"Quagmire" morphs into "A Very Sucessful Effort"

rikzilla said:
Look; the Democrats haven't all drunk the Kool-Aid yet...there's still Hillary Clinton and Joe Lieberman. But one must ask why the Dems are letting the loonies direct the parade....and I am BTW a former longtime dem.

-z
Click to expand...

The Democrats have no parade. The executive branch, the Senate and the House are all held in the tight control of the Republican party, and that grip is so strong that party leaders, such as DeLay and Lott have been using that in order to push more and more right-wing policy. Moderate Republicans who don't fall in line find the party supporting a more conservative candidate in congressional primaries. Bush has yet to veto a single peice of legistlation. The McCain ammendment would have been the first, assuming that threat was serious. Let's examine a list of presidents who have also vetoed 0 bills.

William Henry Harrison: Died in office after 30 days from complications of a cold her caught during his inagural address.

James Garfield: President for seven months, assasinated.

Those who managed to get through a whole term of office ithout any vetoes: Thomas Jefferson, Zachery Taylor, Millard Fillmore and John Quincy Adams, the last son of a president to be president. These presidents held the office at a time when the presidency was less less powerful politcally than it is now. Lincoln changed much of that. That's why after his term, presidents used their veto power to oppose policies more often. The only president since Loncoln who never vetoed legistlation are Garfield and Harrison, who died very quickly after taking office, and W, who's been in that Oval Office one and half terms.

Incidentally, before anyone says that a lack of vetoes indicates a strong President, I'd like to point out that FDR vetoed 635 bills, and that no preisdent since has voted fewer than 21 (JFK), roughly 1 every three months. Even Washington, the president with the strongest majority in popular vote in history vetoed 2 bills. Isn't a president who narrowly won his office having an easier time governing than our first president, hero to millions just a little odd? How is W so lucky? How can W take so many vacations, confident that no legislation will ever come to his desk that isn't perfectly in line with Republican goals?

Because the Republican party has no opposition which can make the slightest difference. Welcome to a one party nation.

To reiterate, the Democrats have no parade.
 
hammegk said:
I identify you as irrelevant. Does that count?
Click to expand...
:rolleys: It was an effin rhetorical question, you dummy!

Gees Louise! :D

Oh, and been called "irrelevant" by you is like being called "incompetent" by George Dubya.
 
hammegk said:
Yeah, the problem is parades need a route and a destination.
Click to expand...

Would you prefer to address the point that the Republicans have deliberatly shut the Democrats out of the political process, our would you prefer to belittle the Democrats more?

Remember, you could do both, but ignoring the point I made does not make it go away.
 
Orwell said:
:rolleys: It was an effin rhetorical question, you dummy!

Gees Louise! :D
Click to expand...
Sorry if I took it other than as intended ... :)

Oh, and been called "irrelevant" by you is like being called "incompetent" by George Dubya.
Click to expand...
Well, let's see. He is POTUS. What are you? ;)


ImaginalDisc said:
Would you prefer to address the point that the Republicans have deliberatly shut the Democrats out of the political process,
Click to expand...
I see. What do the winners of the vote do in your world? Concede & go home?

our would you prefer to belittle the Democrats more?
Click to expand...
They are doing a fine job of that with no need for outside help.
 
hammegk said:
I see. What do the winners of the vote do in your world? Concede & go home?
Click to expand...

The United States has a tradition, in government, of persuing the interests of the majority party while not excluding the participation of the minorty. The current situation is such that the minorty is rendered entirely irrlevant. That goes against the fundamental purpose of a democratic republic.
 
You are correct that that tradition seems dead. Let's see -- the Warren Court, The Great Society, traitors-against-Vietnam, 40 more years of left- wing libby socialist one-worlder baby-killing, rapist-freeing, surrender-monkey crap. So sorry you can't seem to find electable candidates anymore, and the ones you have in office are spineless thieves, thugs, and demogogues.

Just my 2cts .... ;)
 
hammegk said:
You are correct that that tradition seems dead. Let's see -- the Warren Court, The Great Society, traitors-against-Vietnam, 40 more years of left- wing libby socialist one-worlder baby-killing, rapist-freeing, surrender-monkey crap. So sorry you can't seem to find electable candidates anymore, and the ones you have in office are spineless thieves, thugs, and demogogues.

Just my 2cts .... ;)
Click to expand...

Please elaborate at length on your slander. I would not wish to call it baseless before providing you ample oppurtunity to defend it.
 
Slander? Wow, you are blind and have a talking 'puter! Did you name it HAL?

BTW, I forget to mention your candidates' stances on spirituality and sexual mores.
 
hammegk said:
Slander? Wow, you are blind and have a talking 'puter! Did you name it HAL?

BTW, I forget to mention your candidates' stances on spirituality and sexual mores.
Click to expand...

Again, they are not *my* candidates. The rest of your tirade does not merit a response.
 
hammegk said:
I deem them "opinions". Now what?
Click to expand...

Well, if you chose to utilize opinions in a reasonable, logical debate conducted in good faith, in order to expect them to be discussed with the merit they deserve, it is coustomary to use statements of fact to support them.

Merely stating an opinion makes it neither true nor relevant.
 
ImaginalDisc: Yesterday you asked, "hammegk, what on the bloody blue Earth are you talking about?" My bad for not getting back to you then. The answer, as best I can tell, is that no one knows what on the bloody blue earth hammegk is talking about, including hammegk. You'll live longer and post happier in possession of that little tidbit of knowledge.

Cheers! :)
 
Actually, I do know, at least much more often than not. Do I deem it important to explain what to me is obvious to you because you don't understand it? Very very seldom.

Thanks for playing, though. Happy now?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom