Republicans will lose even worse in '08

[Ant]

Take a look at the 08 races and you learn that republicans will probably lose even more seats soon.

The country is going to be dominated by democrats for at least a decade. If they do well then longer.

I just hope its centrist Clinton democrats.  But I'm not at worried about the Dems.  They don't seem as inclined to cater to the wackos in their party the way the republicans completed turned their back on America because they thought catering to the religious wackos like Trauma would be a good idea.

I'm a little worried dems might have too much power soon.  If they pick up the presidency and more seats in 08 they will dominant american politics like the GOP could never imagine doing.

Too much power is never a good thing.  The GOP just got a whiff of power and they lost their minds. 

[King Tech Quadafi]

with you people i dont know....

[Mr. O]

Take a look at the 08 races and you learn that republicans will probably lose even more seats soon.

The country is going to be dominated by democrats for at least a decade. If they do well then longer.

I just hope its centrist Clinton democrats.  But I'm not at worried about the Dems.  They don't seem as inclined to cater to the wackos in their party the way the republicans completed turned their back on America because they thought catering to the religious wackos like Trauma would be a good idea.

I'm a little worried dems might have too much power soon.  If they pick up the presidency and more seats in 08 they will dominant american politics like the GOP could never imagine doing.

Too much power is never a good thing.  The GOP just got a whiff of power and they lost their minds. 

Democractic is a good party.  They are for the people, ethics, and so on.  Whether they are liberal or conservative, it should be okay.  Although, they are somewhat soft.

[Suffice]

Virtuoso is right... democrats, republicans, whatever... all they do is fulfil the agendas of the people who put money in their pockets. When the lobbyist bribes were exposed a while back, you should have known. It happens all the time. When voting, it's all about whose face would you rather see on TV and newspapers for the years to come. Policies are still eventually favoring the people who are in power, not the people. Malcolm X - "The truth is on the side of the oppressed" - Bullshit. The truth is on the side that we will never know because people in the Bohemian Club make deals and divide up the power that senators and representatives could only dream of. SO yeah, the democrats might win, but unjust and intrusive wars will continue, and the US will continue to fuck the world to maintain its hegemony until someone stands up to it. There is no hope for a morally righteous government. These people don't know what its like to be a regular human being, the laws don't affect them personally, so they don't give a fuck. They're only after their own interests. So essentially, representative government ins't representative at all. and Ant, you need to read some literature about Democrats instead of blindly supporting everything they do. In that sense, your'e no better than Trauma. He's just on the other side

[M Dogg™]

I think that this class of Dems is exactlt what this county needs right now. They ran from the middle, instead of from the right, they ran farmers, pro lifers, and war vets, this might be the best group of freshmen congressmen we've seen since the New Deal Dems in 1932.

Where the Dems went wrong is that they held congress, mostly both houses, from 1952-1994 without interuption, and they held the majority, with the exeption of 4 years, from 1932-1994. They started out as a great group of congressmen that got old, and died, a new generation gained congress, and they were currupted, they lied, and they even butted heads with Bill Clinton his first 2 years, and fucked over Jimmy Carters presidency, and those guys were part of the same party. Those Democrats should have been ran out the White House. The good they did was keep Reagan's presidency in check, but over-all, they were crooked. They had political machines everywhere, they claimed to be for multi-culturalism, but in reality they were only for multi-culturalism if they, the white men, were in the lead.

These new Dems are in the middle. There are still some old school Dems, those that survived the Republican Revolution of 1994, and they have been humbled, and for the most part, put in place. The new Dems are for the middle class, the old Dems were for welfare. When Bill Clinton went before the congress with Welfare reform, his own party was mad, and the Dems controlled the House, Senate and Presidency. These new Dems would say, lets move forward, lets get his party started. These Dems are telling minority, come and have leadership positions, hell, lets have a black or woman president. There is already many improvements, and only in 10 years will we know what will happen. I can say for the first 4-6 years, the new Dems will do many things for improve the country, lower health cost, put money into oil alternatives, and find a way out of Iraq.

The Republicans of 1994 became currupt with their power after 6 years, though you can argue it was alot sooner. There main thing was to impeach Bill Clinton, who, unlike George Bush, did nothing to warrant an investigation. They wanted to lower taxes, and Bill Clinton was there to make sure that rich taxes stay high, and poor people's taxes stay low. In 2001, once Bush was president, the Republicans of 1994 stop becoming idealist, and became Bush lap dogs, they bend over and let the White House ride. This congresses needed to go, there needs to be balance, and a Dem party in the middle is exactly what we need.

As for our nuts, most of them are now green, it is now time for the Republicans to find a party for their nuts.

[AndrE16686]

I think that this class of Dems is exactlt what this county needs right now.

For real, if Bush approval continues to slip then Dems may get ballsy and pass shit daring Bush to veto it,

[TraceOneInfinite Flat Earther 96']

As for our nuts, most of them are now green, it is now time for the Republicans to find a party for their nuts.

Explain how the green party are supposedly "nuts".  That's playing the same game as the Republicans if your just going to use name-calling to mislead people.   

