main
side
curve
  1. In Memory of LAJ_FETT: Please share your remembrances and condolences HERE

The United States Elections/Political Party Discussion Thread

Discussion in 'Archive: The Senate Floor' started by liberalmaverick, Mar 6, 2006.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Cheveyo

    Cheveyo Jedi Grand Master star 5

    Registered:
    Oct 29, 2001
    Wow... yeah, it looks like our champion, Senator Obama, is in some really seriously deep doodoo! This is just terrible. I don't know how the Democrats will recover from this debacle.

    Not only did Obama admit to buying land adjoining a plot bought at the same time by Rezko's wife, but he admits to paying Rezko for part of his lot in order to expand Obama's own yard! Oh the horror!

    But wait, it gets worse!!

    Obama also says he and his wife worked with Rezko's wife to build a wrought-iron fence between the two properties, and that Obama himself paid thousands of dollars to an attorney and architects to inquire about the fence with the Commission on Chicago Landmarks. Obama is quoted as citing a desire to have the fence done properly as one of the reasons he paid them!

    And this is the most incriminating part! Obama admits to paying his own landscaper to (get this!) mow Rezko's yard!!!

    That's it, Obama's political career is over! Hannity and Rush are right, the Dems are waaaaay more corrupt than those poor innocent Republicans who have been wrongly accused of so many things.

    source
     
  2. ShaneP

    ShaneP Ex-Mod Officio star 7 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Mar 26, 2001
    diz, sure there are many tech geeks who could be called libertarians, but would you actually call them a "movement"? I certainly wouldn't. You said it yourself: they usually vote for one of the two major parties or don't vote at all.

    There is no unified libertarian faction in this country. It's too big, wide and diverse. Plus, as JediFlyer pointed out, our electoral system makes it very difficult to coalesce into a viable third party.

    The Libertarian Party usually gets about 400-500 thousand votes acrsoo the nation every presidential campaign.

    That isn't squat.

    Part of the problem also lies in the difficulty in forming a group of libertarians from people whose own philosophy praises individualism.

     
  3. Mr44

    Mr44 VIP star 6 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    May 21, 2002
    Cheveyo, I didn't mean for you to get so defensive about Obama, I was simply summarizing the situation because someone asked.

    As I said in my post, the connection with Rezko is mostly with Blagojevich, and so far, only Rezko has been indicted for criminal charges.

    I hope Obama only has an outside connection, and that's where it ends. The case is still unfolding, and it does represent a potential skeleton in Obama's closet. As with anything, we don't know the extent, and he is innocent until evidence indicates otherwise.
     
  4. DarthKarde

    DarthKarde Jedi Knight star 5

    Registered:
    Jun 28, 2002
    There is no unified libertarian faction in this country. It's too big, wide and diverse.

    I think the key word here is diverse.

    Libertarianism is divided into many factions. On many issues I consider myself a libertarian as I favour a low tax, low regulation economy and broadly favour privatisation. I also oppose anti-terror laws that remove traditional liberties and undermine due process.

    However as a social conservative I take many positions that some libertarians would find abhorant.
     
  5. Ender Sai

    Ender Sai Chosen One star 10

    Registered:
    Feb 18, 2001
  6. Vaderize03

    Vaderize03 Manager Emeritus star 6 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Oct 25, 1999
    Yes and no.

    The piece has an anti-democrat bias, which is made clear by it's refusal to point out republican failures.

    How much the democrats accomplish is going to depend on how strongly they want to fight with Bush (and vice-versa).

    I do agree with the analysis that they will try and maintain a majority, and lay the groundwork for '08. Reforms to healthcare and raising the minimum wage seem the most likely ways to do that, but how they will perform those tasks remain to be seen.

    Peace,

    V-03
     
  7. Ender Sai

    Ender Sai Chosen One star 10

    Registered:
    Feb 18, 2001
    Why is it required to point out Republican failures?

    That is, and I'm sorry to say it, a lamentable attitude I see more and more on your side of the Pacific.

