[smacintush]

http://blogs.usatoday.com/gallup/200...o_hmos_an.html

Yeah, so much for the "mandate". It's amusing that the last record low was the democrat congress of Clinton's first term.

What has this great Democrat congress accomplished? Where are they going? Nothing and nowhere.

Those of you who were thrilled over the last election results, are these people really what you wanted? Meaningless votes on the war, unwanted immigration policies, "fairness docrine" that is anything but?

Have they done anything positive? Have they even TRIED to do anything positive? Or at least USEFUL?

No. They are proving what the right was saying around the elections: The Democratic party is the party of "were not George Bush". It is a hollow position that is creating nothing but hollow promises, hollow rhetoric and hollow legislation.

It's not often I start a thread like this but I haven't seen any that are discussing what a failure that this congress has turned out to be.

[villalobos]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

New Gallup data show confidence in Congress at all time low - Gallup Guru - USATODAY.com

Yeah, so much for the "mandate". It's amusing that the last record low was the democrat congress of Clinton's first term.

What has this great Democrat congress accomplished? Where are they going? Nothing and nowhere.

Those of you who were thrilled over the last election results, are these people really what you wanted? Meaningless votes on the war, unwanted immigration policies, "fairness docrine" that is anything but?

Have they done anything positive? Have they even TRIED to do anything positive? Or at least USEFUL?

No. They are proving what the right was saying around the elections: The Democratic party is the party of "were not George Bush". It is a hollow position that is creating nothing but hollow promises, hollow rhetoric and hollow legislation.

It's not often I start a thread like this but I haven't seen any that are discussing what a failure that this congress has turned out to be.

Well they just passed a new bill requiring better fuel efficiency for cars. Of course that was in spite of the GOP members who "complained that the energy bill is tilted too much toward renewables and fuel efficiency and does nothing to boost domestic oil or natural gas production." and also blocked taxed incentives toward renewables. Talk about being in bed with the big oil companies and completely out-of-touch with the the current issues. Good thing the democrats are in control now.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by villalobos 

Well they just passed a new bill requiring better fuel efficiency for cars. Of course that was in spite of the GOP members who "complained that the energy bill is tilted too much toward renewables and fuel efficiency and does nothing to boost domestic oil or natural gas production." and also blocked taxed incentives toward renewables. Talk about being in bed with the big oil companies and completely out-of-touch with the the current issues. Good thing the democrats are in control now.

What bill are you referring to?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by villalobos 

Well they just passed a new bill requiring better fuel efficiency for cars.

Got a link on that? I'd like to read it.

[Dork.]

This one. It's prety recent.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/22/us/22energy.html
(Apologies for the link to NY Times, a search of Google News will probably yield stuff too.)

It only passed the Senate, the House has yet to vote on it. It also got defanged quite a bit, setting new Federal standards without allocating cash to implement them. Unfunded mandates suck.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Dork. 

This one. It's prety recent.

Thanks.

Doesn't look too bad.

[tie]

And smacintush is smacked down.

[Doofy]

Best watch it doesn't turn into something more than it is though. Green nazis *will* take a mile if you give them an inch.

[Dork.]

Hardly a smackdown. Look at the list of things the new congress promised to do in 100 days, and see how many they delivered on (even counting the stuff that Bush vetoed!)

I wouldn't chalk this congress up as a "failure" just yet, though. The new congress has changed the terms of the debate in Washington, and Bush can't get his way all the time anymore. I actually think he'll turn out to be a better President now that he will be forced to compromise every once in a while.

[besson3c]

What were some of the promises? Increase in minimum wage? What else? Can't remember...

[BRussell]

The fact is, Democrats in the House passed the popular stuff that they promised to pass. The Senate is different, of course, and the Republicans in the minority were able to block most of it, or the President could veto it (e.g., stem cell, Iraq war). The question is whether Democrats will take the blame for not getting those popular bills passed even though it was Republicans who are to blame for it not passing in the first place. Of course, that's the way the game is played, and it may even work politically for Republicans, but we here at the political lounge are supposed to know better than claiming it's the Democrats' fault for the Republicans blocking their legislation...

