Democrats: mid term elections, & 08'??

[Stu Ghatze]

Sorry folks, ..but you all can still dream but there will be NO major changes as you have mis-read the REAL mainstream majority!

I know its best to "think" that the so called, "unbiased old media" just reports the news, ..Huh huh! But they must be given at least a B+ for trying to scandalize the whole of the Bush administration the last 4-years.

What have the democrats done in the congress?? Why absolutely NOTHING except to say, "Bush is trying to steal the poor's social security with his plans to revamp social security, Bush is trying to help the rich at the expense of the poor with tax changes, Bush lied about the war, Bush stole the 04' election, Bush, Cheney & Haliburton, Bush approves of torture, Bush is "spying" on Americans, Bush is a racist, & wanted the poor black citizens in New Orleans to die, Bush is taking away everybody's civil rights because he wants to be king!!

....and NOT to be outdone, ..there's Howard Dean who once said; "How do we know that Bush himself didn't have anything to do with 9/11"?

So uhh....President Bush murdered his own citizens to stay in power?? GEEZUS..... Dean, & some of the democrats might have well just come out, & said it cause' that IS the message they were trying to send!

Some of the MOST ludicrous accusations, & lunatic charges whereas the seriousness of the charges matter more to the media, & democratic party leadership than any such proofs of such lunatic accusations & conspiracy theories!:2razz:

This is the ''CRAPOLA" the democrats are hoping for that THEY HOPE "might" change the demographics of the congress, & the whitehouse for 08'.

Dear Democrats; .."Good luck"!! Huh huh :smile:

 

[Synch]

The Democrats have a zero chance of gaining enough so they will have a majority in Congress, unless there is major change they still won't have it by 08.

However, since usually Republican campaign starts late, projections now are inaccurate, Kerry started his 04 campaign very early..

 

[Stu Ghatze]

The Democrats have a zero chance of gaining enough so they will have a majority in Congress, unless there is major change they still won't have it by 08.

However, since usually Republican campaign starts late, projections now are inaccurate, Kerry started his 04 campaign very early..

The democrats are really the ones in deep trouble, ..in spite of the democratic party, & their media friends attempt at criminalizing, & trying to scandalize the whole of the GOP.

The democrats, & media "think" they are on to something. They are, ..more irrelevancy, ..huh huh!

What will be their reaction when they keep losing? Those evil republicans stole another election! :smile:

 

[disneydude]

Stu:

You and your fellow Bush Apologists can continue to live in your bubble and remember better days.....
But fortunately for this country the number of Bush apologists is decreasing every day.
Suffice it to say that the one-issue voters in this country will not have the political power to influence the numerous state elections this year.
You are in for a rude awakening....hey but I say great......continue to live in your fantasy world believing that all is good and great in this adminstration and you will never see it until it hits you.

 

[KCConservative]

But fortunately for this country the number of Bush apologists is decreasing every day.

Oh my God, what if you're right? He'll never get reelected.

 

[disneydude]

KCC:

Once again your response indicates that you are responding while misinterpreting or failure to correctly read the response you are responding to.

If you carefully read my response who will read that I am referring to the 2008 STATE elections which have nothing to do with GWB.
The issue had to do with one-issue voters having a greater influence in the presidential election than they will have in individual state elections.

Next time......please read the response entirely before open mouth insert foot.

 

[Stinger]

If you carefully read my response who will read that I am referring to the 2008 STATE elections which have nothing to do with GWB.

But you prefaced your position on Bush.


So tell me why I should vote Democrat, what is their plan for the economy and our situation in the Middle East. What is their energy policy? What do they propose to do about Social Security? Can you tell me what they plan to do without using the word Republican in your response?

 

[hipsterdufus]

So tell me why I should vote Democrat, what is their plan for the economy and our situation in the Middle East. What is their energy policy? What do they propose to do about Social Security? Can you tell me what they plan to do without using the word Republican in your response?

So tell me why I should vote Democrat:

We don't want you. Sorry.:2wave:

what is their plan for the economy

1. Reward corporations for keeping high quality jobs in America
2. Fiscal responsibility by balancing the budgets
3. Eliminate offshore corporate tax evasion

and our situation in the Middle East.

1. Step up efforts to capture/kill Bin Laden
2. Rebuild strong international alliances
3. Strategic redeployment of troops - military realignment, a global campaign to counter hateful Anti-American ideology
4. Smarter support for Iraq's renewal and reconstruction

What is their energy policy?

1. Invest more in research for alternative fuels - a NASA type program.
2. Get biofuels to the pumps - give tax incentives to oil companies that add bio fuels.
3. Face reality of global warming
4. Ask Americans to conserve - tax incentives for fuel efficient vehicles.

What do they propose to do about Social Security?

1. Raise the cap above current $90,000.
2. Goal is to have 90% of wages and salaries pay into SS (we're currently at 84.9%)

Can you tell me what they plan to do without using the word Republican in your response?

Republican :roll:

 

[Stinger]

We don't want you. Sorry.:2wave:

Don't think you speak for all Democrats, and I vote Democrat if I like the candidate, usually locally.

1. Reward corporations for keeping high quality jobs in America

How? What does that mean? Corporate welfare? Tax cuts for corporations?

2. Fiscal responsibility by balancing the budgets

Nice goal but how, they've never shown it before.