    "Oh yes, this is bad, but such-and-such is worse and thus, I've taken attention off myself and we're no longer under scrutiny!"

    The article is about what the Democrats will do; not about how the fact that the Democrats have lots of style, far too little substance is OK because the Republicans have done things wrong too.

    o_O

    E_S
     
  8. KnightWriter

    KnightWriter Administrator Emeritus star 9 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Nov 6, 2001
    how much better off might we be if H.W. had won re-election in 1992? Probably no W, maybe no republican takeover in 1994, no clinton to stir up the religious right, and maybe a host of other things.

    just musing.
     
  9. GrandAdmiralJello

    GrandAdmiralJello Comms Admin ❉ Moderator Communitatis Litterarumque star 10 Staff Member Administrator

    Registered:
    Nov 28, 2000
    Or if Adams had won re-election in 1800...
     
  10. Ender Sai

    Ender Sai Chosen One star 10

    Registered:
    Feb 18, 2001
    KW:

    [image=http://www.fauxfooddiner.com/spilled_milk/spilt_milk.jpg]

    No point in crying...

    E_S
     
  11. DarthBoba

    DarthBoba Manager Emeritus star 9 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Jun 29, 2000
    That is, and I'm sorry to say it, a lamentable attitude I see more and more on your side of the Pacific.

    Just thought I'd point out Australia is more bottom-center than off to either side. :p
     
  12. Mr44

    Mr44 VIP star 6 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    May 21, 2002
    You mean this kind of "bottom-center?" :eek:

    [image=http://www.simpsoncrazy.com/episodeguide/2F13.jpg]
     
  13. yankee8255

    yankee8255 Force Ghost star 6

    Registered:
    May 31, 2005
    One of the reasons I voted for Bush in 2000 was that I assumed his foreign policy to follow that of his father's, one of the best foreign policy president's the US has had, both on a personal level and as far as his team.

    My rejection of Bush in 2004 (I left the presidential box blank on my absentee ballot) was because he so totally rejected his father'S foreign policy legacy, siding with the neo-cons (his father's biggest cirtics!) instead. I've since said to freinds that it's time Bush Sr. put his son over his knee and spanked some sense into him. Apparently he did so last Tuesday night, with the help of the American electorate.

    And Newsweek finally recognized this, too.

    Shame it's too late to replace Cheney with Baker or Powel as VP.
     
  14. Vaderize03

    Vaderize03 Manager Emeritus star 6 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Oct 25, 1999
    That is, and I'm sorry to say it, a lamentable attitude I see more and more on your side of the Pacific.

    Hey Ender, lay off my country, man, you've been unrelenting of late :p.

    "Slimy! Mudhole! My home this is!....."

    Peace,

    V-03
     
  15. Jabbadabbado

    Jabbadabbado Manager Emeritus star 7 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Mar 19, 1999
    The Economist piece on the democrats is dead on in my view. As Icehawk noted before, passing legislation through the gauntlet of the 51-49 senate majority and the president's veto will require epic levels of bipartisanship. Democrats are no more likely than Republicans to achieve anything on social security in the near term.

    Democrats don't have a clue on energy policy. What's going to be required over the next 5 years is massive infrastructure spending on conservation, energy efficiency and alternative energy.

    Unfortunately, biofuels probably aren't the answer. But because biofuels sit at the intersection of the populist appeal of agriculture subsidies with energy fears, biofuels are a target of such tempting boondoggliciousness that our national energy strategy will evolve into even more of a national disaster than it is already rapidly becoming.

     
  16. Obi-Wan McCartney

    Obi-Wan McCartney Jedi Grand Master star 5

    Registered:
    Aug 17, 1999
    Nice work Mr. 44. Those are the kind of rebuttals I like to see.
     
  17. ShaneP

    ShaneP Ex-Mod Officio star 7 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Mar 26, 2001
    Rebuttals. [face_laugh]

    Jabba
    But because biofuels sit at the intersection of the populist appeal of agriculture subsidies with energy fears,

    Yep. Never underestimate the power of politics over common sense.
     
