The Great Erection

[quote]doogie wrote:
Hey, vroom, could you lay out what the Dems ARE running for this cycle?[/quote]

Does anybody really care? Wait, I mean, all politics is local isn’t it?

I think one of the bigger issues starts with the letter I. Not sure though. Another might be trying to do a better job than Foley and various other recent scandal outbursts. It’s possible they’d consider performing actual oversight of the administration, as should be done, but somehow Washington seems to be incapable of that these days.

I wish I could say they wanted to fund and build the wall and secure the border, but it seems like nobody wants to do that.

To be honest, what individual politicians are running on or for is difficult for me to tell, because I am not able to see local races in any level of detail from here in Canada.

However, like I said before, this isn’t a presidential election, these candidates individually are not running on how they personally will lead the country. They are running on their stances with respect to current events and to the actions taken by the current administration are they not?

There is no single party platform for democrats or republicans in these elections. Many republicans are also “distancing” themselves from the president. However, I do understand your desire to “lump” all of them into some caricature democratic viewpoint.

Then you can attack and kill the caricature, as is common in politics today. Woohoo! What fun!

However, be patient, in a couple years you’ll have one single candidate from each party running for president - each with a complete single set of stances you can play word games with. Phew, back to familiar ground huh?

[quote]vroom wrote:
doogie wrote:
Hey, vroom, could you lay out what the Dems ARE running for this cycle?

Does anybody really care? Wait, I mean, all politics is local isn’t it?

I think one of the bigger issues starts with the letter I. Not sure though. Another might be trying to do a better job than Foley and various other recent scandal outbursts. It’s possible they’d consider performing actual oversight of the administration, as should be done, but somehow Washington seems to be incapable of that these days.

I wish I could say they wanted to fund and build the wall and secure the border, but it seems like nobody wants to do that.

To be honest, what individual politicians are running on or for is difficult for me to tell, because I am not able to see local races in any level of detail from here in Canada.

However, like I said before, this isn’t a presidential election, these candidates individually are not running on how they personally will lead the country. They are running on their stances with respect to current events and to the actions taken by the current administration are they not?

There is no single party platform for democrats or republicans in these elections. Many republicans are also “distancing” themselves from the president. However, I do understand your desire to “lump” all of them into some caricature democratic viewpoint.

Then you can attack and kill the caricature, as is common in politics today. Woohoo! What fun!

However, be patient, in a couple years you’ll have one single candidate from each party running for president - each with a complete single set of stances you can play word games with. Phew, back to familiar ground huh?[/quote]

You should have just typed, “No”

[quote]doogie wrote:
You should have just typed, “No”
[/quote]

Yeah, maybe you should ask a realistic question instead.

Ask me for a specific candidate, I’ll say no.

Ask me for the position of “democrats” and I’ll say wait until their is a presidential election, because the elections across the country aren’t for some fantasy “democrat ideal” are they?

[quote]vroom wrote:
doogie wrote:
You should have just typed, “No”

Yeah, maybe you should ask a realistic question instead.

Ask me for a specific candidate, I’ll say no.

Ask me for the position of “democrats” and I’ll say wait until their is a presidential election, because the elections across the country aren’t for some fantasy “democrat ideal” are they?[/quote]

Of course they are. The dems need to learn that they need a vision. The Contract with America was an off year election. Until the Dems start getting their shit together and presenting a vision, the Republicans are never going to be the conservative party they are supposed to be.

[quote]doogie wrote:
Of course they are. The dems need to learn that they need a vision. The Contract with America was an off year election. Until the Dems start getting their shit together and presenting a vision, the Republicans are never going to be the conservative party they are supposed to be.
[/quote]

The Contract with America was a gimmick that the republicans have unfortunately not upheld.

However, it was also a fairly rare event, in that while politics is turning into a team based sport it has rarely been so blatant.

Personally, I don’t think seats should be based on a team platform, but I think the local citizens should vote for people that will represent their interests and beliefs.

That’s the purpose of the system. The presidential election is the team sport, where the citizens choose someone to lead, to make decisions, to execute executive powers.

Then, amazingly, when you don’t have a power hungry executive, the elected officials have oversight on the president and his administration, based on the actual citizens they represent, not some artificial stance between only two positions (one for each party).

However, call me naive.

I actually think the will of the people should mean something more than choosing a party platform based on divisive word games; perhaps instead electing people that actually represent them based on reflection and consideration.

Your loss. Cheerlead, spin and blather away…

Oh, what a hollow substitute you embrace.