3. Eliminate offshore corporate tax evasion

How, what laws are they going to change, we already penalize our corporations by taxing profits made in foriegn countries which other countries don't do. You can't prevent someone from taking their money offshore, it's suppose to be a free country you know.

1. Step up efforts to capture/kill Bin Laden

By doing what that we aren't doing now?

2. Rebuild strong international alliances

Nice goal but how, what are you willing to give up to them?

3. Strategic redeployment of troops - military realignment, a global campaign to counter hateful Anti-American ideology

Where and how, what troops are you going to move where when the goal is to bring them home.

4. Smarter support for Iraq's renewal and reconstruction

Such as what?

1. Invest more in research for alternative fuels - a NASA type program.

Bush has already done that.

2. Get biofuels to the pumps - give tax incentives to oil companies that add bio fuels.

We do that already, but strange to see you supporting giving money to big corporations, if Bush did that you'd complain.

3. Face reality of global warming

Meaning what, what are they going to do when they face it?

4. Ask Americans to conserve - tax incentives for fuel efficient vehicles.

If they are so much more efficient then why take money from one person and give it to those who drive them?

1. Raise the cap above current $90,000.

So raising taxes is the answer to SS, not according to the experts. You know that means you are reniging on the contract, the promise.

2. Goal is to have 90% of wages and salaries pay into SS (we're currently at 84.9%)

Why not everyone pay more since everyone gets the same back? But then the Dems refuse to talk about SS so why should I believe you when you say they will when they get elected?

Those are mostly nice sounding goals, but how do you do them and why aren't they already proposing them?

 

[hipsterdufus]

How? What does that mean? Corporate welfare? Tax cuts for corporations?

We have enough corporate welfare. This would be tax incentives for corporations to not outsource jobbs overseas.

Nice goal but how, they've never shown it before.

Clinton

How, what laws are they going to change, we already penalize our corporations by taxing profits made in foriegn countries which other countries don't do. You can't prevent someone from taking their money offshore, it's suppose to be a free country you know.

American corporations are setting up subsidiaries in foreign countries to avoid pying their fair share. Think Bermuda. The first thing to do would be to not give any Govt contracts to companies that operate like that.

By doing what that we aren't doing now?

1. Re-deploy troops
2. Use some of our capital gained from helping them during the Sunami to put pressure on Pakistan to give up OBL

Nice goal but how, what are you willing to give up to them?

What do you have to give them? How about treating other countries with respect? How about kicking John Bolton out of the UN - that's a start.

Where and how, what troops are you going to move where when the goal is to bring them home.

1. Bring Home the troops that have been deployed the longest.
2. Bring Home the Reserves and Nat Guard to help with Homeland Security
3. Re-deploy other troops to capture OBL

Such as what?

Here's a start
1. End "cost-plus" contract system
2. Institue an accounting system
3. End no-bid contracts
4. Find missing 8 billion dollars

Bush has already done that.

Not nearly enough

We do that already, but strange to see you supporting giving money to big corporations, if Bush did that you'd complain.

Not nearly enough. It's not strange when it makes sense. If Bush did it, I would support it.

Meaning what, what are they going to do when they face it?

Join the 20th century
1. Reduce gas house emissions
2. Revisit Kyoto
3. Reinstitute stricter environmental standards

If they are so much more efficient then why take money from one person and give it to those who drive them?

The goal is to wean Americans off oil. Now we have incentives to buy SUVs vehicles over 6,000 lbs. That's ridiculous

So raising taxes is the answer to SS, not according to the experts. You know that means you are reniging on the contract, the promise.

Having Americans pay their FAIR SHARE is part of the answer, yes.

Why not everyone pay more since everyone gets the same back? But then the Dems refuse to talk about SS so why should I believe you when you say they will when they get elected?

Dem's will talk about once privatization is off the table. Truthfully the bigger crisis is in Medicaire / Medicaid.

Those are mostly nice sounding goals, but how do you do them and why aren't they already proposing them?

They are proposing them. It's more fun for the MSM to repeat the Mantra that Dems have no ideas and avoid the reality.

 

[Stinger]

We have enough corporate welfare. This would be tax incentives for corporations to not outsource jobbs overseas.

Then why have they blocked any such attempts, simply don't tax profits made overseas that are taxed by the countries where those profits are made. The Democrats oppose these measures. And "tax incentives" ARE corporate welfare and "tax give aways to the rich" according to Democrats.

Clinton

ie. Fiscal responsibility. Nope, his budgets wanted higher spending that Congress authorized and he was dragged kicking and screaming to signing the ones that did pass. Again Democrats in congress have no record of fiscal restraint or cutting spending. The reason you gives applies more, though not enough, to Republicans.

American corporations are setting up subsidiaries in foreign countries to avoid pying their fair share. Think Bermuda. The first thing to do would be to not give any Govt contracts to companies that operate like that.

They will find other means but see my post above. This is a very very small issue anyway.

1. Re-deploy troops

Where?

2. Use some of our capital gained from helping them during the Sunami to put pressure on Pakistan to give up OBL

We're already doing that.

What do you have to give them?

They are going to do whatever it is you want them to do out of benevolence?

How about treating other countries with respect?

What does that mean?

How about kicking John Bolton out of the UN - that's a start.

