Allito was just confirmed. Not a huge surprise although I'm slighty surprised democrats as a whole chose not to filibuster the nomination. Of course they would have damaged their own standing in the long run had they done so but they never seemed to mind doing that in the past.

You know, starting about 6 years ago I would get into many political discussions on TACC (mostly that long ago) and here. I approached them from the stand point a a frustrated conservative who dealt with the Clinton presidency which thrawted many of the things we would have like the conservative congress to accomplish (of course Clinton did allow many fairly conservative laws to pass. He was fairly moderate which aided his popularity) and the controversial election of Bush 2. Then there was the illegitimate temporary shift of power to Daschle and the democrats in the senate. Of course in the aftermath of the Al Gore election we had to deal with the claims that 2002 and 2004 would see some serious democrat victories and after the 2000 controversy it seemed obvious that was a true threat. I would respectfully debate my views trying to persuade some in forums such as this often debating well written liberals with the spectre of possible future losses looming.

But then 2002 came and more republican victories. 2004 and even more republican victories and Bush 2's presidency overwhelmingly confirmed. Now there is similar talk of 2006 going democrat but it's hard for me to honestly expect that. Many dems are starting to shift their rhetoric, realizing they need to change their PR tactics if they are going to make serious gains. Another republican president seems certain if Hillary actually wins democrat nomination which really is far from a lock. All of these shifts right are why I'm far less interested in debate and much more comfortable now. Conversly, if I leaned left I would be quite concerned and irritated now. I certainly understand how many of my liberal friends would be very frustrated now. There even appears to be some partially global shift right as seen in place like Germany and Canada although I wouldn't say it's on the level of what we have here. And of course you have some fairly extreme shifts left in South America as in Venezuela.

Any opinions?

I think the Democrats have a good chance in '08 unless their candidate is Hillary.

They have an excellant chance if their canidate is Christopher Walken.


MORE COWBELL IN '08.

I'd rather put my penis on fire than associate myself with either party. I'd vote liberal simply because it's not voting conservative, despite their inconsistent views on fiscal issues.

The fact that Hillary is running for prez is, well... is she seriously the best a 250 million people nation can come up with? First a guy who lived his puberty till well beyond his forties, then an inadequate woman who refers to the senate as a 'plantation', apparently to appeal to blacks? I'm worried.

Wait, what? Since when?

Candidate, sorry...

I wanna see a return to more conservative ideals from this president and Congress. Spending is getting out of hand. He's spending like a liberal! No way should the education budget be at it's proposed (current) level.

Well, she is essentially running although I'm not sure the people (democrat constituents) will allow her to be the nomination. The establishment seems to be treating her as a lock, though.



Of course there still is the threat/possibility, depending on your point of view, but not one that alot of us take as serious as before because we've basically been hearing that for the last six years.

I think that this year's elections will be pretty evenly split between Republicans and Democrats.

My main problem with Democrats is that the ones who arent completely creeped out whackos are basically Republicans who support abortion. There's no real difference between the parties anymore because both parties are moving more and more to the middle, apart from the Crazy Bible-Thumping Conservatives like GW.

Well, the dirty nasty secret is that spening never goes down, no matter who is in charge. It ALWAYS increases and it is a bit frustrating. Some even try to camoflage this fact by calling a reduction in the rate of growth in spending as a cut. Bush is not as conservative as people think, certainly not in regards to spending. And congress always wastes money. Disheartening. That's why broad tax cuts are good, in my opinion, because it might force the government to be more efficient with what it's got. But I'm probably wrong since reductions in tax rates seem to lead to increased tax revenue, surprisingly. The theory being that more money is circulating in the private sector and thereby being taxed more often since money is basically taxed every time it changes hands.

Oh please. I'll believe that when hell freezes over. If you're going to make such an assinine statement, then the least you could do is back it up.

It would have to be a very LARGE tax cut for revenues from taxes to actually fall. Then it would cause the aforementioned realization of living within a budget is a good thing. But yeah, a fairly sized broad tax cut would bring larger revenues. We saw it in the 80s. But Tip O'Neill & co. saw dollar signs in his eyes and spent every penny that was brought in.

All right, name me a time where a government has collapsed or crumbled or been significantly hampered by a tax cut.