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

The fact is, Democrats in the House passed the popular stuff that they promised to pass. The Senate is different, of course, and the Republicans in the minority were able to block most of it, or the President could veto it (e.g., stem cell, Iraq war). The question is whether Democrats will take the blame for not getting those popular bills passed even though it was Republicans who are to blame for it not passing in the first place. Of course, that's the way the game is played, and it may even work politically for Republicans, but we here at the political lounge are supposed to know better than claiming it's the Democrats' fault for the Republicans blocking their legislation...

I'll find some reference to the 100 days when I get home from work, and they may have indeed hedged their bets by saying they'd "bring the issues to a vote" in the first 100 days, rather than get them all passed. Still, we had a bit of hype built up around the Democratic takeover of Congress, and the reality doesn't quite live up to it. Then again, perhaps that is Politics in a nutshell....

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by Dork. 

I'll find some reference to the 100 days when I get home from work, and they may have indeed hedged their bets by saying they'd "bring the issues to a vote" in the first 100 days, rather than get them all passed. Still, we had a bit of hype built up around the Democratic takeover of Congress, and the reality doesn't quite live up to it. Then again, perhaps that is Politics in a nutshell....

But the point is, you and I know that Democrats voted for all their popular stuff like min wage, stem cell rsch, college loans, drug bargaining, etc., and Republicans voted against it or vetoed it. Right? It all passed in the House, where the majority rules, but not in the Senate, where the minority can block things easily, or the President vetoed it. So, to the extent that the legislation that Republicans blocked was popular, and from what I can tell it was, that's good for Democrats. Right?

My point is that it's all a game for Republicans to try to stop popular things Democrats want to pass, but blame the Democrats for being "do-nothing" in the public's eye, and hope the public doesn't understand that it was the Republicans who were really responsible.

Right?

[OldManMac]

Right.

[BRussell]

Thanks.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by tie 

And smacintush is smacked down.

How so?

What has actually been DONE. The only thing mentioned that seems to have the lefties approval is the CAFE thing and that is still in process.

Even if/when that passes then so what? Is imposing new controls on business the thing that really got them elected? Is fuel economy really it? I gotta believe that it's not simply from the fact that even with rising gas prices truck and SUV sales aren't suffering all that much.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

The question is whether Democrats will take the blame for not getting those popular bills passed even though it was Republicans who are to blame for it not passing in the first place. Of course, that's the way the game is played, and it may even work politically for Republicans, but we here at the political lounge are supposed to know better than claiming it's the Democrats' fault for the Republicans blocking their legislation...

Riiiight. and part of the game is making people like you believe that it's ALL the MINORITY party's fault when their unpassable, unnecessary, unwanted legislation passes.

I thought that NP and the rest were supposed get beyond all this and bring us together? They have been just as partisan and divisive as they have ever been and as the opposing party ever was.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

Riiiight. and part of the game is making people like you believe that it's ALL the MINORITY party's fault when their unpassable, unnecessary, unwanted legislation passes.

I thought that NP and the rest were supposed get beyond all this and bring us together? They have been just as partisan and divisive as they have ever been and as the opposing party ever was.

All I know is that Dems passed a ton of stuff that I believe is very popular: Timeline for getting out of Iraq, stem cell research, college loan interest rate reductions, lower Medicare drug costs, and some others I'm probably forgetting, and Republicans got all of them stopped from becoming law. True or not true? If not true, I'd like to hear why. If true, how is it Democrats' fault that Republicans blocked them?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

All I know is that Dems passed a ton of stuff that I believe is very popular: Timeline for getting out of Iraq...

... along with several million for a fishery in California. Not passable.

stem cell research

Popular? Most don't know a thing about it. stem cell polling It should also be noted that the inability to harvest new lines has led to significant development of other line-methods and alternatives such as reprogramming normal tissue cells in mice to mimic the properties of embryonic stem cells. If replicated in humans, the method would eliminate the need to harvest human embryos to generate stem cells. There are other answers for those who would seek them instead of jumping on the first available notion out of convenience and asking the taxpayer to assume the cost of harvesting human embryos.

college loan interest rate reductions...

It's not always about left or right, it's about right and wrong; This would cost up to $18 billion over five years when federal student financial aid spending has already increased 400 % since 2001. Federal grant and loan limits have recently increased, and interest rates are already at historically low levels. Increases in federal student aid often lead to tuition hikes, leaving college equally unaffordable. Reducing interest rates does not increase college access for prospective students, but merely subsidizes loan repayments after college. It simply doesn't make sense and statistically does not address the sky-rocketing cost of tuition and accessibility to lower-income students. The only racket that could keep up with the pharmaceutical racket is Big College. It's a sham.

lower Medicare drug costs...