And put someone in who will bow down to the other countries and have less interest in our own national interest. Certainly not a reason for me to vote Democrats. BTW Bolton has been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize.

1. Bring Home the troops that have been deployed the longest.

We tend to do that, but are you saying the Democrats want to take over day to day operation of the military and have congress run it. Boy now you have really convinced me I shouldn't vote Democrat.

2. Bring Home the Reserves and Nat Guard to help with Homeland Security

Have the military operate on domestic soil. How are you going to change the constitution and can you cite any Democrat who has made such a proposal?

3. Re-deploy other troops to capture OBL

What military leader has said we need more troop there? Or are you saying the Democrats elected to congress will take over running military operations if elected?

Here's a start
1. End "cost-plus" contract system

Why when it may end up costing us more? Do you think companies bidding the contract will not make sure thier firm bids are not high enough to make thier margins or something or that provisions for cost overruns caused by government will not be included. But can you name the Democrat who is proposing this?

2. Institue an accounting system

We have one.

3. End no-bid contracts

\

What Democrat is proposing this?

Quote:
1. Invest more in research for alternative fuels - a NASA type program.

Me: Bush has already done that.

Not nearly enough

Well what is the Democrat proposal and who is making it? Are you saying give ADM more money?

Quote:
2. Get biofuels to the pumps - give tax incentives to oil companies that add bio fuels.

Me: We do that already, but strange to see you supporting giving money to big corporations, if Bush did that you'd complain.

Not nearly enough.

According to what Democrat and where is their proposal to increase it.

It's not strange when it makes sense. If Bush did it, I would support it.

Tax breaks for the rich.

Join the 20th century
1. Reduce gas house emissions
2. Revisit Kyoto
3. Reinstitute stricter environmental standards

The Dems voted down Kyoto right along with the Reps. And at what cost are they willing to institure stricter environmental statdards and who is proposing it. Give me specifics.

The goal is to wean Americans off oil. Now we have incentives to buy SUVs vehicles over 6,000 lbs. That's ridiculous

The market place will do that without Democrats, why do you think they can do better than the market itself and who and what is the specific proposal?

Me: So raising taxes is the answer to SS, not according to the experts. You know that means you are reniging on the contract, the promise.

Having Americans pay their FAIR SHARE is part of the answer, yes.

What is their "fair share" the poor pay less than the rich now, we get the same benifits. FAIR SHARE is a bogus arguement. But bottom line is raising taxes is the Democrat answer, that's it? Reniging on the contrat is the answer?

Dem's will talk about once privatization is off the table. Truthfully the bigger crisis is in Medicaire / Medicaid.

There is nothing stopping them now and they have no proposal except for higher taxes according to you.

\Me: Those are mostly nice sounding goals, but how do you do them and why aren't they already proposing them?

They are proposing them. It's more fun for the MSM to repeat the Mantra that Dems have no ideas and avoid the reality.

The Democrats THEMSELVES admit they have no proposals. Practically everything you have said are nice sounding GOALS to some but not practical courses of action, not solutions.

EVeryone wants an answer to the future energy problems, Republicans made and passed proposals. The Democrats have none.

Everyone wants to bet OBL the Democrats have no ideas other than "try harder" which is evident in your post.

Everyone wants SS to be there in the future, or some form of guarantied retirement. Republicans have made proposals that FIX it, so far all you offer from Democrats is increasing taxes which will NOT fix it and is certainly NOT fair.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally Posted by hipsterdufus
Quote:
How about treating other countries with respect?

Originally Posted by Stinger
What does that mean?

In a nutshell, the response to hipster's question says an awful lot more than just four words. It is a perfect example of how American's have become mentally disconnected from 90% of the reality in the world.

 

[hipsterdufus]

Then why have they blocked any such attempts, simply don't tax profits made overseas that are taxed by the countries where those profits are made. The Democrats oppose these measures. And "tax incentives" ARE corporate welfare and "tax give aways to the rich" according to Democrats.

I'm not talking at all about profits made overseas. I'm talking about American companies setting up phony foreign subsidiaries overseas to avoid paying taxes. Big difference.

ie. Fiscal responsibility. Nope, his budgets wanted higher spending that Congress authorized and he was dragged kicking and screaming to signing the ones that did pass. Again Democrats in congress have no record of fiscal restraint or cutting spending. The reason you gives applies more, though not enough, to Republicans.

You just make this stuff up as you go don't you?

They will find other means but see my post above. This is a very very small issue anyway.

Most estimates of corporate tax evasion come in between 10 and 50 billion a year, depending on who you talk to.

We're already doing that.

How?

What does that mean?

See Billo

And put someone in who will bow down to the other countries and have less interest in our own national interest. Certainly not a reason for me to vote Democrats. BTW Bolton has been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize.

Way to change the subject. It is winning one that is of more importance. After all.......one of the founding fathers of the crips gang was also "nominated".

We tend to do that, but are you saying the Democrats want to take over day to day operation of the military and have congress run it. Boy now you have really convinced me I shouldn't vote Democrat.

Glad to help. Like I said, we don't want you.

Have the military operate on domestic soil. How are you going to change the constitution and can you cite any Democrat who has made such a proposal?

What military leader has said we need more troop there? Or are you saying the Democrats elected to congress will take over running military operations if elected?

