Hory Posted November 9, 2006 Share Posted November 9, 2006 I think it's funny and slightly disturbing that even though the votes for Senate are still being re-counted in Virginia and the Democrats won't take control of congress until January, that they are being bashed for having 'no plan for Iraq' by GOP-supporters whose own president has clearly had no plan since he declared 'mission accomplished' three and a half years ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dagger147 Posted November 9, 2006 Share Posted November 9, 2006 well, let's put it this way: it's hard to figure out what exactly what to do, but they do have a rough plan, and even if it isn't much, i can tell you that it'll be much much better than what the republicans would do. the democrats will at least look at this in a reasonable way AND actually try to do something about it. The republicans probably have either no plan at all, or a plan destined to implode and help only the big companies. btw, no one's still answered my question... should i take it that bush hasn't done anything to help the working class? hmm... That still didn't answer my question. Like I said, all of the Democratic politicians stated they had a plan for the Iraq situation. They didn't say "a rough plan". Doesn't this mean that they lied to get elected? How do you know it will be "a much much better plan" if it's only a "rough plan"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abc006 Posted November 9, 2006 Share Posted November 9, 2006 what i mean by a rough plan is an outline of what to do - the don't know that "on january 6th, at 8:49 baghadad time we do whatever", but they know some steps to be made. and again, whatever they do will be much better than whatevever the republicans can think of. and if you want to know about lies to get re-elected... http://www.bushlies.net/ just to start with... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dagger147 Posted November 9, 2006 Share Posted November 9, 2006 what i mean by a rough plan is an outline of what to do - the don't know that "on january 6th, at 8:49 baghadad time we do whatever", but they know some steps to be made. and again, whatever they do will be much better than whatevever the republicans can think of. and if you want to know about lies to get re-elected... http://www.bushlies.net/ just to start with... OK. Then what is the Democrat's "outline" for handling the Iraq situation? How come they haven't released any of the "steps" they would take? How do you know it will be "much better than whatever the Republicans can think of"? Have you seen the Democrat's plan for Iraq? If so, do you have a link so I can read up on it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UncleMo Posted November 9, 2006 Share Posted November 9, 2006 Hory, do you get to keep dual citizenship since you don't get to live in the states? Not to derail your subject. Sorry. I honestly am wondering. I promise not to say something stupid like "if you don't live here then shut up". I just have been wondering that since you mentioned it earlier. That, and why you mentioned NZ as paradise-is it THE place to vacation, or did you mean that politically. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tywiggins Posted November 9, 2006 Share Posted November 9, 2006 IRAQ To Honor the Sacrifice of Our Troops, we will: Ensure 2006 is a year of significant transition to full Iraqi sovereignty, with the Iraqis assuming primary responsibility for securing and governing their country and with the responsible redeployment of U.S. forces. Insist that Iraqis make the political compromises necessary to unite their country and defeat the insurgency; promote regional diplomacy; and strongly encourage our allies and other nations to play a constructive role. Hold the Bush Administration accountable for its manipulated pre-war intelligence, poor planning and contracting abuses that have placed our troops at greater risk and wasted billions of taxpayer dollars. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hory Posted November 9, 2006 Share Posted November 9, 2006 Hory, do you get to keep dual citizenship since you don't get to live in the states? Not to derail your subject. Sorry. I honestly am wondering. I promise not to say something stupid like "if you don't live here then shut up". I just have been wondering that since you mentioned it earlier. That, and why you mentioned NZ as paradise-is it THE place to vacation, or did you mean that politically. Yea, since I was born in Florida to an American mother, but have a NZ father I have dual citizenship of USA & NZ, though I use a NZ passport and consider myself a Kiwi since I have lived in NZ nearly all my life and I haven't gone back to the US since I left as a child. So I guess you are quite entitled to say "if you don't live here then shut up" And the first part of your question I missed, I think you only can lose US citizenship by living overseas if you were a naturalized citizen, not if you were born in the States or are the child of an American citizen, though I could be completely wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dagger147 Posted November 9, 2006 Share Posted November 9, 2006 Do you have a link for this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tywiggins Posted November 9, 2006 Share Posted November 9, 2006 Do you have a link for this? http://www.democrats.org/a/2006/03/real_security_t.php Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