Why is the government better suited to negotiate drug prices than the market?

True or not true?

True, thank goodness!

If true, how is it Democrats' fault that Republicans blocked them?

This assumes that no Dems voted against the above measures. This assumes no Republicans voted for the above measures. This assumes they were all good ideas because A) the mob supports them and B) Dems support them.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

... along with several million for a fishery in California. Not passable.

It was passable because it passed. Bush vetoed it because it would have ended the war, not because it had pork. Every military authorization for Iraq has had at least as much pork as that one.

Popular? Most don't know a thing about it. stem cell polling It should also be noted that the inability to harvest new lines has led to significant development of other line-methods and alternatives such as reprogramming normal tissue cells in mice to mimic the properties of embryonic stem cells. If replicated in humans, the method would eliminate the need to harvest human embryos to generate stem cells. There are other answers for those who would seek them instead of jumping on the first available notion out of convenience and asking the taxpayer to assume the cost of harvesting human embryos.

You claim that people don't know much about it, but don't refute the fact that it's overwhelmingly popular and the Republicans' blocking of it is extremely unpopular. And the fact is, these are zygotes created in vitro by fertility labs and set to be destroyed. Do people know that? Because you didn't mention it. In addition - if it's morally wrong, why aren't Republicans pushing for it to be banned outright, rather than just banning federal research? Is murder OK as long as the government doesn't pay for it?

It's not always about left or right, it's about right and wrong; This would cost up to $18 billion over five years when federal student financial aid spending has already increased 400 % since 2001. Federal grant and loan limits have recently increased, and interest rates are already at historically low levels. Increases in federal student aid often lead to tuition hikes, leaving college equally unaffordable. Reducing interest rates does not increase college access for prospective students, but merely subsidizes loan repayments after college. It simply doesn't make sense and statistically does not address the sky-rocketing cost of tuition and accessibility to lower-income students. The only racket that could keep up with the pharmaceutical racket is Big College. It's a sham.

I don't really see how making it easier to pay back student loans is a sham or doesn't make sense. Most of our peer countries completely subsidize college - I really don't see how making a bit easier for students to pay for their own college should be all that controversial. And, of course, it's not.

Why is the government better suited to negotiate drug prices than the market?

Because right now there is no free market for drug costs. Right now, the government simply pays whatever the corporations ask them to pay.

True, thank goodness!

This assumes that no Dems voted against the above measures. This assumes no Republicans voted for the above measures. This assumes they were all good ideas because A) the mob supports them and B) Dems support them.

It assumes absolutely none of what you say it assumes. It looks to me like you can't address my thesis, so you are trying to chop my post up into little pieces instead. Here's my thesis, again; refute it or agree with it: Democrats voted for the things they promised, and Republicans blocked them, so to then turn around and blame Democrats for not getting their plans through is unfair.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

It was passable because it passed. Bush vetoed it because it would have ended the war, not because it had pork. Every military authorization for Iraq has had at least as much pork as that one.

The degree of pork on the first particular bill I believe was unprecedented. That said, Bush claimed that any bill giving a deadline for withdrawal would be vetoed. He held to his word. BTW, per Washington Post-ABC News poll over half, 51%, oppose a deadline for getting out of Iraq. Your notion of "popular" is in dire need of qualification. It may be popular, but the more popular opinion is no deadline. Why did Dems insist on deadlines if they weren't most popular? I thought the mob ruled here. The mandate was to get us out of Iraq right? Not only are we not out of Iraq, but we've been funded for an indefinite stay.

You claim that people don't know much about it, but don't refute the fact that it's overwhelmingly popular and the Republicans' blocking of it is extremely unpopular.

Again, we're in dire need of qualification here. Per ICR polling data; 48% of Americans oppose federal funding of stem cell research that requires destroying human embryos, while only 39% support such funding. You like to call something simply; "support stem cell research". Of course most people support stem cell research. There isn't only one kind you realize. When people are asked point-blank; Congress is considering the question of federal funding for experiments using stem cells from human embryos. The live embryos would be destroyed in their first week of development to obtain these cells. Do you support or oppose using your federal tax dollars for such experiments? Again, 47.8% oppose, 38.6% support. The picture is in fact quite different than the one you're trying to paint.