Any commander that says that has been ostracized by the administration.
FYI - Any war is a combination of military action and political action. If you think bombs are going to win the war on terror you're sadly naive.

Why when it may end up costing us more? Do you think companies bidding the contract will not make sure thier firm bids are not high enough to make thier margins or something or that provisions for cost overruns caused by government will not be included.

Look up Iraq monogrammed towels.

But can you name the Democrat who is proposing this?

Senator Dorgan for one.

We have one.

It sucks. We missing 8 Billion dollars in Iraq.

What Democrat is proposing this?

Many are, including Reid, Obama, Pelosi and Slaughter

Me: Bush has already done that.

How? It's woefully inadequate

Well what is the Democrat proposal and who is making it? Are you saying give ADM more money?

Here's one plan by Brian Schweitzer There are others.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/02/24/60minutes/main1343604.shtml

The Dems voted down Kyoto right along with the Reps

.

Who did? What Dems?

The market place will do that without Democrats, why do you think they can do better than the market itself and who and what is the specific proposal?

It hasn't to date. Carter warned of this problem in 1976. How long would you like to wait?

Me: So raising taxes is the answer to SS, not according to the experts. You know that means you are reniging on the contract, the promise.

What experts? Dewy Cheatem and Howe?

What is their "fair share" the poor pay less than the rich now, we get the same benifits. FAIR SHARE is a bogus arguement. But bottom line is raising taxes is the Democrat answer, that's it? Reniging on the contrat is the answer?

Ahm surry u're wordz is 2 pur 2 ahnderstand. Kan ewe restaight theh kwestshun?

The Democrats THEMSELVES admit they have no proposals. Practically everything you have said are nice sounding GOALS to some but not practical courses of action, not solutions.

Who admits that? You're long on rhetoric and short on specifics.

 

[Stu Ghatze]

Stu:

You and your fellow Bush Apologists can continue to live in your bubble and remember better days.....
But fortunately for this country the number of Bush apologists is decreasing every day.
Suffice it to say that the one-issue voters in this country will not have the political power to influence the numerous state elections this year.
You are in for a rude awakening....hey but I say great......continue to live in your fantasy world believing that all is good and great in this adminstration and you will never see it until it hits you.

Our "fantacy" world..? You must be joking, ..its the democratic party that has been living in a fantacy world for decades, ..& even live in their "Alternate Reality" state continually!

Phoney civil rights issues, race baiting .. the democratic party's lust to expanding liberties for foreign nationals at a dangerous time in history, ..& even Dick Durbin suggesting terrorists should have constitutional rights, ..huh huh??:smile:

Bush stole the 04' election, Bush blew up the New Orlean's levees, Bush is a racist, Bush is a liar, Bush wants to be king, Bush is a nazi, Bush, Bush, Bush..geezuz the most lunatic conspiracy theories, & disingenuine democratic party behavior all in bed with the media, & their phoney tainted manipulated polls created to get the desired results that they seek.

The democrats might pick up a few seats, ..but thats about what the extent of it will be, ..they will NOT become the majority.

Your problem is that YOU, ..like other "wishful thinkers"...believe that lying manipulating media;.. who's job has been for decades is to PROMOTE the democratic party, & liberalism!

WE...the quiet majority know this in spite of even the PHONEY exit poll results of John Kerry that was put out by the MEDIA to make it appear that he was the overwhelming favorite.

Why do YOU think those FORGED, fraudulent military documents were introduced by Dan Rather & CBS, & the media a few weeks BEFORE the 04' election?

Quite obviously...the MEDIA was TRYING to influence the outcome of the election on behalf of the democratic party.

No...us GOP voters do not always agree with president Bush, ..but it will be a cold day in hell when we smear, villify, criminalize, & try to scandalize him as the democratic party leadership, & the filthy media has been doing for years now!

The democrats, & the media have invested themselves in that kind of behavior, ..& have done their utmost to side with the terror elements by accusing our soldiers of torture, wrongdoing, ..& playing right into the hands of all of America's adversaries as the democratic party liberals have ALWAYS done.

The media gives us half truths, mis-truths...& incomplete information, & loves to help create, & invent talking points, & controversy.

The REAL mainstream majority holds them in contempt, ...& you WILL find that out after these mid-term elections, & in 08' as well.

Mark my words well...

 

[hipsterdufus]

Our "fantacy" world..? You must be joking, ..its the democratic party that has been living in a fantacy world for decades, ..& even live in their "Alternate Reality" state continually!

It's "fantasy" world.

Phoney civil rights issues, race baiting .. the democratic party's lust to expanding liberties for foreign nationals at a dangerous time in history, ..& even Dick Durbin suggesting terrorists should have constitutional rights, ..huh huh??:smile:

Terrorists, murderers and yes, even you Stu should have civil rights

Bush stole the 04' election, Bush blew up the New Orlean's levees, Bush is a racist, Bush is a liar, Bush wants to be king, Bush is a nazi, Bush, Bush, Bush..geezuz the most lunatic conspiracy theories, & disingenuine democratic party behavior all in bed with the media, & their phoney tainted manipulated polls created to get the desired results that they seek.

Now that's the smartes thing you've said in years.

