I know
That reminds me of the debate here on a new fighter for the air force.They say we need it for the war on terror.Like a hi tech fighter is any good against a person with a bomb strapped to them.
Democratic Party Disappointing You?
- Thread starter tubuler
- Start date
I know
That reminds me of the debate here on a new fighter for the air force.They say we need it for the war on terror.Like a hi tech fighter is any good against a person with a bomb strapped to them.
Jagger69
Three lullabies in an ancient tongue
I know
Hell yes! Can you imagine the damage an AMRAAM or Sidewinder missile would do to a suicide bomber???
No. Nineteen overly religious assholes with a martyrdom delusion brought down the WTC. (another example of the stupidity of religion)
Well with all the increased spending and fancy new weapons we still have not caught him! This is not a traditional state enemy we are fighting.
"The post-Cold War decline in defense spending began during the Bush Administration"
"Not only was the drawdown of the 1990s clearly a bipartisan affair, the best available evidence suggests that Democrats and Republicans are still remarkably close in terms of their support for defense spending. Under the latest Clinton Administration plan, funding for defense is projected to remain essentially flat in real (inflation-adjusted) terms through fiscal year (FY) 2005"
http://www.csbaonline.org/4Publicat...ld_War_Defe/H.20000831.Post-Cold_War_Defe.htm
How do you lock onto a 5' to 6' human with a AMRAAM or a Sidewinder? These are air to air missles based on radar or heat signature. Google is your friend! nice job Mikey
dick van cock
Closed Account
Jagger69
Three lullabies in an ancient tongue
Exactly my point, EAH. Unless of course there are some flying suicide bombers somewhere....then you could use air-to-air!
Re: What did you expect?
You're actually factually wrong about the bolded part Prof. The Dems had held Majorities in both Houses of Congress for 40 years--from 1954--1994 when the Repubs "took back both houses" with the whole "Contract with America"..There was a brief term in the 80s when The Repubs won the Senate but they lost it.
The Presidency has been somewhat rocky...lots of 1 termers (George Bush Sr., Jimmy Carter, Ford, JFK, LBJ) it's hard for a president to lose congress when he's only around once.
Since losing or winning Congress is a difficult thing to do, the fact that Dubya lost both during his 2nd term in the same election is very noteworthy...
You're actually factually wrong about the bolded part Prof. The Dems had held Majorities in both Houses of Congress for 40 years--from 1954--1994 when the Repubs "took back both houses" with the whole "Contract with America"..There was a brief term in the 80s when The Repubs won the Senate but they lost it.
The Presidency has been somewhat rocky...lots of 1 termers (George Bush Sr., Jimmy Carter, Ford, JFK, LBJ) it's hard for a president to lose congress when he's only around once.
Since losing or winning Congress is a difficult thing to do, the fact that Dubya lost both during his 2nd term in the same election is very noteworthy...
I would say it has disappointed me. The party has done things that have disappointed me that started in the 1930s and they keep adding things all the time that have made them as bad or worse then the republicans now (who themselves have gotten worse in some ways over time also).
Even despite that for the longest time they were the best party except for a few, but major, issues I would never have been able to reconcile. Now they are pretty much garbage like everybody else.
Even despite that for the longest time they were the best party except for a few, but major, issues I would never have been able to reconcile. Now they are pretty much garbage like everybody else.
I am disappointed Obama is going to write a $20million "get out of debt free" check to Hillary to, in effect, buy her support and her supporters' support.
That's complete bullshit. Sorry. Nobody forced her to run for president. Nobody forced her to run up debts and stay in the race to the bitter end..making mischief for the Pubs...
Mitt Romney spent $48mil of his own money on his campaign. Did he go begging John McCain for a payoff check? No he didn't.
If the Clintons can't raise back that $20mill through...WORK...than there truly is something wrong with our country. Bill Clinton could join 20 Corporate Boards for $1mil retainer fee if he wanted to.