And the fact is, these are zygotes created in vitro by fertility labs and set to be destroyed. Do people know that? Because you didn't mention it.

You didn't mention embryonic stem cell research. One of the reasons I've not mentioned it is because this is an extremely complex legal realm and would divert to tired, antiquated arguments of defining what is and is not life. Suffice it to say, per specific court cases such as Davis V Davis; the embryo is considered quasi-property. Similar precedent has been applied to next-of-kin regarding bodies of loved ones and to the mother of a still-born fetus. It's really quite complex as things go and the issue remains in hot debate. More below...

In addition - if it's morally wrong, why aren't Republicans pushing for it to be banned outright, rather than just banning federal research? Is murder OK as long as the government doesn't pay for it?

Again, you have this knack for relegating everything to either all black or all white. Why aren't Democrats pushing for partial-birth abortion BRussell? Also, it's nice to know you're touting some Democrat accomplishment on stem-cell funding when this already had bipartisan congressional support prior to Dem takeover. However, one of the problems the Pro-Life movement has always had is disagreement within its ranks. Most oppose abortion, but allow in instances of rape, incest, and health of mother. Those who support the right to choose, generally support the right to choose and the issue is much less complex for them. No, murder is not OK as long as the government (i.e. you and me) doesn't pay for it, but you might know there is considerable disagreement on the rights of an embryo. It should also be noted that any time you propose a tax upon the collective to finance an issue most of the collective finds reprehensible, you will be met with staunch opposition. You'd want it no other way. To not understand the difference between tax-funded and non tax-funded is to be disingenuously ignorant.

I don't really see how making it easier to pay back student loans is a sham or doesn't make sense.

There is a cost/benefit analysis that doesn't add up here. Read the post again please. If the cost of tuition continues to rise and the only thing to counter it is more federal funding, the costs will continue to rise making it less accessible overall. If you overhaul the entire system to be "government-only", then you risk a substantial decline in the desire to maintain a competitive edge.

Most of our peer countries completely subsidize college

Why does that make it better??? Are their economies better? Opportunity? Quality of life? Generally, this has proven profoundly beneficial for Americans as the recipient of the majority of this "brain trust". Read up on "brain-drain" or "capital flight" and you'll see what I'm talking about.

- I really don't see how making a bit easier for students to pay for their own college should be all that controversial. And, of course, it's not.

... to you. Sky-rocketing costs of tuition in light of a 400% increase in Federal Funding for college education over the past 6 years has not led to increased accessibility. The cost of this burden to the tax-payer is not being met by the merits of the spending.

Because right now there is no free market for drug costs. Right now, the government simply pays whatever the corporations ask them to pay.

Do you have a link that explains this relationship in more detail? Somehow I'm under the impression that it's almost always a little more complex than you like to indicate.

It assumes absolutely none of what you say it assumes. It looks to me like you can't address my thesis, so you are trying to chop my post up into little pieces instead.

... chopped indeed.

Here's my thesis, again; refute it or agree with it: Democrats voted for the things they promised, and Republicans blocked them, so to then turn around and blame Democrats for not getting their plans through is unfair.

Most Republicans and many Democrats blocked them because there were not sensible legislation. I would expect no less from you if the tables were turned. Your insistence on viewing all things as either (D) or (R) has you sufficiently duped. All the while not showing how any of this is what the Americans actually voted for. The elections were a referendum on corruption, secrecy, and failure in Iraq, not on conservative ideology.

[BRussell]

ebuddy, the fact that you personally don't agree with the Democrats' policies is not going to be surprising to anyone. But it hardly addresses my argument: That Democrats did what they said they would do and passed the legislation, with Republican support, BTW, and to the extent their positions weren't enacted in to law, it was because of a Republican minority blocking them, often a very small minority - one (Bush) - rather than Democrats failing to support them.

For example, the stem cell legislation passed the House 247-176, with the support of 37 Republicans. The drug bargaining bill passed the House 255-170. The student loan bill passed 356-71, supported by a majority of Republicans.