Why do YOU think those FORGED, fraudulent military documents were introduced by Dan Rather & CBS, & the media a few weeks BEFORE the 04' election?

The docs were never proven to be forged by Dick Thornburgs investigation into the matter.

The media gives us half truths, mis-truths...& incomplete information, & loves to help create, & invent talking points, & controversy.

You're talking about Fox Limbaugh and associates here right?

The REAL mainstream majority holds them in contempt, ...& you WILL find that out after these mid-term elections, & in 08' as well.

We shall see.

 

[KCConservative]

It's "fantasy" world.

Remember debaters, when backed into a corner, go for the spelling errors. That'll show 'em. :roll:

 

[KCConservative]

Now that's the smartes thing you've said in years.

Is there anything you wanted to correct here, hip? :lol:

 

[Stinger]

I'm not talking at all about profits made overseas. I'm talking about American companies setting up phony foreign subsidiaries overseas to avoid paying taxes. Big difference.

They still pay taxes on profits they make here just as if they were here, they just don't pay US taxes on profits they make overseas, which is as every other country does which gives those foreign countries a leg up. But if you believe we are free and have freedom how are you going to stop the freedom we have to invest where we want to and do buisness outside the country if we want to?

Originally Posted by Stinger
ie. Fiscal responsibility. Nope, his budgets wanted higher spending that Congress authorized and he was dragged kicking and screaming to signing the ones that did pass. Again Democrats in congress have no record of fiscal restraint or cutting spending. The reason you gives applies more, though not enough, to Republicans.

You just make this stuff up as you go don't you?

Oh you didn't that. Not surprised. What I posted is factual you can try to rebut it but since it is 100% true you won't be able to. Clinton was NOT a fiscally responsible President as much as the left trys to rewrite history.

Most estimates of corporate tax evasion come in between 10 and 50 billion a year, depending on who you talk to.

Cite facts not hearsay, and what you call evasion is merely free Americans excersizing thier constitutional rights. If I want to start a company down in the BVI the government has no right to stop me. But any profits I make on sales in the US are taxed just as any company within the US. If Democrats want to run on taking those freedoms away they won't win any votes on it.

Glad to help. Like I said, we don't want you.

You need every vote you can get and I being an Independent who votes Democrats sometimes am the PRIME voter you want.



Any commander that says that has been ostracized by the administration.
FYI - Any war is a combination of military action and political action. If you think bombs are going to win the war on terror you're sadly naive.

Here's one plan by Brian Schweitzer There are others.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/02/24/60minutes/main1343604.shtml

Ah you are claiming the Democrat plan for energy is to strip mine Montana, I don't think so and this renegade govenor certainly doesn't represent Democrats in general or a Democrat plan of action as the article clear shows. Amazing you would try to use it as a reason to vote for Democrats nationally. Besides Bush has already proposed increasing coal production, this guy is a day late.
.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stinger

The Dems voted down Kyoto right along with the Reps

Who did? What Dems?

You didn't know that either eh? Really showing how uniformed you are. It was vote down 95-0 in the Senate under the CLINTON administration.

Who admits that? You're long on rhetoric and short on specifics.

I think that describes most of your post pretty well, big goals no specifics on how to achieve them and certainly can't show where the DNC has stated them as a platform or where Democrats in congress are fighting for them.

 

[hipsterdufus]

Is there anything you wanted to correct here, hip? :lol:

Touche my friend. I am a bit anal about grammar and spelling.

 

[hipsterdufus]

They still pay taxes on profits they make here just as if they were here, they just don't pay US taxes on profits they make overseas, which is as every other country does which gives those foreign countries a leg up. But if you believe we are free and have freedom how are you going to stop the freedom we have to invest where we want to and do buisness outside the country if we want to?

Almost every corporate scandal, whether you're talking about Enron, Parmalat,GlaxoSmithKline or WorldCom has involved massive tax fraud by American Corporations. These companies, and the super rich, set up a little office with a phone in some Island in the Caribbean and save billions in taxes. And you think that's fair? To me it's un-American.

Fiscal responsibility. Nope, his budgets wanted higher spending that Congress authorized and he was dragged kicking and screaming to signing the ones that did pass. Again Democrats in congress have no record of fiscal restraint or cutting spending. The reason you gives applies more, though not enough, to Republicans.

Oh you didn't that. Not surprised. What I posted is factual you can try to rebut it but since it is 100% true you won't be able to. Clinton was NOT a fiscally responsible President as much as the left trys to rewrite history.

Clinton is the poster boy for the DLC and a major part of the philosophy is fiscal responsibility.

In 1993 the House and Senate passed Clinton's Deficit Reduction Act without a single Republican vote

In 1995 Clinton wanted to balance the budget in 10 years without cutting health care, education, care for the elderly. His plan also continued welfare reform and protected the environment while keeping college costs affordable.
Newt and Trent Lott's plan wanted to balance the budget in 7 years with much bigger cuts. Finally both parties reached a compromise and the budget passed with a majority vote of both Dems and Reps in both Houses.

You need every vote you can get and I being an Independent who votes Democrats sometimes am the PRIME voter you want.

You can vote for Lieberman before he switches parties.

Any commander that says that has been ostracized by the administration.
FYI - Any war is a combination of military action and political action. If you think bombs are going to win the war on terror you're sadly naive.