Are the Clinton's the most shameless, narcissists in politics? The idea that Barack Obama has to go on bended knee to "court" Hillary's FatCat donors? WTF? Excuse me...he won. He's the nominee. Those who backed the wrong horse are the ones who are to come on bended knee to kiss Caeser's ring...not the other way around...
That's complete bullshit. Sorry. Nobody forced her to run for president. Nobody forced her to run up debts and stay in the race to the bitter end..making mischief for the Pubs...
Mitt Romney spent $48mil of his own money on his campaign. Did he go begging John McCain for a payoff check? No he didn't.
If the Clintons can't raise back that $20mill through...WORK...than there truly is something wrong with our country. Bill Clinton could join 20 Corporate Boards for $1mil retainer fee if he wanted to.
Are the Clinton's the most shameless, narcissists in politics? The idea that Barack Obama has to go on bended knee to "court" Hillary's FatCat donors? WTF? Excuse me...he won. He's the nominee. Those who backed the wrong horse are the ones who are to come on bended knee to kiss Caeser's ring...not the other way around...
Check again ...
I highly recommend you re-research your statistics. In fact, Reagan Republicans lost the Senate in 1982.
Correct. They are often outsted before the second term. You're limited to only a few Presidents, depending on how you categorize LBJ (of if you lump him as JFK-LBJ).
I'd invite you to check the swing in 1994, among other years. You'll find greater changes in seats at several points.
Maybe he does it because without her supporters( which number in basically the same amount as his at least as far as votes went) he has almost no chance in Nov? Just winning the nomination is not the ultimate goal.He is lucky he don't say things like kiss my ring or act like he doesn't need all those votes..Hillary and Bill especially don't need him now nearly as much as he needs them.Luckily he is smart enough to know what he must do to win.
Re: Check again ...
We're still in nascent "nonstop media" cycles. Nobody watched Cable news in the 90s. There is a constant news cycle now and maybe that's why we SHOULD expect election turnover. If the Dems don't "change" than the huge majority they're going to have won in Nov '08 might be gone in Nov'10.....
As I noted in my statement. The Repubs won the Senate briefly but lost it in 87. THere is nothing to research. THe Dems had control during Repub and Dem Presidencies during this 40 year timeframe.
There really aren't a lot of changes, Prof. That's the point. The Repubs certainly took control, shockingly, in 1994, when nobody thought they'd get control of both Houses. Everyone thought the House would be theirs. But otherwise, we have that brief Senate "overturnature" in the Senate in the 80s. Clinton did lose both and Dubya lost both. All this shows is that Americans don't seem to like it when one party controls everything. However, Americans are so angry at Republicans, today, that the Dems are going to build their majorities this November in Congress and maybe in Local politics too (Governorships, Mayors, etc).I'd invite you to check the swing in 1994, among other years. You'll find greater changes in seats at several points.
We're still in nascent "nonstop media" cycles. Nobody watched Cable news in the 90s. There is a constant news cycle now and maybe that's why we SHOULD expect election turnover. If the Dems don't "change" than the huge majority they're going to have won in Nov '08 might be gone in Nov'10.....
Re: Check again ...
I'm just saying this "sweeping change" non-sense is just a farce. Nothing changes.
Which I utterly agree with.
I'm just saying this "sweeping change" non-sense is just a farce. Nothing changes.
Re: Check again ...
Sometimes elections do bring big changes. For better or worse the 1932 election of FDR ushered in sweeping changes.
Sometimes elections do bring big changes. For better or worse the 1932 election of FDR ushered in sweeping changes.
Re: Check again ...
If anything, it's always a preview for "what happens next."
Even the Republicans can't take all the credit for Contract with America either. And there are yet other examples. The actions of the US Congress are hardly a "discrete" or "fixed" event at any time.
Not really. Many portions of the New Deal were already in Congress, but not passed until after the election. American politics at its finest.Sometimes elections do bring big changes. For better or worse the 1932 election of FDR ushered in sweeping changes.
If anything, it's always a preview for "what happens next."