If you wish to argue that it's Democrats' fault that these proposals didn't become law, please back that up (and good luck). Until then, I'm not really interested in your personal opinion of them. How about this: If you honestly and forthrightly address my point about who's responsible for blocking those Democratic proposals, then I'll be happy to show you how misguided your personal opinions are.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

ebuddy, the fact that you personally don't agree with the Democrats' policies is not going to be surprising to anyone.

Many of the policies you're talking about were already proposals rolling around the House and Senate prior to Dem takeover. You're free to address that.

But it hardly addresses my argument: That Democrats did what they said they would do and passed the legislation, with Republican support, BTW, and to the extent their positions weren't enacted in to law, it was because of a Republican minority blocking them, often a very small minority - one (Bush) - rather than Democrats failing to support them.

This is what I'm trying to tell you; Bush is not "Republicans". Without Republican support (in the House and Senate mind you) there would be no stem cell bill. They've come very close to overriding Bush's veto on the stem cell bill. I'm railing on your insistence that this is (D)s VS (R)s issue when clearly (per you) (R)s have been along for the ride on many of these proposals. In fact, in some cases they look like the exact proposals that were drafted before the (D) majority.

For example, the stem cell legislation passed the House 247-176, with the support of 37 Republicans.

That's because it's a continuance on legislation drafted in 2005 by the Republican majority. No-brainer.

The drug bargaining bill passed the House 255-170.

A moronic first step to socialized healthcare. Thank God it was blocked, but hey kudos to the Dems for offering a bill so patently apparent it had to be blocked. That's shrewd politics for ya.

The student loan bill passed 356-71, supported by a majority of Republicans.

Sounds like Republicans are helping the Democrat '100 hours' promise. Prior to this, you hadn't been willing to acknowledge this fact. It's no surprise that you disagree with many of my ideals, but you have to admit I'm having a profound influence on you after all. Look at you touting the Republican contributions to the 100 hours effort. I'd feel better if I thought most of these proposals were actually those of the Democrats. As it stands now, most of these are moronic Republican ideals.

If you wish to argue that it's Democrats' fault that these proposals didn't become law, please back that up (and good luck). Until then, I'm not really interested in your personal opinion of them.

There's a rule in girls softball (basically what this conversation has become) that if you make a play on the runner, she can keep running. You played on the arguments, don't tell me you're not interested now after each has been addressed in kind.

How about this: If you honestly and forthrightly address my point about who's responsible for blocking those Democratic proposals, then I'll be happy to show you how misguided your personal opinions are.

Bush is responsible, but Bush is not "Republicans". Again, you have this knack for putting all complex issues into neat little packages and labeling them (R) or (D) when in reality none of these would've even come close had it not been for bipartisan effort. A great big Congrats to the (D)s if that's what you're looking for, but making promises based on bills (stem cell bill, college-parent tax breaks, CAFE standards legislation) drafted by the dominantly (R) House and Senate prior doesn't really win too many points.

BTW; you're not qualified to indicate where I'm misguided.

[BRussell]

ebuddy, one thing I've learned about posting on the internet for several years is that our character comes through in our posting style, even if we think we're anonymous "alter egos." I've tried to explain my position as clearly as I can, and why and how it differs with others. I've not tried to obfuscate or argue just for the sake of argument. You may want to ask yourself if you can really say the same thing.

smacintush made this thread to argue that the "Democrat congress" hasn't accomplished anything and that they hadn't even "tried to do anything positive" or "useful." He blamed the Democrats for, in short, being a do-nothing Congress.

I disagreed with the premise of the thread, based on the fact that the Democrats in Congress actually have tried to pass the things that they had promised, and in fact had done so in many cases with a great deal of Republican support. But then Republicans, in the senate with filibusters, or by the prez with a veto, were able to block many of these policies. These proposals - that were, as you acknowledge, supported by at least some member of both parties - were never blocked by Democrats, they were always blocked by Republicans. Therefore it seems to me unfair to blame Democrats for failing to make them law.

Now, maybe my analysis is wrong, but, despite "arguing" with me, you have not shown how it is wrong. Rather than try to state clearly and concisely where, exactly, you disagree with my argument, you take little pieces of my post and "debate" them, never clearly stating how you disagree with my major point, if you even do.