Any person that disagress with the administration is ostracized, whether it's Richard Clark, Joe Wilson, Paul O'Neil, Eric Shinseki or Larry Lindsay.

I have never said that bombs alone will win the war on terror. That's ridiculous.

Ah you are claiming the Democrat plan for energy is to strip mine Montana, I don't think so and this renegade govenor certainly doesn't represent Democrats in general or a Democrat plan of action as the article clear shows. Amazing you would try to use it as a reason to vote for Democrats nationally. Besides Bush has already proposed increasing coal production, this guy is a day late.

I'm impressed with Dem Govenors taking the lead on this issue including Rendell in PA, Schweitzer in Montana along with Sen. Salazar.

Truthfully, Bush could save his legacy and his repect from the American people if he backs up his strong talk of addiction to oil, with action. As a former oilman Bush is in a unique position to take the lead here.

Anyway, this is probably a better broad example of what you're looking for:

Senate Democrats Making America Energy Independent by 2020

Senate Democrats want to make America energy independent by 2020 by improving energy security, generating jobs and economic growth, and protecting Americans from price spikes and price gouging.

Make America more secure

Improve energy and national security. Independence from foreign oil sources would save money and protect America. According to analysts, up to $50 billion in taxpayer money is being spent each year to protect the flow of oil from the Persian Gulf. Better management of our strategic reserves of crude oil (and gasoline, jet fuel, diesel and heating oil) would reduce the impact of oil supply disruptions.

Send less money out of the country. Just in 2005, America will have sent more than $200 billion overseas to oil-producing nations to pay for petroleum products, including crude oil. Over the last five years, an average of $137 billion per year went to those countries. Investing that money here at home would have a huge impact on our balance of trade, the economy, and job creation.

Create new jobs and economic growth

Create a new energy industry, exports and jobs. An Apollo Project-like initiative to invest federal research and development dollars in advanced energy technology would create millions of new highly skilled, well-paid jobs. Improving energy science and technology education and training would make America the leader in energy efficient product manufacturing and exporting. Aggressive federal leadership in procuring very efficient and advanced alternative fuel vehicles and green buildings and products would help American companies innovate.

http://democrats.senate.gov/energy/factsheets/121205.html

You didn't know that either eh? Really showing how uniformed you are. It was vote down 95-0 in the Senate under the CLINTON administration.

The Senate's 95-0 vote you're referring to was not a vote on Kyoto but on a resolution called the Byrd/Hagel Resolution. Basically this resolution called for renegotiation of the Kyoto Protocol, but the Busheviks have used this vote to push an agenda ignorant of global climate change. This lead to Bush rejecting Kyoto in toto in 2001 and the issue was mute until 2003's Lieberman-McCain Climate Stewardship Act. That act had strong support from Dems but failed 43-55.

No maybe the aftermath of Katrina will wake some people up again.

"The net effect of all the warming and melting is a steadily rising sea level, almost one inch per decade now, with collateral effects such as the invasion by salt water of freshwater aquifiers in coastal areas and the loss of coastal wetland aquifiers.

"I studied one such area in Louisiana in 1989, Bayou Jean Lafitte, where a strip of land no more than two feet high and five feet wide at places separates the salt water of the rising ocean from the fresh water in one of the most productive breeding grounds in the United States. The next storm surge may breach the barrier and destory the freshwater ecosystem of the bayou.

"The combination of storms and higher sea levels has caused steadily worsening erosion in virtually all coastal areas."

Al Gore 1993 from "Earth in the Balance"

 

[Stinger]

Almost every corporate scandal, whether you're talking about Enron, Parmalat,GlaxoSmithKline or WorldCom has involved massive tax fraud by American Corporations. These companies, and the super rich, set up a little office with a phone in some Island in the Caribbean and save billions in taxes. And you think that's fair? To me it's un-American.

Those weren't tax scandals they were SEC scandals and they all had their offices right here in the good old USA. Going after offshore companies is a nonstarter, no one cares, if the Dems want to make it an issue, and they haven't, they will only bore people to death.

That being said I asked you what the DEMOCRATS not you are going to do, they are not persuing this issue.

Clinton is the poster boy for the DLC and a major part of the philosophy is fiscal responsibility.

He was, and he as usual he was all talk.

In 1993 the House and Senate passed Clinton's Deficit Reduction Act without a single Republican vote

He can call it whatever he wanted, but his tax increase slowed the recovery he inherited and did nothing for revenues, the tax cuts later which spur economic growth caused the increases in revenues.

But as I said Clinton's budges requested MORE spending than congress authorized, in fact he was the only modern President to do that so trying to give him credit for fiscal responsibilty is bogus.

You can vote for Lieberman before he switches parties.

I look at all condidates.

Any person that disagress with the administration is ostracized, whether it's Richard Clark, Joe Wilson, Paul O'Neil, Eric Shinseki or Larry Lindsay.

No they aren't, but if they ATTACK the administration what do you expect? The adminsitration has just as much right to speak their case as those who oppose it.

I have never said that bombs alone will win the war on terror. That's ridiculous.

And what have the Democrats said is their plan, not what you WANT them to say, what have they actually said?

I'm impressed with Dem Govenors taking the lead on this issue including Rendell in PA, Schweitzer in Montana along with Sen. Salazar.