[quote]vroom wrote:
Hack Wilson wrote:
They’ve put all their eggs in the “Hate Bush” basket. It won’t be enough, IMO. There is no PLAN. Only get rid of what we got. TELL ME! What are YOU going to do? I haven’t heard that.

Strangely, the current election is not a presidential election…[/quote]

But this mid-term is still a referendum on the war and on the President. Pelosi has been one of the faces of this mid-term election due to speculation that she’s in line to be speaker.

[quote]vroom wrote:
doogie wrote:
Hey, vroom, could you lay out what the Dems ARE running for this cycle?

Does anybody really care? Wait, I mean, all politics is local isn’t it?

I think one of the bigger issues starts with the letter I. Not sure though. Another might be trying to do a better job than Foley and various other recent scandal outbursts. It’s possible they’d consider performing actual oversight of the administration, as should be done, but somehow Washington seems to be incapable of that these days.

I wish I could say they wanted to fund and build the wall and secure the border, but it seems like nobody wants to do that.

To be honest, what individual politicians are running on or for is difficult for me to tell, because I am not able to see local races in any level of detail from here in Canada.

However, like I said before, this isn’t a presidential election, these candidates individually are not running on how they personally will lead the country. They are running on their stances with respect to current events and to the actions taken by the current administration are they not?

There is no single party platform for democrats or republicans in these elections. Many republicans are also “distancing” themselves from the president. However, I do understand your desire to “lump” all of them into some caricature democratic viewpoint.

Then you can attack and kill the caricature, as is common in politics today. Woohoo! What fun!

However, be patient, in a couple years you’ll have one single candidate from each party running for president - each with a complete single set of stances you can play word games with. Phew, back to familiar ground huh?[/quote]

That’s why they will not lose many seats.Incumbents win because they service the constituents.

The Democrats have called the election a referendum on Bush and the War. Now that this strategy has backfired they are backing off.

Your getting short simple answers to your questions. The spin isn’t coming at you Vroom it’s coming from you. If you don’t know the issues in the local races they your making generalizations and your generalizations are based solidly in left wing idealogy.

[quote]vroom wrote:

The Contract with America was a gimmick that the republicans have unfortunately not upheld.

[/quote]

The Republicans haven’t given up control of Congress since that “gimmick.” Don’t you think the Dems could learn something from that? Don’t you think in the last 12 years they could have formed some type of vision of their own?

[quote]hedo wrote:
Your getting short simple answers to your questions. The spin isn’t coming at you Vroom it’s coming from you. If you don’t know the issues in the local races they your making generalizations and your generalizations are based solidly in left wing idealogy.
[/quote]

Hedo, I’m not sure I follow you. Are you talking about the original thread topic or the hijack I tossed into it?

I have seen the media refer to this election as a referendum on Iraq, but somehow I suspect they are making that up on their own. I’d personally suggest they wait until after the election to analyze how and why voters voted as they did.

While the Foley issue appears to have thrown a monkey wrench into the works, I think it is far too early to start making assumptions about how and why people are voting!

Yep, look at me, spinning away…

(vroom’s old avatar appears):

Punch! Punch! Punch the face!

[quote]Michael C wrote:
(vroom’s old avatar appears):

Punch! Punch! Punch the face![/quote]

Do you even know where a gym is? I mean, could you get there without a map?

Great example of the Dems introducing Iraq into the Governor’s race in Calif. Does the Gov. of Calif have a lot to say about the action in Iraq. It was a speech. The media didn’t lead him into it.

It’s priceless you can’t make this stuff up. You can say you support the troops but eventually you can’t stay in character all the time and their true feelings slip out.

[quote]Go-Rilla wrote:
For the first time in almost 30 years I’m considering staying away from the polls. I’ve gotten to the point where I really don’t think it makes any difference who gets the perks next time.

Talk about whiney, bitchy, no good, do nothing ass holes. Point to any politician and you’ve got one.

Some type of term limit program is the only way to clean out the bastards IMO.

I’ll probably drag myself to vote but I’ll leave pissed off due to the choices.[/quote]

To add to your post. I think that the major problem with the political scene in America right now is the fact that BOTH parties have left the majority of Americans behind. The Dems are far left and the GOP is far right while most of the populace is somewhere in the middle.
No-one that represents the views of that “middle” will ever make it through a primary (because they won’t toe a far right/left party line), and America is too worried about throwing away their vote to vote for a non-Dem/GOP (Independant, etc).
I can’t remember the last time I voted for someone I truly, wholeheartedly believed in 100%. I’ve usually voted lesser of two evils or purely “against that other sumbitch”.