I'm trying to imagine, if we were friends in the real world, me saying "hey let's go out for dinner tonight," and then, rather than just saying yes or no, you argue over every word: "go out, what do you mean go out; dinner, why dinner and not supper; tonight, do you mean tonight or this evening or late afternoon?" That's how your posts look to me, ebuddy. Whether that says anything about your character, I guess you'll have to decide, but like I said, I think it comes through loud and clear.

[greenG4]

The premise that Democrats in Congress have not tried to anything is simply false (and I'm a Republican btw). The recent Congressional elections have simply changed the balance of (partisan) power to something we haven't seen in a number of years. Democrats are passing things they believe in as a party. As noted, it gets promptly vetoed (pull-out dates and stem-cell research ring a bell?) In reality nothing has been accomplished, but that's because the ideals of the executive are no longer lining up with the ideals of the legislative. In short, BRussell is right, it makes no sense to try to blame a specific party for the end result.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by greenG4 

The premise that Democrats in Congress have not tried to anything is simply false (and I'm a Republican btw). The recent Congressional elections have simply changed the balance of (partisan) power to something we haven't seen in a number of years. Democrats are passing things they believe in as a party. As noted, it gets promptly vetoed (pull-out dates and stem-cell research ring a bell?) In reality nothing has been accomplished, but that's because the ideals of the executive are no longer lining up with the ideals of the legislative. In short, BRussell is right, it makes no sense to try to blame a specific party for the end result.

Yes, thank you, that's all I'm trying to say.

[OldManMac]

Right.

[Sparkletron]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

What has this great Democrat congress accomplished? Where are they going? Nothing and nowhere.

There's your first fallacy; this is no "Democratic congress". The Dems can barely muster 50%+1 in the Senate. Meanwhile, unless you have 2/3 you can't override a Presidential veto. So what do you expect?! Now if Congress could override Bush I would agree with you. But given the tenuous hold they have on the Senate, this entire thread can be labelled straw man from start to finish.

At least the Dems, since being elected, haven't illegally spied on Americans, locked people away indefinitely without any due process, sent people overseas to be tortured, flat out lied to the American public regarding every aspect of the aggression in Iraq, raped the environment, etc., etc. If the Dems do absolutely nothing whatsoever, that's still a huge improvement over what the Republicans have accomplished these past seven years, which is mainly to create a lot of dead and crippled American ex-soldiers and denude us of any civil liberties we had left.

-S

[greenG4]

Originally Posted by Sparkletron 

There's your first fallacy; this is no "Democratic congress". The Dems can barely muster 50%+1 in the Senate. Meanwhile, unless you have 2/3 you can't override a Presidential veto. So what do you expect?! Now if Congress could override Bush I would agree with you. But given the tenuous hold they have on the Senate, this entire thread can be labelled straw man from start to finish.

Here you're at least talking out of your brain.

Originally Posted by Sparkletron 

At least the Dems, since being elected, haven't illegally spied on Americans, locked people away indefinitely without any due process, sent people overseas to be tortured, flat out lied to the American public regarding every aspect of the aggression in Iraq, raped the environment, etc., etc. If the Dems do absolutely nothing whatsoever, that's still a huge improvement over what the Republicans have accomplished these past seven years, which is mainly to create a lot of dead and crippled American ex-soldiers and denude us of any civil liberties we had left.

Here you're just talking out of somewhere else and attempting to start a riot with outrageous claims, all of which have been debated in other threads. Please don't use your opinion as factual evidence to prove the Democrat party is somehow superior.

[Atomic Rooster]

Wells, lookit all the time they took ta kilt all the injuns. Thenz it tooks hundred years ta freeze the blaks man ands it tooks hundred thirty years ta givez da bitches tha votes. Tkaes time da govermints. Gives them some cents and dey tkes your pocket.

[hyteckit]

Democracy sucks. Can't get anything done.

Communism rules. China is laughing all the way to the bank while US Congress is bitching about who has the bigger d*ck.

While Congress is fighting, Dick Cheney is forming his own shadow government where he is above the law. Forget the 2008 election, Dick Cheney is going to be King Dick.

dick cheney forming shadow government - Google Search

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

ebuddy, one thing I've learned about posting on the internet for several years is that our character comes through in our posting style, even if we think we're anonymous "alter egos." I've tried to explain my position as clearly as I can, and why and how it differs with others. I've not tried to obfuscate or argue just for the sake of argument. You may want to ask yourself if you can really say the same thing.