krawhitham Posted November 9, 2006 Share Posted November 9, 2006 OK. Then what is the Democrat's "outline" for handling the Iraq situation? How come they haven't released any of the "steps" they would take? How do you know it will be "much better than whatever the Republicans can think of"? Have you seen the Democrat's plan for Iraq? If so, do you have a link so I can read up on it? How come you do not know how to use GOOGLE? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dagger147 Posted November 9, 2006 Share Posted November 9, 2006 I've tried to find it using Google, Yahoo, Answers.com, and Ask.com. Thank you. Do you have a link for it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dagger147 Posted November 9, 2006 Share Posted November 9, 2006 http://www.democrats.org/a/2006/03/real_security_t.php Thank you. I'll definitely read up on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hory Posted November 9, 2006 Share Posted November 9, 2006 The AP just called the Virginia Senate seat for the Democrats. The Democrats now control both houses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AstroEric Posted November 9, 2006 Share Posted November 9, 2006 Also, the incoming Dems haven't released their plan because.... Well, you know...they're not actually in office yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bama Posted November 9, 2006 Share Posted November 9, 2006 Hmm...some interesting debate going on. Here's my two cents: When George Washington stepped down after his second term as President, he warned against political parties in his Farewell Address. While 1797 was a long time ago, it is shocking what foresight he had. I'm not yet old enough to vote, so maybe I'm not the most qualified to speak on this issue, but in my opinion, this election, and recent elections have shown us, as Americans, and as people, what is wrong with our current two-party system. In Federalist 10, James Madison discussed factions, and how he believed that if factions weren't controlled, the republic would stand little chance of surviving. Well the republic has withstood 200+ years of factions, barely. What have we learned in these 200 years? Nothing really. But we've seen in these 200 years, that it is impossible to put people into 2 categories regarding political views. During the Civil War, for example, there was a certain brand of Democrats known as "Copperheads" Northern Democrats who opposed the civil war. Today, we would call them traitors. As a society, it seems to me that we don't know what we want. We want politicians that give us straight talk, but we chastised Howard Dean for being too blunt in 2003 and early 2004 (meanwhile, John Kerry took most of his views). We want politicians that are steadfast in their beliefs, but we want them to be able to compromise too. We want politicians that are mavericks, ready to cross the party line whenever they see it necessary, like John McCain circa 2000, but we're not ready to elect them if they won't follow the party of our choosing's platform plank for plank. In each of these scenarios, it becomes clear that we can't have it both ways, and often we find ourselves voting 'Straight-Ticket' because of our long time loyalties to a certain President, Candidate, or Political Party. And we often find ourselves voting for the 'lesser of two evils'. So what are we expecting from a government made out of people we merely 'hate less'? Every election year, we're given 2 choices, 2. Can 300 million American be neatly classified into 1 of 2 groups, I'm no sociology major, but I think not. So in this election, we saw 2 things. We saw Republicans losing seats because of a general dislike for the Republican president and all the **** he's done, and we saw Democrats sitting in the background, waiting for **** to happen to the Republicans, before campaigning or making decisions on their own. That's got to change. Why is it like that? In large part, it is because of our current two-party system. Why have a two-party system? Some say because it fosters progress, and that if we had too many parties, we'd never reach the majority to get anything done. So instead, we're getting a system that promotes 2 different periods. First, a period where all legislation is rubber stamped through, and second, a period where absolutely nothing gets done because the majority party does not hold the executive branch. And when, magically, the two parties agree (Stem-Cell Research) on an issue, it gets crushed. If