those checks and balances. And right now, it is very dangerous because Bush gets to name some new SC Justices. So, we could potentially have all three branches of our government controled by the same party. One of our founding fathers, Jefferson, even said how horrible the political parties were and how it would destroy our country in the end. He didn't like the idea that all the careful checks and balances that he and the others had put into place could easily be destroyed if all three branches were controled by one group.
That is why I don't want the Repulicans OR the Democrats to control the Senate, House, and Presidency. I like knowing that if one of the groups starts acting up, the other's will be there to put them in their place. I say a Democrat Senate and a Republican House is a good combo, but I still don't like having a Repulican place the next Supremes. They need to be more forward thinking than who will eventually be placed. Anyway, that's my thinking.
Posted by Darth Liberus on Jul. 02 2002,00:37
Right now, the Republican party is out of control. We've got a very powerful Republican president, and his party does just about anything he says... only a Democratic Congress can keep this guy in check, as well as making sure the Supreme Court nominees are nice and moderate.In two years we may get the Republicans out of the White House, at which point it will *still* be a good idea to have the Democrats in charge of Congress for a couple years. The Republican party needs to have its power cut long enough for the moderates to retake the party and cast out the dipshits.
Same thing has already happened to the Democrats... a couple decades back, we got taken over by a bunch of power-hungry leftists who were quite willing to drive this country into the ground to bring about the changes they wanted. That resulted in the Democrats getting ass-reamed in the 80's by Reagan. The moderates worked to regain control of the Democratic party, and now the Leftists hate us as much as the Republicans... so they split off and formed the Green Party. Now they can rant and rave all they want and not disrupt REAL debate.
No doubt they'll try and come back when they see the Democrats regaining the respect of the people. But I hope we'll manage to keep them out of power.
The Republicans need to have their power reduced until they drive the Bible-thumping Ayn Rand nuts out. Just like the Democrats, getting thrown out of power will encourage the radicals to leave... let those folks become Libertarians or form their own party, then let the Republicans get back to doing the populist thing they used to do so well. Bob Dole 0wns j00
Posted by wix on Jul. 08 2002,06:51
| Quote |
| Right now, the Republican party is out of control. We've got a very powerful Republican president, and his party does just about anything he says... only a Democratic Congress can keep this guy in check, as well as making sure the Supreme Court nominees are nice and moderate. |
Umm, the consitution says the president gets to appoint with the advice and consent of the senate, not the congress. Right now the senate is controlled by democrats are able to check the supreme court nominations fine. Besides, these hardline repubs your refering to aren't very vast, the moderates could still kill the nomination.
| Quote |
| In two years we may get the Republicans out of the White House, at which point it will *still* be a good idea to have the Democrats in charge of Congress for a couple years. The Republican party needs to have its power cut long enough for the moderates to retake the party and cast out the dipshits. |
I have to agree with part of your analysis, it's terrible when one party takes all the power. Like how the republicans snuck a sneek bill that killed the ergonomics regulations, or bills dealing with the steel tariffs. The only part I find hard to believe is that the hard line elements will disapear becuase we force them from power.
This has to do with the fact that hotly contested seats are usually in 'swing' districts, e.g. neither the republicans or the democrats have a solid win. In order for either side to win the district you can pretty much bet they will be moderates in either condition. But many districts aren't moderate, they are hardliners, and as long as these hardline districts continue to exist so do the hardline canidates.
I think the only balancing that really comes is by hoping people elect equal numbers of hardliners (or at least enough moderates) to mitigate the damage they can do to our economy. Anyways, this whole thing only points out the failure of representative government.
But for the most part I agree with DL, I hope the repubs lose the house, and the dems gain more solid majority in the senate (I would help with this, but being from california my vote hardly matters).
Posted by wix on Jul. 08 2002,06:52
I thought the question asked what we thought was going to happen, not what will happen.
Posted by veistran on Jul. 08 2002,23:35
| Quote (Darth Liberus @ 01 July 2002,18:37) |
| Bob Dole 0wns j00 |
he did get kansas some fucking great roads
anyway, WG, can I be minister o' pants and sarcasm?
more serious note:
my vote would be for libertarians taking over
Posted by Darth Liberus on Jul. 08 2002,23:59
yeah... the Libertarians would keep the Commies out of our government and fluoride out of our water. They're good people 
wix, you're right about the Senate. I was thinking it would be hilarious to watch Dubya try and fight against a Congress filled with angry Democrats...
but as long as the Dems hold on to the Senate, I'll be happy.
