If Democrats Don't Win this November...

We don't need to vote...we have the decider in the White House...he will decide everything for us so we don't have to worry about anything.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Ken Cooper @ Oct 21 2006, 04:53 PM) [snapback]336186[/snapback]</div>

BRAVO

This is exactly what I was thinking when I wrote a couple of posts ago. Sometimes it is better to think of yourself as an American instead of either republican or democrat. Thank you Ken Cooper. I hope we have many like you when it is time to vote this time.

 

I’m moving to Canada!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(grasshopper @ Oct 22 2006, 06:29 AM) [snapback]336350[/snapback]</div>

Canada is a far more civilized country. My question is: Are you moving because you want to improve your own quality of life (a legitimate reason for moving, within or between countries) or are you moving because you think this will somehow hurt the folks in power in the U.S.?

If everyone who opposes Bush leaves the country, things here will only get worse. The Vietnam-era draft dodgers had to leave or go to jail. If you are not going AWOL to avoid going to war, you don't NEED to flee.

Again, if you are leaving because you've decided you want to live in a civilized country, more power to you and good luck. But if you're leaving because you think that will slow down the rise of fascism, it will actually have the reverse effect.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Dragonfly @ Oct 21 2006, 03:06 PM) [snapback]336191[/snapback]</div>

Its really not much of a threat for one party to hold both the Legislature and the Executive in this country ... remember that its done that way automatically for people living in most of the western world with the parlimentary system. It happens with nearly EVERY election in England, for instance.

We've gone for long periods with one party in control of both Legislature and Executive before, with much larger majorities than the current one held by Republicans. The Democrats held both houses of Congress for nearly all the time from before 1945 to 1988 ... with the exception of one two year period during Eisenhower's administration (IIRC). When you have the majority held by a razor thin margin, you don't have much threat at all; the parties have to compromise to get anything done.

One of the reasons that the Republicans are having a hard time "with their base" is that they have been ineffective in doing some of the things the base wants done: smaller government, immigration control and lower taxes. While the tax cuts were implemented, they were not made permanent, and since revenues are up, REAL Republicans would have cut the tax rates again. And again. And government is not smaller at all ... we have entire cabinet level departments that should be eliminated and yet we are spending more and more in those very departments. And our Republican House and Republican Senate couldn't agree on how to deal with immigration. They don't have enough of a majority to really extend their will, and five or six dissenters will cause a bottleneck.

There's also a concerted effort to violate the spirit of the Voting Rights Act by attempting to discourage a large minority within the Republican party (i.e., the so-called "religious right"). A new book, and numerous news stories have been floated about how the Republicans really don't care about the religious folks. These kinds of stories tend to suppress the vote because people won't go to the trouble of heading to the polls if they think it is all hopeless anyway.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fshagan @ Oct 22 2006, 09:09 PM) [snapback]336628[/snapback]</div>

This is the pot calling the kettle black....

Does anybody remember any stories about folks being refused the vote in the last couple of elections? Florida and Ohio come to mind. Just two days ago a Republican candidate for Congress out here had his office raided by the FBI because his people sent out letters to Hispanic voters trying to scare them away from the upcoming election.

And now a member of the Bush White House religious right spills the beans about what he experienced there: contempt for the very people who put this mob in office.

Cry me a river.....

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Oct 11 2006, 11:39 AM) [snapback]331272[/snapback]</div>

The democrats will not win either of the two branches of the government. My 2 cents.

Wildkow

p.s. How bout that Lieberman with a 17 point lead over Lamont? Atta boy Joe!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Oct 22 2006, 02:20 PM) [snapback]336447[/snapback]</div>

I didn’t flee to Canada in 1965, but I think I’ve gotten old and cynical or just fed up. Not only do I think that my moving will not have any affect on anything, I’m convinced that it cannot be changed even by the masses. The only problem that I have is that I don’t even own a coat and I’m not convinced that the human lungs can suck in that cold of air without freezing.