we, in America, have a two-party system just so things will get accomplished, we are failing miserably. So what does it come down to? We want things to get done in America, and we're willing to sacrifice each and every one of our individual views and ideals to get them done. And what are we stuck with, over 535 people that we all, as a public, have a general distaste for. That, folks, is progress. :twocents: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HardcoreLegend Posted November 9, 2006 Share Posted November 9, 2006 The AP just called the Virginia Senate seat for the Democrats. The Democrats now control both houses. Good for Harry Reid. Now he can promptly resign if the Democrats win the POTUS in 2008. He says the voters are clear, they don't believe in a one party town anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AstroEric Posted November 9, 2006 Share Posted November 9, 2006 I'll make an exception to my rule that folks who aren't old enough to vote shouldn't discuss politics. Because Bama makes some thoughtful points (From now on, he shall be called Publius!). Madison here was weighing in on the oft-argued subject of whether we should attempt a true Democracy or not. In the 18th Century (the Augustan Age, the Age of Enlightenment, the Age of Revolution, or whatever you choose to call it), one of the big philosophical discussions revolved around ideas of individual freedoms v. security--how much of your personal freedom are you willing to give up to ensure that your other freedoms are secured; social contract, Locke, Burke and all of that. If I'm not mistaken, the Republic we have today seems fairly aligned with what Madison saw as the optimal form. At the same time, you have folks like George Clinton saying, "You're crazy. That'd never work." In some ways, both chaps were in the right. What the hell am I talking about? More bashing! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HardcoreLegend Posted November 9, 2006 Share Posted November 9, 2006 HAHA..Funk Soul Brother! In America, we talk about 'Republican Revolutions' and 'Democratic Waves' when giant changes are made in the balance of power with the legislative branches. However, not in over 80 years has any real dramatic political change taken place in this country. When people vote for 'change' they vote for 'tinkering' a little to the left or a little to right on center issues. There aren't vastly different philosophical ideas about the issues but rather different approaches to the same cause. Republicans don't want to get rid of Social Security or Medicare, they just have a different idea about how it should be run or the scope of it. Democrats don't want to create a sprawling giant government, or for that matter one much different in size than the one we have, they just want to increase it's effectiveness in the areas it already reaches. I always chuckle when people say "I voted for change" or "the direction of this country has shifted" because it hasn't, rarely does it except for a select few. The governments interaction in your life hasn't changed very much in the last 20 years, let alone the last 6, and I doubt it will change in the next 10. Unless, of course, the robots finally take over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abc006 Posted November 9, 2006 Share Posted November 9, 2006 "It was a thumping," Bush conceded at the White House. "It's clear the Democrat Party had a good night." personally, that's not what a president should sound like. "It as a thumping". wow. sounds like he just watched the knicks game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HardcoreLegend Posted November 9, 2006 Share Posted November 9, 2006 personally, that's not what a president should sound like. "It as a thumping". wow. sounds like he just watched the knicks game. He was being jovial with the Press. If you watched it in the context it was in, he walked out and started with "Why all the glum faces?" then smirked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bama Posted November 9, 2006 Share Posted November 9, 2006 I'll make an exception to my rule that folks who aren't old enough to vote shouldn't discuss politics. Because Bama makes some thoughtful points (From now on, he shall be called Publius!). I'm humbled :headz: (unrelated smiley, I know...but I just noticed it) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AstroEric Posted November 9, 2006 Share Posted November 9, 2006 You earned it, Bam! That press conference was a laugh riot, though. I enjoy when Bush talks to the press instead of the little go-betweens (God knows I don't miss Ari Fleischer). He has a decent rapport with the press, even when he unknowingly mocks their physical infirmities. Q: And also, Mr. President, may I ask you if you have any metrics you'd be willing to share about your reading contest with Mr. Rove. BUSH: I'm losing. I obviously was working harder in the campaign than he was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.