[M Dogg™]

they are extremest, the Dems are for higher taxes on the rich, and social government spending, the Greens want very high taxes, and very high social spending. Also, the Dems are for environmental issues, and the Greens basically believe we should be one with mother nature. The average American can't relate. They relate more with Bill O'Reilly than they do the Greens. The Green are basically a college party, the members are future Democrats, but until they mature and realize the real world wouldn't support many issues they stand by, they have the Greens. The Republicans are a right wing party, but there are many people that are not on the level of a Pat Buchanan, those who are trying to basically cut the government to just the military and the post office, have privitazed police, a volenteer fire fighting force, and bringing family values to be run by the Christian churches. The average American can't relate, but this is who the extreme right wingers are. But instead of them having their own party, they vote Republican, and so we have Bush who tried to appeal to them, and the average American. What ends up happening is a Republican president then has to justify a war by claiming God told him to do it. A Green is not a Democrat, and Buchanan is not a modern Republican.

[TraceOneInfinite Flat Earther 96']

they are extremest,

...you sound like George Bush.  Again that's just using name calling to isolate people without any real knowledge to back up your statements.

the Dems are for higher taxes on the rich, and social government spending, the Greens want very high taxes, and very high social spending.

Really, this was the only real argument you even attempted to put forth in all your excessive verbal husk.  The problem is the statement you made is not at all true.  You seemed to be fooled by the Ronald Reagan era propaganda that "wellfare queens" were the ones stealing all your money.  The truth is a very small chunk of taxes goes to social wellfare programs, and the large chunk goes to military spending/bomb making in Iraq and Afganistan, and to have troops permanently deployed in military operations existing in 100 countries around the world.  The greens want to cut our astronomically high military spending which is greater than all the other countries in the world combined.  This would actually cut taxes and allow more money for public spending.

Also, the Dems are for environmental issues, and the Greens basically believe we should be one with mother nature. The average American can't relate. They relate more with Bill O'Reilly than they do the Greens. The Green are basically a college party, the members are future Democrats, but until they mature and realize the real world wouldn't support many issues they stand by, they have the Greens. The Republicans are a right wing party, but there are many people that are not on the level of a Pat Buchanan, those who are trying to basically cut the government to just the military and the post office, have privitazed police, a volenteer fire fighting force, and bringing family values to be run by the Christian churches. The average American can't relate, but this is who the extreme right wingers are. But instead of them having their own party, they vote Republican, and so we have Bush who tried to appeal to them, and the average American. What ends up happening is a Republican president then has to justify a war by claiming God told him to do it. A Green is not a Democrat, and Buchanan is not a modern Republican.

Your Buchanon analogy doesn't work either.  You want to paint the Greens as being outside the mainstream and that's true.  But since when has being outside the mainstream been a bad thing?  Jesus, in his time, was outside the mainstream.  It's good to be counter-culture in this day and age.  Remember, it was the mainstream that supported the war in Iraq, believed that Sadaam Hussien shared responsibility for Sept. 11th, and that he had weapons of mass destruction and was an imminent threat. 

So again, does being outside the mainstream make the Green Party "nuts".  The onus was on you to back up your statement that the green party were "nuts" and you failed to do anything besides call them "tree-huggers and extremists".

[Primo]

Infinite is right. Just because something is out of the mainstream doesn't mean it that it is not better and is wrong. It is just like if you would call a religion out of the mainstream religions a cult.  This is labeling people negatively because thier thinking is outside of mainstream thinking. Infinite is right again. Jesus was portrayed as a looney person and crazy by society because he did not believe in the traditional mainstream beliefs of the time. We have not learned a thing, we are the same type of people that would have crucified Jesus, just with higher technology. Our wisdom hasn't grown at all and I can point out alot of people to prove my point. Democrats and Republicans are the same animal. For example ; there would be no income tax because there is no law calling for one. They obviously know this FACT and are trying to keep it quiet. Is this not knowingly deceiving the people? We need a revolution to put in power a form of government that puts humanitarianism first instead of self- interest. Call me whatever you want but this is the only way to help our country from turning into a police state.

[M Dogg™]

My main thing was that, yes the Greens are not mainstream, and there are far left, but the biggest thing is that they take away voters from the Democrats. This is not bad, but I think that the right needs their own party, one that takes out their far right wing people. This way we can have more balence of power, along with some areas like the Bay area who would vote Green, and have areas in the south that will vote extreme right, and those parties would have some greater influence.

[TraceOneInfinite Flat Earther 96']

My main thing was that, yes the Greens are not mainstream, and there are far left, but the biggest thing is that they take away voters from the Democrats. This is not bad, but I think that the right needs their own party, one that takes out their far right wing people. This way we can have more balence of power, along with some areas like the Bay area who would vote Green, and have areas in the south that will vote extreme right, and those parties would have some greater influence.

^^That's better.  When you subtract the useless name-calling, your post comes off much cleaner. 

btw, Actually, there is a far, far right party that takes away votes from the mainstream Republican party.  It's called the Libertarian party.  They are all the things the Republican party is supposed to be.  The Republican Party parades around like they are for small government but yet everytime they are in power the size of the government gets bigger (check the statistics, it always gets bigger).  Well the Libertarian Party is truly for a more hands off approach to government and under their model there would be no income tax.  You can read more about them at www.harrybrowne.org

[M Dogg™]

the libs are not a force the way the Greens are. They are not making the waves in the right the way the Greens in the left do. I think someone mainstream like O'Reilly and Buchanan to grap on to these values, or to target the younger right wingers.