Do you think that if the tax payers were to pay for all elections campaigns, would that change things?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(grasshopper @ Oct 23 2006, 06:59 AM) [snapback]336712[/snapback]</div>

Ha ha. Not all of Canada is cold. And any way, coats don't cost all that much.

As far as elections, I've said before that I don't think the solution is in electoral politics. I support grass-roots organizing. As long as people hate and fear each other, the best government in the world cannot make this a better place. But if people truly regarded each other as sisters and brothers (as Jesus commanded his followers to do, and as most religions advocate, but none observe) then the worst government in the world could not hurt them.

But if you want to improve elections, there are (in my opinion) a few basic steps you'd have to implement:

1. Make it easier for new parties and independent candidates to get on the ballot.
2. Elect by majority rather than by plurality, even if this requires run-off elections.
3. For legislative offices, use proportional voting/representation, so that smaller political groupings could get representation proportional to their numbers. It is obscenely undemocratic to give 51% of the voters 100% of the representation.
4. Eliminate campaign spending: Every candidate who qualifies to be on the ballot should get an equal amount of free air time and newspaper space. Produced commercials should be prohibited. Allow only the candidate himself or herself to speak to the voters and write commentary in the newspapers.

Of course this is not going to happen because the people who presently control politics through their money are not going to let go of that power.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Alnilam @ Oct 22 2006, 10:41 PM) [snapback]336651[/snapback]</div>

Must you always call people names? Once again, you attempt to smear me based on some imaginary association you have created out of whole cloth. I have never been an apologist for wrong-doing by either party. And once again, I'll reiterate: you don't know me.

And since you threw out the line about a Republican candidate in a congressional district who violated the law by not disclosing who sent the letter, why don't you mention that the county party chair demanded his resignation from the race, and the Republican governor likened his letter to a "hate crime". And reitereated that again today, commenting again that the candidate should drop out? Or does it serve your purpose more to just let the insinuation hang, without giving all the information on that incident?

For people who want to know the story, rather than the impression they get from snarky insinuations, here is an excerpt of the Republican party's reaction:

Truth seekers, Google "tan nguyen" for more, but certainly don't trust what you read in FHOP. And note that he's a "new Republican", having formerly run as a Democrat.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fshagan @ Oct 23 2006, 09:32 PM) [snapback]337192[/snapback]</div>

What name did I call you? "Pot?" It's another common expression, Hagen. Get a book. I don't know what you look like, but if it strikes a sensitive spot, I apologize. Once again I will say, by your words I know you. You didn't respond to my last post so I guess you are without an answer. You keep saying I don't know you. So either write us a biography or stand behind your words like a man and stop this silly snivel. Your "reiteration" is becoming a bit boring. Is that a new word you've just learned? It pops up a lot.

Yes, after the letter was sent, and the damage done, and the FBI was on scene, the "Party" disowned the guy. Much like Foley is now being dropped from the list of Noble Republicans long after his perversion was known to the party leadership and ignored. "Truth Seekers," (of whom Hagen, the Guardian of Liberty, is prominent,) Google "Republican criminal indictments" and then "Democratic criminal indictments." See who leads this hit parade. (BTW,our governor, a Republican, is a pretty regular guy, unlike the mob back east that runs the party. All Republicans are not equal. He even knows how to say he was wrong when he is. Learn from this, Hagen.)

Reagan was also a new Republican, having formerly been a Democrat. So what?

Snarky! I like that. I'll add that to my signature in memory of you. BTW, all the words in this signature are names I have been called. I wear them, like Cyrano, with panache.

Just so you know, there are about three people who have crossed the line of civilized debate with me on this site (in contrast to dozens who know how to respond as ladies and gentlemen, even in strong disagreement.) You are one of them and I will respond to every objectionable word you say. I feel no obligation to spar kindly with you. You don't like it, buy a Hummer. They'd love you.