While they are ignored by the DNC.

Hey even McAwful was on the air this weekend stating it perfectly clear, the Dems will NOT offer an agenda but campaign on critizing Bush, that is a plan for disaster.

The Senate's 95-0 vote you're referring to was not a vote on Kyoto but on a resolution called the Byrd/Hagel Resolution.

Yes which totally rejected it.

Basically this resolution called for renegotiation of the Kyoto Protocol,

Yes rejecting it.

but the Busheviks have used this vote to push an agenda ignorant of global climate change.

No they've used it to keep us on a rational course and not some extemist scheme.

This lead to Bush rejecting Kyoto in toto in 2001

Just as the congress under Clinton did 95-0.

No maybe the aftermath of Katrina will wake some people up again.

To what, that the earth goes through natural cycles regulating itself and we just have to adapt to what it hands us?

Al Gore 1993 from "Earth in the Balance"

OH please spare me what a piece of garbage.

""The net effect of all the warming and melting is a steadily rising sea level, almost one inch per decade now, with collateral effects such as the invasion by salt water of freshwater aquifiers in coastal areas and the loss of coastal wetland aquifiers."

Fill up a glass with cubed ice, the fill it with water. Let it sit until the ice melts. What happens?

"I studied one such area in Louisiana in 1989, Bayou Jean Lafitte, where a strip of land no more than two feet high and five feet wide at places separates the salt water of the rising ocean from the fresh water in one of the most productive breeding grounds in the United States. The next storm surge may breach the barrier and destory the freshwater ecosystem of the bayou.

Ahh the Gulf has waves that are more than two feet high as a common occourance and the brackish water on the coast has always made it's way inland. It's what makes our oysters safe to eat. There is a natural ebb and flow. Now there is a case to be made that some of the levy work in Lousisana has shift the flow of the rivers and marshs, but that has nothing to do with global warming.

 

[Stu Ghatze]

It's "fantasy" world.




Terrorists, murderers and yes, even you Stu should have civil rights



Now that's the smartes thing you've said in years.





The docs were never proven to be forged by Dick Thornburgs investigation into the matter.




You're talking about Fox Limbaugh and associates here right?



We shall see.

Okay, ...PLEASE tell me WHAT CIVIL RIGHTS that have been EXPUNGED from YOU!!

Like I have said, & continue to say...LIBERALS LOVE TO HIDE UNDER "CIVIL RIGHTS" ISSUES THAT ARE SO PHONEY.

Know how many so called "abused" terror prisoners died at Gitmo? I do, ...ZERO, Zilch, Nada...None, At Abu-Ghraib, perhap a few BUT its because THEY generally assaulted their prisoner guards.

The terror prisoners ARE treated with 'more' than just basic rights, have air-conditioning, exercise time outside, given food that is customary with their religious beliefs, & even provided with Koran's.

THe ones that might not be treated as well as the rest of the majority are the ones raising hell, inciting riots, & assaulting the prison guards...as they are HARDENED terrorists taught how to resist interrogation, & captivity.

Dear liberals, ..please understand,...they are NOT g-damn 'victims', they are MURDERER'S ingrained with radical/fanatical islamo-fascism, & would cut the throats of anybody, ..man, woman, & even child. And in fact did cut the throats of "some" of the female air-line stewardesses of the planes they took over by violence & murder.

The terrorists ARE the enemy, not the American miltary...& until the leftists, & liberals wake up to this fact they continue to live in their own false alternate reality state.

Terror scum such as THIS does NOT deserve to be brought forth in a civilian court, & should NEVER be entreated to the same rights becase THEIR behavior is not normal, its not rational, ..or even commensurate to average criminals. THIS IS THE MILITARY'S expertice, & WHERE the SOLE responsibilty lies with.

And..its just like "liberals" who care MORE about the rights of murderer's, rapists, & other criminals, & even terror scum who do not than they DO about REAL victims.

The criminals of the world HIDE under rights issues, & use all the rights & priveleges that America has to offer.

AS far as "abuses" go...yes, there is always a bad apple somewhere to be found, but do not try equating a few as though it is ALWAYS the norm because it is not.

Comparing rough tactics of interrogation to Nazi misbehavior, murder, & genocide is LUDICROUS, & patently untrue...& it has to stop because it is a lie put out by the non-stop lying liberal media, & their apologists who as ALWAYS want to shift the focus of terror misdeeds on to MISDEEDS, & WRONGDOING of America.

America does not behead, drag the bodies around through the streets, beat, & torment its prisoners, nor execute them because they are not christians...& yet this foul stinking media hints at such things!!

But the islamic terrorists DO behave in this very fashion, ..& yet the focus is ALWAYS put on the few MINOR abuses that occur which gives aid, comfort & political support for many of these terror organizations.

It IS pathetic liberal, socialistic, & anti-American journalism promoted, & financed by leading liberal elements in America behind it all!


Blame America first, ..& then do their dirty work by hiding under phoney civil rights issues that have really, ..no honest merit whatsoever except to garner sympathy for forces against American resolve, & create some "supposed" scandal, & conspiracy to help liberalist cause!

The REAL mainstream voting majority KNOWS exactly HOW, & WHY the media, & the liberals engage in such behavior as outlined above, & knows that it HELPS the modern democratic party, ..& they also know that phoney "rights" issues has ALWAYS been the spring board, & catalyst to democratic party success.

