The Dem You Tube Debate - Page 2

Griff · 07-31-2007, 06:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

If La Clinton is a good match for that husband of hers -- and I've said so more than once -- nobody in this Republic has any business voting for her.

Socialism, selling out, and hostility to the Bill of Rights were the hallmarks of that other Clinton. I'm glad he never sufficiently deceived me to support him.

I'm not seeing that much space between the Clintons and Bush here. They all have problems with the Bill of Rights and oppose free markets. Bush nationalizes education and health care to serve business cronies, while Hillary would do the same to grow the Fed Gov serving her people. If we think about what facism and socialism originally meant in terms of internal public policies these two clowns are both on board.

Urbane Guerrilla · 07-30-2007, 10:19 PM

Supporting the troops means pursuit of victory. Victory is the best support of the troops.

Our enemies' best hope is to outlast us. Why don't we pursue a strategy, an attitude, of outlasting them instead? Let's plan for handing them a hundred fifty years of defeats and denying them area to operate in and scouring, disinfecting, their sanctuary areas? Permit humanity's foes no safety, no surety, no nothing; do it a lot and do it for ever.

There is no substitute for victory, said MacArthur, and the Dems all went and put their fingers in their ears when that was mentioned. That is why I've no time for them any more.

07-31-2007, 12:58 AM

So PATHETIC!

UG... I would buy that if they could even articulate what "victory" meant, better yet, if President Dufus could spell it.

07-31-2007, 05:34 PM

What is TERRIFYING is that Bush is BETTER on the environment than Bill Clinton was.
You have no idea how much I fucking hate that!!!

atrw93 · 07-31-2007, 06:18 PM

Something implied from a Heinlein Sci-Fi story:

We, the general populace do not live in a true democracy!

We all live in a zoo, true we elect our attendants, aka the Congress
who are supposed to take care of us. But they answer to a
higher authority: the unelected Beltway and Wall Street Mob
who provide for their re-election funds and dictate policy.

xoxoxoBruce · 07-31-2007, 10:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by atrw93

But they answer to a higher authority: the unelected Beltway and Wall Street Mob who provide for their re-election funds and dictate policy.

I all comes back to the voters... and non-voters.
The politicians that are bought and paid for, are reelected. If they weren't, then the money for ridiculous extended campaigns would taper off. Sure, they could still be bribed for votes on the floor, but at the risk of loosing their jobs.
The politicians have to go along to get along because they can't rely on the voters to back the up if they do the right thing.

07-31-2007, 06:29 PM

The US has never been a democracy, who would want that?

yesman065 · 08-01-2007, 11:54 AM

Does anyone here really think ANY republican can win?

deadbeater · 08-01-2007, 05:12 PM

Rudy is winning--by talking less about Iraq and Bush.

Clinton and Obama are on the spot, like it or not, because right now the Demos in Congress don't have the votes--or some would say, guts--to get the troops the hell out of Iraq now!

Gaelic Ninja · 08-01-2007, 07:07 PM

Oh, speaking of campaign finance. What's with Obama wanting to have publicly-funded campaigns?

Happy Monkey · 08-01-2007, 07:14 PM

Candidates shouldn't have to cater to wealthy contributors, or spend ever waking moment fundraising, to the exclusion of all else. Public financing is one possible solution to that. I'm not sure how well it would work, but that's the idea behind it.

Gaelic Ninja · 08-01-2007, 07:27 PM

I'd be willing to bet that it would take more taxes then people are willing to pay. So, since raising taxes is now political suicide, we'd probably wind up looking at another drain on an already over-extended treasury.

Happy Monkey · 08-01-2007, 07:51 PM

The total spent on the campaign by all candidates and associated groups in 2004 was about $600M, considerably less than a week's worth of Iraq war.

Gaelic Ninja · 08-01-2007, 08:03 PM

Why bring the Iraq war into this? It was a horrible mistake, but one that we're stuck with until a workable solution can be planned out to get our troops home. So short term after such a bill would be passed is another strain on the treasury, albeit a small one.

Happy Monkey · 08-02-2007, 11:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gaelic Ninja

Why bring the Iraq war into this?