  18. Jedi Merkurian

    Jedi Merkurian Future Films Rumor Naysayer star 7 Staff Member Manager

    Registered:
    May 25, 2000
    Isn't that misunderestimate? o_O
     
  19. Mr44

    Mr44 VIP star 6 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    May 21, 2002
    My rejection of Bush in 2004 (I left the presidential box blank on my absentee ballot) was because he so totally rejected his father'S foreign policy legacy, siding with the neo-cons (his father's biggest cirtics!)

    It's interesting how the perseption of terminology changes according to their use in popular culture. *Note-this isn't meant to specifically defend the current President*

    But Yankee, you do realize that Dick Cheney was Bush Sr's SecDef for the entire 4 years of his administration, right? Wolfowitz was the UnderSecDef for policy, which made him #2 in the office? Colin Powell chaired the Joint Chiefs of Staff. "Scooter" Libby headed strategy and resources for the Defense Department. Yes, all as part of the Bush Sr administration.

    At the time, I guess the only "neocon" who wasn't in Bush Sr's administration was Rumsfeld, but that's because he wasn't in politics at all, but in private business.

    In 1989, the US invasion of Panama (Operation "Just Cause") was the largest projection of US troops since Vietnam, and a major pre-emptive use of force. Interestingly, the UN General Assembly passed a resolution condemning the invasion, as did the regional organization of American States. A similiar resolution in the Security Council was vetoed by the UK and France on grounds that the US had the right to act for its own defense.

    During the 2 weeks of the operation, the US suffered 349 casualties(24KIA) The Panamanians suffered anywhere from 650-4,000 casualties.

    Why does any of this matter? Maybe it doesn't, but then again, I don't quite understand the basis for statements like "siding with the neo-cons (his father's biggest cirtics!)" They are the same people, acting in much the same manner.

    As others are pointing out, I think had Bush Sr been elected for a second term, the role of these "neocons" would have played out during a more suitable timeframe. But then again, who knows? The same people organized both Desert Storm and Operation Iraqi Freedom.

    Does the term "neocon" mean different things to different people, or has the term taken on an entirely new meaning?
     
  20. KnightWriter

    KnightWriter Administrator Emeritus star 9 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Nov 6, 2001
    Dick Cheney was not a neocon while secretary of state, and scowcroft has notably said that he doesn't even recognize cheney anymore.

    44, i'm not sure if you're being deliberately obtuse, but i'd like to think you know very well that cheney has changed a great deal over the past decade, and further, that H.W. was a completely different man when it came to foreign policy (as was the team around him).

    rumsfeld and h.w. were old rivals going back to nixon's time in office, when h.w. was considered for the vice presidency. rumsfeld became defense secretary under ford and bush was shuttered off the stage for awhile, after having been seriously considered for the vice presidency.

    They are the same people, acting in much the same manner.

    no, they're not. i'm flabbergasted that you would post this, and frankly, i can't help but think you're being a devil's advocate here.

    baker is infinitely different from W, and infinitely more competent. cheney is unrecognizable to those who knew him before, and powell was marginalized in w's first term.

    sorry, 44.
     
  21. Cheveyo

    Cheveyo Jedi Grand Master star 5

    Registered:
    Oct 29, 2001
    Oh, it's not required... unless the debasers are touting these failures as successes. Case in point, from the linked article:
    Several government programmes come up for reauthorisation next year, including the farm bill, the State Children?s Health Insurance Programme and No Child Left Behind, Mr Bush?s landmark education reform. In each case Democrats will try to tilt the laws to their liking: more money for insuring poor children; more cash for schools and fewer demands on teachers; more subsidies for biofuels.


    This little mention of the No Child Left Behind Act suggests that the Act is a success, when in fact is contributing to the problem on too many levels to cite without going off-topic. In that regard, no, this article is as fair and balanced as Bill O'Reilly's typical demorcat diatribes.

    An article on this topic that pointed out specifically where Democrats seem to want to go in comparison to where the Republican Congress has brought them thus far would be beneficial, were it based on actual legislative facts.
     
  22. Mr44

    Mr44 VIP star 6 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    May 21, 2002
    I'm not so sure KW.