The worst part of this polarization is that nothing is done in the best interest of the country anymore. Every issue and decision is politicised and twisted either to keep the current regime in office or get the current regime ousted. This isn’t just in election years, anymore. It carries the entire terms. These dipshits don’t even care that it’s tearing at the very fabric of this country, as long as it wins the next election for them. BOTH parties are guilty in this.

Unfortunately, I don’t see it getting better anytime in the near future, either.

[quote]doogie wrote:
Until the Dems start getting their shit together and presenting a vision, the Republicans are never going to be the conservative party they are supposed to be.
[/quote]

Ok doogie, I’m kind of confused with this statement. Are you actually saying that the reason the Repubs are screwed up is because the Dems don’t have their shit together and present a vision? The majority party of personal responsibility is not messed up because of their own faults, but rather because of the minority opposition party? This doesn’t make sense.

[quote]hedo wrote:
It’s priceless you can’t make this stuff up. You can say you support the troops but eventually you can’t stay in character all the time and their true feelings slip out.

I was waiting for this one to show up. Aren’t the right wing always saying that the truth should be able to be discussed? Or are you guys really for politically correct speech after all?

Funny how political correctness only applies to talking about groups you have a disdain for isn’t it?

I mean, can you refute the fact that many people on the front lines are poor and under-educated?

[quote]hedo wrote:
Great example of the Dems introducing Iraq into the Governor’s race in Calif. Does the Gov. of Calif have a lot to say about the action in Iraq. It was a speech. The media didn’t lead him into it.[/quote]

Wow, you don’t think republican policies are appropriate for discussion at all?

Come on man, who the fuck is spinning who?

[quote]ALDurr wrote:
doogie wrote:
Until the Dems start getting their shit together and presenting a vision, the Republicans are never going to be the conservative party they are supposed to be.

Ok doogie, I’m kind of confused with this statement. Are you actually saying that the reason the Repubs are screwed up is because the Dems don’t have their shit together and present a vision? The majority party of personal responsibility is not messed up because of their own faults, but rather because of the minority opposition party? This doesn’t make sense. [/quote]

I’m not assigning fault, I’m stating facts.

I’m saying that for the most part, politicians are all ass-wipes. The Republicans aren’t true conservatives, they just stay far enough to the right of the Dems to stay in power. If the Dems got their shit together and quit being a far left nutjob party, the Republicans would be forced to move back to the right in order to distinguish themselves. Right now the Republicans are big government asshats because they CAN be.

[quote]doogie wrote:
ALDurr wrote:
doogie wrote:
Until the Dems start getting their shit together and presenting a vision, the Republicans are never going to be the conservative party they are supposed to be.

Ok doogie, I’m kind of confused with this statement. Are you actually saying that the reason the Repubs are screwed up is because the Dems don’t have their shit together and present a vision? The majority party of personal responsibility is not messed up because of their own faults, but rather because of the minority opposition party? This doesn’t make sense.

I’m not assigning fault, I’m stating facts.

I’m saying that for the most part, politicians are all ass-wipes. The Republicans aren’t true conservatives, they just stay far enough to the right of the Dems to stay in power. If the Dems got their shit together and quit being a far left nutjob party, the Republicans would be forced to move back to the right in order to distinguish themselves. Right now the Republicans are big government asshats because they CAN be. [/quote]

Ok, so what you are saying is that it is a symbiotic relationship. If one side are assholes, it invites the other side to be assholes too. I get it now. :wink:

[quote]vroom wrote:

I mean, can you refute the fact that many people on the front lines are poor and under-educated?
[/quote]

It’s true that many men and women in the military come from ‘poor and un-educated’ families and communities. That is part of the allure of the military. But there are also many, and plenty of them enlisted, that have college credit or even degrees.

And then there are the officers. They are educated, and more often than not come from families of average to above average incomes (but let’s not throw out the fact that all officers are idiots and no-it-alls, I should know, I am one of them). I love The Ultimate Fighter series on Spike TV and whenever they play Shonie Carter’s famous knockout spinning backfist, I substitute you for Matt Serra, replaying in slow-mo your big grumbly ass flopping to the canvas.

[quote]Michael C wrote:
(but let’s not throw out the fact that all officers are idiots and no-it-alls, I should know, I am one of them). [/quote]

They were when I was an NCO over 25 years ago, and I don’t think that will likely ever change. Looks like the minimum IQ for officers has been lowered substantially, though. Back in the day you had to at least get close to triple digits to qualify for OCS.