Posted by wix on Jul. 09 2002,03:13
personally, I hope the repubs lose it all. As for the liberitarians, I really like MOST of their beliefs, but their stance on foriegn policy is rediculous, same with some of their opinions on regulations.Greens are just as bad. Socialists are tax mongers. Republican's are corporate propagandists, and democrats are wanna-be liberal tax raising assholes.
Not much choice here. As hellen keller said: "We pick between tweedledee and tweedledum."
God I wish they could all lose.
Posted by demonk on Jul. 09 2002,16:04
Solution: Just vote me Supreme Ruler and all your problems will be solved I'm fair and honest. All the skeletons in my closet are small and ones I'm not really embaressed about, so there wouldn't be a bunch of political scandels.
I really ethical, so I can't be bought (not even for a meeellion dollars!
I actually CARE about this country, unlike most of our leaders who just want the power.
Oh, and every Friday will be "clothing optional" days
Posted by ic0n0 on Jul. 11 2002,19:22
Myth: "Had the 1994 Republican Congress failed to reign in spending, we would not be approaching a balanced budget today is something the naysayers said was impossible." Truth: The last four budgets passed by a Democratic Congress enlarged the federal government by 14.4 percent. The four budgets the Republican Congress passed have enlarged the federal government by 13.9 percent. This could hardly be called "reigning in spending." In fact, the first three Republican budgets increased spending faster than the Democratic budgets. Go here for the fraud of the century.
Myth: "Democratic presidential frontrunner Al Gore's vision of America includes an even more intrusive federal government. Just this week, he promised federal intervention to micromanage such local problems as traffic control. Patrick Henry is rolling over in his grave."
Truth: The federal government already micromanages traffic control -- and rapid transit and local highways and auto specifications and almost everything else related to your car. Republicans voted for these intrusions. Why should you believe they will suddenly start opposing such boondoggles? Calvin Coolidge is rolling over in his grave.
Myth: "Democrats favor injecting more federal money into education and increasing federal control over local school decisions. Republicans favor less federal control and the adoption of school-choice measures with the belief that added competition will improve the quality of public and private schools."
Truth: Democrats and Republicans both spend your money. Both believe the federal government should decide how your school system should operate. They argue only over how to spend your money. Neither party says your money shouldn't go to Washington in the first place. Neither suggests getting the federal government completely out of education -- as the Constitution demands. Neither proposes to repeal the income tax, so you can use what you earn to put your child in any school you want.
Myth: "With the tantalizing prospect of budget surpluses, Democrats are already champing at the bit to repeal legislatively imposed spending caps that have been instrumental in bringing the federal budget nearly into balance for the first time in three-plus decades. Republicans insist on adhering to the caps."
Truth: Republican Congressmen have already busted the budget caps -- when they approved the 1999 budget, when they voted the biggest farm subsidies in history (three years after voting to "phase out" farm subsidies), when they vote year after year to make government more expensive for you, more intrusive into your life, more and more like Big Brother. Go here for the fraud of the century.
Myth: "Republicans advocate saving Social Security by programs involving partial privatization. Clinton and his cohorts stringently oppose privatization and favor instead a shell game involving a double counting, accounting scam that uses non-existent budget surpluses (which are actually temporary Social Security surpluses)."
Truth: Talk about a shell game! The Republican con-game will have you paying the exorbitant Social Security tax for the rest of your working life -- while the Republicans dangle the carrot of Social Security privatization in front of you to happen in some sweet bye and bye. Republican Sen. Phil Gramm's proposal will privatize Social Security over 60 years ! If you don't believe in reincarnation, the Republicans have nothing to offer you.
Myth: "Republicans advocate overhauling the Medicare system with elements of privatization and reductions in automatic cost increases. ... Clinton Democrats still support socialized medicine."
Truth: Yes, Democrats support socialized medicine -- and so do Republicans. The Republican Congress passed the Kennedy-Kassenbaum bill and the Kennedy-Hatch bill -- each giving the federal government more authority over your health, your doctor, and your insurance company. Is this how Republicans protect us from socialized medicine?