Well, I wasn't intending to debate issues here but I did explain the theory I had heard explaining the phenomenom. I'll see if I can't dig up the cite for you... brb

I understand the theory, but I have a really hard time believing it is an accurate model of reality.



I believe it is your job to show the opposite.

Well, my opinion of the "theory" is different becuase the explanation contained in this citation seems to pass the "common sense test":

http://www.theinternetparty.org/commentary/c_s.php?section_type=com&td=20001129

Of course this Google search links to both for and against arguments of the issue.

Anyways, my point was that I was probably wrong because the theory I choose to believe directly contradicted the point I just made. I'm not sure it's possible to find a reliably non-partisan argument on the internet of the facts so really the only way to know for sure is to research something like this one's self. I don't know about you but I certainly don't have the inclination to do it! So it really just boils down to which view either one of us chooses to accept.

I think people are saying 2006 will go democrat because of all Bush's failures and the scandals rocking his administration and the more corrupt part of the Republican Party.

I could definitley see Lieberman running and getting a LARGE portion of the votes. He seems to appeal to both sides. I lean more conservative, and even though he's a democrat, he doesn't seem to act like it. I like what he does, except for his Jack Thompson stance on video games.

But it all doesn't matter, cuz Christopher Walken is winning.

And you wonder why you got banned the first time. One: calling such a statement asinine is both uninformed, and downright offensive to all economically educated people--tax cuts promote spending, which promotes taxation. Theoretically, it works, and I wouldn't doubt it'd work in the real world too. Giving people money makes them want to spend it.

Two: asinine. aSinine. ASININE. Asinine. Got it?

Three: Walken '08

The United States will never elect a jew president. They had a hard enough time accepting a catholic.

there has only ever been one non-protestant pres and that was kennedy. i dont think we'll ever see anything different.

Well not with an attitude like that buster!

But as I've said that's essentially the same song and dance since his election and the past two elections haven't gone the way democrats have suggested they would. I appreciate your view though and I do think 2006 will be the year to see if the anti-Bush/republican movement will finally have an effect at the polls. Even if there is a shift towards the democrats it's doubtful to be enough to actually shift the congress' right bias but it would certainly be a wake up call for the right to prepare for '08.

I don't think religion plays that large of part in the choice of the masses. Certainly if Lieberman was the democrat nominee he would get most of his party's vote and if the republicans chose a weak candidate the could very well lose votes to the "conservative democrat".

Uh...I don't think most Americans honestly care what religion their president is (unless it's wicca, lol). Seriously, especially not a religion that shares a lot of core values/beliefs with Christianity.

MORE COWBELL.

Lieberman should be president because Jews are good with money.

And he could get us out of debt with his Jew gold bag.

On a serious note, unless the candidate was a member of some organization that raised some alarms in my book, I wouldn't vote against them. Gay, Hindu, Muslim, Jew, Baptist, Texan...that's not really the important thing in my book.

Would their religious, sexual, or some other association have an influence on their opinions? Certainly, and I may not support them for their views. But it won't be necessarily be because they're x-related.

Honestly, so many bad things hadn't happened before 2002 or 2004. If Hurricane Katrina, the NSA spy deal, the Valerie Plame case, and the Abramoff scandal had occured before the presidential election, I guarantee you that John Kerry would be sitting in the White House and preparing for his State of the Union speech tonight.



Also, I think a better name for this "movement" you describe as "anti-Bush/republican" would be "anti-incompetence" or "anti-corruption". It's sad and sick how [some members of] the GOP has [have] turned around on what it said back in '94. What was that about ethics, Mr. Delay? Perhaps you could speak up a bit.

I completely agree and I'm disgusted as well. But do you honestly think *this* liberal party would do such a good job? I see it differently. They wouldn't do better, per se, they'd just suck less if you know what I mean.

By the way what do you guys think about my sig? I spent the better part of my childhood working on it. And it's really red too! Wish I could make a better font for the T though, but I'm graphically challenged.

I don't. I hate every aspect of partisan politics. I like it best when the White House and Congress are controlled by opposing parties, so nothing gets done. I mean hey, if the government's not doing anything, they can't screw anything up, right?

Also, the volume of legislation that congress manages to churn out every year disturbs and nauseates me.

The frownie-face better-parodied kyle90's sig. In addition, it lacks Mélissa.

Hah! Any way to slip her into the convo is a good way!

In favor of a president that supports a Democrat Foreign Policy and a Republican Domestic Policy since 1996...