The funny thing in this BRussell is that I addressed your post with this same "character ideal" in mind. You started off saying; "The Democrats passed all the popular stuff..." I took issue with two things; 1) that they were "Democrats" ideals to begin with and... 2) questioned their "popularity" using polling stats.

smacintush made this thread to argue that the "Democrat congress" hasn't accomplished anything and that they hadn't even "tried to do anything positive" or "useful." He blamed the Democrats for, in short, being a do-nothing Congress.

I've not argued in favor of this view. I'm not saying they haven't done anything. I'm giving the new Democrats in Congress a little more credit for being shrewd. Much of the bills they've gotten past the House and Senate were already gaining popularity in the majority Republican House and Senate.

I disagreed with the premise of the thread, based on the fact that the Democrats in Congress actually have tried to pass the things that they had promised, and in fact had done so in many cases with a great deal of Republican support. But then Republicans, in the senate with filibusters, or by the prez with a veto, were able to block many of these policies. These proposals - that were, as you acknowledge, supported by at least some member of both parties - were never blocked by Democrats, they were always blocked by Republicans. Therefore it seems to me unfair to blame Democrats for failing to make them law.

I'm not blaming Democrats for failing to make laws based on their promises, but I'm not blaming Republicans either. This is where we differ. This is the process and just about every President to date, has had to deal with these complications. (with the exception of Bush in first term and most of second, but I think the Republicans paid a heavy price in 2006 for "doing nothing" as a result).

Now, maybe my analysis is wrong, but, despite "arguing" with me, you have not shown how it is wrong.

I indicated that it was not only Republicans that voted in opposition to some of these bills, but also Democrats. Your insistence that "(D)s this/(R)s that", is fallacious. I also established that these were not "popular ideals" as you had claimed.

Rather than try to state clearly and concisely where, exactly, you disagree with my argument, you take little pieces of my post and "debate" them, never clearly stating how you disagree with my major point, if you even do.

I apologize if I was not clear enough. That's generally why I pick sentences out of posts and address them each in kind. I might have been mistaken in assuming this was a more clear and thorough way to address issues and mindsets I disagree with.

I'm trying to imagine, if we were friends in the real world, me saying "hey let's go out for dinner tonight," and then, rather than just saying yes or no, you argue over every word: "go out, what do you mean go out; dinner, why dinner and not supper; tonight, do you mean tonight or this evening or late afternoon?" That's how your posts look to me, ebuddy. Whether that says anything about your character, I guess you'll have to decide, but like I said, I think it comes through loud and clear.

I'm not usually this argumentative and you may find that we actually have more in common than otherwise. The problem I have are the generalizations and you're correct; the minute I take my first bite of something tasty and I hear "Democrats this/Republicans that" I shut down. We'd likely not make it to dessert. I hear so much of this divisive rhetoric and feel compelled that at some point, the mindset behind it has to be addressed. I may have made the mistake of assigning a character trait to you based on your online demeanor just as you, me.

That said, we hear so much about this President's approval rating, but little is mentioned of the Congress' ratings of late. I find that dissenting opinions can always bring out the worst in us. I'm one of those rare individuals who believes it does actually work both ways. You can't indict one without indicting the other. I've maintained that they are essentially two heads of the same snake and thought my posts were fairly consistent in representing that mindset. Though, I am just right of center as you may know and I'm guessing you're left of center. These "traits" may in fact shape the manner in which we represent. In this, we're really no different at all.

I'll continue to work on it.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

smacintush made this thread to argue that the "Democrat congress" hasn't accomplished anything and that they hadn't even "tried to do anything positive" or "useful." He blamed the Democrats for, in short, being a do-nothing Congress.

Actually, the underlying point was the absurd rhetoric spewed out during the elections by both the Democratic leaders and by many of you here about how fantabulous this "new government" will be and all the stuff that will get done. Hollow talk.

I have spoken in favor of a "do-nothing" congress here before and of the merits of gridlock.

[tiger]

The republican party and the democratic party have flip flopped over the years. Orignially the republicans were the ones that wanted equality and people's rights. I think the parties are switching again, now that the republicans are spending money like democrat and democrats are bashing the republicans. America is currently split, about 50/50 so all elections are extremely close, and now we got extremely arrogant women running for president... what has become of this country...