Myth: "Clinton has systematically emasculated the military while expanding our commitments throughout the world."
Truth: President Clinton has been exploiting the precedents set by Ronald Reagan and George Bush -- waging wars unconstitutionally without declarations by Congress. Do you remember the Republican incursions into Libya, Nicaragua, Granada, El Salvador, Lebanon, Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Panama, the Philippines? The Republicans invented the idea that any problem in the world is an excuse for the U.S. military to invade a sovereign nation. If Clinton's actions have put us in danger -- and they have -- it's because he's using policies and precedents established by his Republican predecessors. A foreign sovereign nation must be attacked to vigorously and overwhelmingly defend the US against miltaristic or potential militaristic aggression or encroachment of US sovereignty only.
Myth: "Republicans since Reagan have supported a strategic missile defense initiative to protect the nation against burgeoning nuclear threats from numerous countries."
Truth: Republican Richard Nixon signed the ABM Treaty, outlawing a missile defense. No Republican, not even Ronald Reagan, has done anything concrete to provide such a defense -- which probably would be the one truly sensible military policy. Instead, 15 years after Ronald Reagan raised the missile-defense issue, billions of dollars have been spent and we aren't one step closer.
Why didn't Ronald Reagan demand it?
Why hasn't the Republican Congress demanded it?
Why are we still vulnerable to any two-bit dictator who can get his hands on a nuclear missile?
Probably because the vulnerability is used to justify a multitude of big-government military programs that Republicans and Democrats impose upon us.
Myth: "Only after the recent revelations concerning China's theft and development of nuclear delivery technology are the Democrats beginning to come around on this vital issue."
Truth: The Democrats have proposed a sham defense that will make us no safer from a missile attack. As with so many fake reforms, the Republicans support it -- and claim credit for bringing it about.
Myth: "Had defeatist Republicans prevailed in 1980, Ronald Reagan would never have been nominated nor elected ... We might still be fighting the Cold War."
Truth: Historians still argue over what caused the Great Depression; so I'm sure they'll argue beyond our lifetime over what ended the Cold War. The one certain conclusion --- that the Republican legend, Ronald Reagan, started an arms race that bankrupted the Communists --- makes no sense. Republicans tell us Reagan's missile-defense proposal was too much for the Soviets. Why? The U.S. did nothing to implement it, and the Soviets didn't have to match a non-existent program. The real truth is that the Soviet economy was already in shambles, teetering on the brink of collapse. Intelligence sources knew of this imminent collapse and merely jumped on a political band wagon, claiming that our military strength forced the Soviet economic implosion.
Posted by Bozeman on Jul. 11 2002,21:09
Good work, Ic0n0, now can you post a link to this source? I'd appreciate it a lot. It's really cool.
Posted by demonk on Jul. 11 2002,21:15
Good thing CK isn't around. I think his head would have exploded, then he would really have started to get mad!I wanted to point out one thing I noticed in all that. The author did not condem the Repulicans and saintify the Democrats. He condemed both parties, since they both pretty much server the same master: big business. The main difference between the two (that I've seen anyway), is that Republicans have the "religious right" and the Democrats have the "pot smoking hippies". That's about it.
Posted by demonk on Jul. 11 2002,23:29
Heh, you were all right. CK is still around. Started talking to me over AIM earlier about this post thinking I was bozeman.
Posted by Darth Liberus on Jul. 11 2002,23:54
a link would be nice.I'm guess that it's some Libertarian think-tank, given the way they imply that public education is "unconstitutional."
Surprise! It isn't.
Posted by TheTaxMan on Jul. 12 2002,00:05
This is the wrong thread, but if you're all so anti-CK, why do you vindicat him on a daily basis making these kinds of posts?I'm really not looking for an answer.
Either ask him to come back or stop making replies about him because it's pointless and completely counter productive.
It's so chic to be a CK basher...
Posted by Bozeman on Jul. 12 2002,04:02
| Quote (demonk @ 11 July 2002,19:29) |
| Heh, you were all right. CK is still around. Started talking to me over AIM earlier about this post thinking I was bozeman. |
Sorry dude.
And to clarify Taxman, none of us bash CK. We bash CK BACK.
Posted by demonk on Jul. 12 2002,04:35
No, I've bashed him a few times without being provoked first. I don't to that anymore, but I have done it.