Even the Republicans can't take all the credit for Contract with America either. And there are yet other examples. The actions of the US Congress are hardly a "discrete" or "fixed" event at any time.
Really? How do you figure that, Prof? It was authored by Newt and the Boys. You do know they literally made the words "CONTRACT WITH AMERICA" the ad copy and platform copy in all their brochures and print ads...this was still before the 'Net
I don't see how any Democrat would take or be given credit for the Contract with America. Simply voting for it doesn't count, you know. Seeing as the Senate killed most of the "Contract" and Clinton vetoed parts of it, I don't see many Dem fingerprints on it, to be honest.
There were some good parts to the Contract.
Still not seeing it ...
But if you look at the bills in Congress, things pre-date many others.
Just because the politicians can sell you on their originality doesn't mean they are.
Party politics often causes blockage during an election year.
You should look up some of the bills Hoover was trying to push through.
Same deal on Clinton before the Republicans took back Congress.
That's why I liked Clinton's fiscal policies from 1994-1998 far more than W.'s ultra-spending-free 2001-2006.
This is why I hate party affiliations.
They prevent people from focusing on the individual candidates and what they propose and vote on.
I don't vote for an individual candidate unless I know how they will vote on an issue, or what bills they are putting forth.
And FDR called it "A New Deal."Really? How do you figure that, Prof? It was authored by Newt and the Boys. You do know they literally made the words "CONTRACT WITH AMERICA" the ad copy and platform copy in all their brochures and print ads...this was still before the 'Net
But if you look at the bills in Congress, things pre-date many others.
Just because the politicians can sell you on their originality doesn't mean they are.
Party politics often causes blockage during an election year.
You should look up some of the bills Hoover was trying to push through.
Same deal on Clinton before the Republicans took back Congress.
Bill Clinton took credit for many portions of it, and rightly so.
Actually, Clinton can be considered responsible for reducing welfare and many other benefits during his term.
That's why I liked Clinton's fiscal policies from 1994-1998 far more than W.'s ultra-spending-free 2001-2006.
No joke, but some of it pre-date the new slew of Republicans coming to town.
This is why I hate party affiliations.
They prevent people from focusing on the individual candidates and what they propose and vote on.
I don't vote for an individual candidate unless I know how they will vote on an issue, or what bills they are putting forth.
I see a lot of conflation going on here Prof. I assume you must be saying that the idea of packaging a group of principles a party believes in (The Contract with America) started with FDR's New Deal. And all I can say to that is, "Yeah, so what?"
I'd like you to find a specific component of the Contract which Bill Clinton has claimed credit for.
If Bush didn't cut taxes during a War, we might be in better financial position than we are now. Most of his spending is War Spending or as it can now be called "Wealth Transfer to Halliburton." Bush also created the Prescription Drug Benefit program but all that turned out to be was a gift to Big Pharma especially given the architects of that entitlement all left his administration to go in business for Big Pharma. How convenient that turned out to be? Get your position mandated by the Gov't.
Foolish spending and deficit destruction is what Bush will be remembered for.
You can take that voting approach on the local level. But that doesn't work on the National level unless the 2-party system drastically changes. Without a National identity we're nothing more than a large group of Fiefdoms.
I'd like you to find a specific component of the Contract which Bill Clinton has claimed credit for.
If Bush didn't cut taxes during a War, we might be in better financial position than we are now. Most of his spending is War Spending or as it can now be called "Wealth Transfer to Halliburton." Bush also created the Prescription Drug Benefit program but all that turned out to be was a gift to Big Pharma especially given the architects of that entitlement all left his administration to go in business for Big Pharma. How convenient that turned out to be? Get your position mandated by the Gov't.
Foolish spending and deficit destruction is what Bush will be remembered for.
You can take that voting approach on the local level. But that doesn't work on the National level unless the 2-party system drastically changes. Without a National identity we're nothing more than a large group of Fiefdoms.
With all due respect, I do sometimes pity the American voting public. I mean, if you feel that both parties are shit, what is a viable alternative?
Similar threads