Because that is something we can apparently afford for years at a time on the whim of the current President. Actually picking our next President is much more important, and would cost much less. Especially since, as Clodfobble pointed out, the public financing would likely be at a lower level than the spending has recently risen to.

07-30-2007, 10:19 PM	#2
Urbane Guerrilla Person who doesn't update the user title Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Southern California Posts: 6,674	Supporting the troops means pursuit of victory. Victory is the best support of the troops. Our enemies' best hope is to outlast us. Why don't we pursue a strategy, an attitude, of outlasting them instead? Let's plan for handing them a hundred fifty years of defeats and denying them area to operate in and scouring, disinfecting, their sanctuary areas? Permit humanity's foes no safety, no surety, no nothing; do it a lot and do it for ever. There is no substitute for victory, said MacArthur, and the Dems all went and put their fingers in their ears when that was mentioned. That is why I've no time for them any more. __________________ Wanna stop school shootings? End Gun-Free Zones, of course. Last edited by Urbane Guerrilla; 07-30-2007 at 10:28 PM.

07-31-2007, 06:18 PM	#5
atrw93 Questionist Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 8	Join the zoo Something implied from a Heinlein Sci-Fi story: We, the general populace do not live in a true democracy! We all live in a zoo, true we elect our attendants, aka the Congress who are supposed to take care of us. But they answer to a higher authority: the unelected Beltway and Wall Street Mob who provide for their re-election funds and dictate policy.

08-01-2007, 07:14 PM	#11
Happy Monkey I think this line's mostly filler. Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: DC Posts: 13,575	Candidates shouldn't have to cater to wealthy contributors, or spend ever waking moment fundraising, to the exclusion of all else. Public financing is one possible solution to that. I'm not sure how well it would work, but that's the idea behind it. __________________ _________________ \|...............\| We live in the nick of times. \| Len 17, Wid 3 \| \|_______________\| [pics]

08-01-2007, 07:51 PM	#13
Happy Monkey I think this line's mostly filler. Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: DC Posts: 13,575	The total spent on the campaign by all candidates and associated groups in 2004 was about $600M, considerably less than a week's worth of Iraq war. __________________ _________________ \|...............\| We live in the nick of times. \| Len 17, Wid 3 \| \|_______________\| [pics]

07-31-2007, 12:58 AM	#3
rkzenrage Guest Posts: n/a	So PATHETIC! UG... I would buy that if they could even articulate what "victory" meant, better yet, if President Dufus could spell it.

07-31-2007, 05:34 PM	#4
rkzenrage Guest Posts: n/a	What is TERRIFYING is that Bush is BETTER on the environment than Bill Clinton was. You have no idea how much I fucking hate that!!!

07-31-2007, 06:29 PM	#7
rkzenrage Guest Posts: n/a	The US has never been a democracy, who would want that?

08-01-2007, 11:54 AM	#8
yesman065 Banned - Self Imposed Join Date: Dec 2005 Posts: 1,847	Does anyone here really think ANY republican can win?

08-01-2007, 05:12 PM	#9
deadbeater Sir Post-A-Lot Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 439	Rudy is winning--by talking less about Iraq and Bush. Clinton and Obama are on the spot, like it or not, because right now the Demos in Congress don't have the votes--or some would say, guts--to get the troops the hell out of Iraq now!

08-01-2007, 07:07 PM	#10
Gaelic Ninja Geek Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Under a tree. Posts: 32	Oh, speaking of campaign finance. What's with Obama wanting to have publicly-funded campaigns?

08-01-2007, 07:27 PM	#12
Gaelic Ninja Geek Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Under a tree. Posts: 32	I'd be willing to bet that it would take more taxes then people are willing to pay. So, since raising taxes is now political suicide, we'd probably wind up looking at another drain on an already over-extended treasury.

08-01-2007, 08:03 PM	#14
Gaelic Ninja Geek Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Under a tree. Posts: 32	Why bring the Iraq war into this? It was a horrible mistake, but one that we're stuck with until a workable solution can be planned out to get our troops home. So short term after such a bill would be passed is another strain on the treasury, albeit a small one.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)