...also in favor of true communism since 1998.

Well some of us look at those very issues differently. Hurricane Katrina was a natural disaster that Bush, as all powerful as he is, could not have prevented. I assume of course your referring to the botched response. Many people are aware that was mostly due to incompetence at the state and local level. Most people understand FEMA's role is not that of a first response agency. The worst thing they did (read: Brown) was to come across as clueless. I guess he just didn't expect the unwarranted attacks. The NSA spy deal is a non-issue with most people. Many of us agree that calls originating to or from suspected terrorists overseas should be monitored and that certainly isn't domestic spying. The Plame case is ongoing and I'm not sure what the current status is, just like the Abramoff deal. I'm kind of detached from all of that what with currently serving in Iraq. I'm slightly out of touch since I can't keep up as well with current events. I can say that nothing daming, that I know of, has come out of the Plame investigation and the Abramoff issue appears to be affecting both parties.



You can call it what you want but the bottom line is none of the campaigning against Bush/Republicans is working. I'm not saying a Democrat hasn't beaten a Republican in any race. What I am saying is the overall continued shift to the right has remained. The anti-Bush/Republica movement I'm referring to has hammered non-stop ever since Bush "lost" the 2000 election. Other than fluctating popularity in media polls, democrats are losers in the polls that matter. That's why I agree that this year will be the one to see if the "scandals" and hammering finally pay off or if we see yet another shift to the right.

The campaigning is working--mainly in its lacking presence. There is no official campaigning for the Democratic party against Bush. Yet there is an increasingly lowered popularity rate of our re-elected president. Why? Because the people are getting sick of him and the BS he pushes on us (riders on bills that do NOT belong there and end up passing despite the fact that they probably wouldn't pass without said bill), along with his failure to respond to real threats with any effectiveness. The "war on terror" is thus far just an empty retaliation towards a nation that didn't do anything to us on the scale of what we apparently thought and didn't know they did. They had a bad regime, true, but we waged war on a nation as a MISTAKE. I don't think people digest that as well as they say they do. The only thing is, popularity has only fallen since the re-election. You say nothing's changed, yet you have no proof of this. This coming senate election will prove something one way or another.

[QUOTE=Dj Yoshi]The campaigning is working--mainly in its lacking presence. There is no official campaigning for the Democratic party against Bush. Yet there is an increasingly lowered popularity rate of our re-elected president. Why? Because the people are getting sick of him and the BS he pushes on us (riders on bills that do NOT belong there and end up passing despite the fact that they probably wouldn't pass without said bill), along with his failure to respond to real threats with any effectiveness. The "war on terror" is thus far just an empty retaliation towards a nation that didn't do anything to us on the scale of what we apparently thought and didn't know they did. They had a bad regime, true, but we waged war on a nation as a MISTAKE. I don't think people digest that as well as they say they do. The only thing is, popularity has only fallen since the re-election. You say nothing's changed, yet you have no proof of this. This coming senate election will prove something one way or another.[/QUOTE]

I agree, but I think you overestimate people in general. They have a short term memory and an affinity for pain. Unfortunately, I think the neocons will win.

Wookie - and I know I'll regret asking this - why did you put "scandals" between parentheses?

[QUOTE=Dj Yoshi]The only thing is, popularity has only fallen since the re-election. You say nothing's changed, yet you have no proof of this. This coming senate election will prove something one way or another.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, that's pretty much what I said!

I dunno about this. I think it's going to be a very close election, but that the people's opinions as they are now will show through.

The democrats have become a twisted socialist party that I just can't handle. The republicans have become extremists looking for a town to save, and the green party is still a joke.

Aren't we all supposed to be fighting for the same Country?

O rly?

You say that the campaigning isn't working--there isn't any official campaigning during off-years. You say Democrats haven't beaten Republicans in any race--they still hold SOME part of the Senate/House. You say the continued shift has remained right, yet it's obvious that people's opinions have changed drastically in the last two years.

People do not have a problem with the NSA intercepting and collecting information about US citizens as long as there is written legal permission from the Attorney General of the United States (EDIT: or some sort of court warrant?). However, because of the the executive order from the president following September 11th, the NSA can conduct "warrantless phone-taps on individuals in the U.S. calling persons outside the country." That is pretty vague and, as some would argue, above the law.