The problem for the democratic party is this: There NO longer is a news monopoly by the liberal media that there had been for decades that controlled ALL the topics, & all the influence that helped to keep democrats, & liberals in power for so long.

The REAL voting majority HAS woken up, ..& no longer will tollerate this anti-american liberal socialist loving media any longer, ..or their helpmates residing in the democratic party leadership in spite of the staged manipulated "phoney" polls that want America at large to believe that Bush, & his administration is deeply hated.

WE might NOT all agree with Mr. Bush on some issues, ..but we sure as hell are NEVER going to empower a party (the democratic party of course) that engages in Blame America first, ..or the party (the democratic party again) that loves to equate islamic terrorism as commensurate with American military behavior, & refuses to make the distinction of WHO the enemy REALLY is!

That disgusting behavior has been the M.O. of the democratic party leadership for decades, ..& it is NOT forgotten!

Think about THAT when election time rolls around!

 

[Skip]

Okay, ...PLEASE tell me WHAT CIVIL RIGHTS that have been EXPUNGED from YOU!!

My right to privacy. And without privacy, what civil rights can exist? Who knows - maybe Bush is watching me right now. :shock:

Like I have said, & continue to say...LIBERALS LOVE TO HIDE UNDER "CIVIL RIGHTS" ISSUES THAT ARE SO PHONEY.

This nation was born on civil rights. If you'd like to throw those rights away, then, please, continue voting Republican.

Know how many so called "abused" terror prisoners died at Gitmo? I do, ...ZERO, Zilch, Nada...None

So, if no one died, does it make it an OK place? You want a vacation in beautiful Cuba? Go ahead, go down there and see what it's like. With two plane tickets you get a free waterboarding!

At Abu-Ghraib, perhap a few BUT its because THEY generally assaulted their prisoner guards.

Oh, yes, and all the documentation, pictures, and evidence we have seen of that has been of prisoners assaulting the guards. :roll:

Dear liberals, ..please understand,...they are NOT g-damn 'victims', they are MURDERER'S ingrained with radical/fanatical islamo-fascism, & would cut the throats of anybody, ..man, woman, & even child. And in fact did cut the throats of "some" of the female air-line stewardesses of the planes they took over by violence & murder.

Are any of the terrorists who took those planes and so evil-ly crashed them on September 11 still alive today? No. So the terrorists in question did not, in fact, cut the throats of any airline steward or stewardess (have no idea why you felt the need to include "female").

The terrorists ARE the enemy, not the American miltary...& until the leftists, & liberals wake up to this fact they continue to live in their own false alternate reality state.

Please. Be a debater. Actually debate, and find me one - just one - quote from a liberal, that called the American military the enemy.

You do that, maybe I'll pay attention.

Terror scum such as THIS does NOT deserve to be brought forth in a civilian court, & should NEVER be entreated to the same rights becase THEIR behavior is not normal, its not rational

Oh, of course, they don't deserve civilian court! They're not normal! They shouldn't get rights, people - they're not rational!

Everyone should be entreated to the same rights. Ever read any of our Founding documents? Try it - you'll like it.

And..its just like "liberals" who care MORE about the rights of murderer's, rapists, & other criminals, & even terror scum who do not than they DO about REAL victims.

Let's try debating again. Find a quote of a liberal who states that s/he cares more about the rights of murderers, rapists, criminals, and terrorists, ok?

You do that, maybe I'll wake up.

The criminals of the world HIDE under rights issues, & use all the rights & priveleges that America has to offer.

So ... are you advocating eliminating those rights?

America does not behead, drag the bodies around through the streets, beat, & torment its prisoners, nor execute them because they are not christians...& yet this foul stinking media hints at such things!!

Shall we try this once more? Debating - a wonderful concept. Name a media source that has hinted (see? I'll even give you hinting this time) that America has beheaded, dragged bodies through streets, or executed due to religious beliefs!

I didn't ask for beating or tormenting, because I know we could find many, many true confirmed reports of that sort of American behavior.

The REAL mainstream voting majority KNOWS exactly HOW, & WHY the media, & the liberals engage in such behavior as outlined above, & knows that it HELPS the modern democratic party, ..& they also know that phoney "rights" issues has ALWAYS been the spring board, & catalyst to democratic party success.

Oh, yes, actually, you are right. The voters have it right. Have you seen the latest polls? :lol:

WE might NOT all agree with Mr. Bush on some issues, ..but we sure as hell are NEVER going to empower a party (the democratic party of course) that engages in Blame America first, ..or the party (the democratic party again) that loves to equate islamic terrorism as commensurate with American military behavior, & refuses to make the distinction of WHO the enemy REALLY is!

That disgusting behavior has been the M.O. of the democratic party leadership for decades, ..& it is NOT forgotten!

Oh, it is not forgotten. All the voters just HATE the Democratic Party. Again, I ask: Have you seen the latest poll numbers?

By the way ... you seem to dislike the Democratic Party for Blaming America first. I ask you: What have you spent your ENTIRE post on? Blaming the Democrats first.

I rest my case. Now, I bid you adieu with a wonderful comment I picked up from you ... and it's very true. Everyone - pay attention:

Think about THAT when election time rolls around!