    Believe me, part of this is being a devil's advocate, but then, I'm not sure if the divisions, in relation to each other, are as great as people characterize.

    As I'm fond of doing, let's point out the major differences, in justification, between the military operations I compared.

    There are none.

    The invasion of Panama was completely pre-emptive in nature and designed to unilaterally promote US interests. The UN General Assembly specifically passed a resolution condemning the US's action.

    Cheney, acting as Bush Sr's SecDef, didn't worry about developing a multinational coaliton before invading. The US didn't worry about alienating other countries in the region, or at least, such concern wasn't related to the scope of the operation.

    What if Panama resulted in 1,000 US casualties, instead of 349? 2,000 casualties? Would the justification for the entire operation take on a new light? Doing a numbers crunch, Panama resulted in about 2 US troops killed per day, 23 wounded. The Panamanian casualty rate could be as high as 285 per day. But was there such a public obsession with such body counts, and/or mortality clocks?

    The major differences is that at the time, the West was still united under the banner of the cold war. Why would France support the US's right for pre-emption back in 1989?

    Let's now take it a step further and remove the perception of Iraq and Panama from each. At a basic level, Bush Jr's administration can be certainly characterized as the ultimate continuation of his father's adminsitration. Had Bush Sr been re-elected, those same individuals would have closed out the Cold War, probably when they would have done the most good. What would US policy have been then?

     
  23. KnightWriter

    KnightWriter Administrator Emeritus star 9 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Nov 6, 2001
    44, you're doing some incredible nitpicking, and you know how i despise that. the general and broad points remain, and i stand by what i said.
     
  24. Mr44

    Mr44 VIP star 6 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    May 21, 2002
    But again, we're both doing some nitpicking here. I point out that Cheney, Wolfowitz, Libby, et al... all had prominent positions in HW's administration, and you return with "but Rumsfeld and HW were rivals?" What neocons were suddenly installed in Bush Jr's administration that didn't hold a place in his father's? Condi Rice? Is she even considered to be a neocon? James Baker was Bush Jr's chief legal advisor during the 2000 election, and now heads the Iraq Study Group.

    Take the examples I've given and examine the concepts behind them. Then let's focus on the broad.

    Bush Sr developed coalitions when he could, he disregarded them when it suit national interests to do so. I'd say this applies to any President the US has had, and applies to the current President. How did Cheney act in 1989 as SecDef, as opposed to how he acts in 2006 as VP? Regarding policy, they could be exact copies of each other.

    What threat did Panama pose to the US that warranted the use of military force? Why did the US act unilaterally? Why did the UNGA oppose the US's actions? Again, as when I compare the Balkans to Iraq, I'm not claiming that Panama and Iraq are the same, but look to the justifications in each.

    Now, Bush Jr is certainly more public about such views. His father would never get on national Tv and exclaim "bring it on!" But this in itself doesn't mean that the policies of each are fundamentally different, or that the same individuals underwent some 180 degree transformation.

    I'm interested to see the major differences as you see them.
     
  25. DeathStar1977

    DeathStar1977 Jedi Padawan star 4

    Registered:
    Jan 31, 2003
    Mr44

    Take the examples I've given and examine the concepts behind them. Then let's focus on the broad.

    Operation Just Cause, just like Kosovo (your other favorite comparison) was a military operation of far different size and scope, which for the record IMO HW Bush did the right thing. Just Cause involved far fewer U.S. troops (less than 30,000 I believe) and the need for an occupation, as in Iraq, was a minute possibility, especially on the scale of Iraq. Furthermore, regarding Iraq, both HW Bush AND Cheney (and others in HW?s administration) didn?t remove Hussein because they knew the chaos that would ensue. So far as I know, they have statements on record confirming this.

    So in both a broad context, and in a narrow context, the comparisons aren?t really apt. But I do look forward to your response comparing the Clone Wars to the Tyson-Frazier fight of 1986 (Tyson knocked him out in 30 seconds), and how both Palpatine and Reagan were justified.

     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.