You can read the article and see what they say, but what do you think?
1. lose the war on terror
2. continue to allow illegal immirgration to ruin the country
3. try and impeach the president
4. raise taxes
5. only allow liberal activist judges to be confirmed
Sunday, October 22, 2006
What the Dems Would Do
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
19 comments:
Game, thanks for linking to this article. I don't think I would have seen it otherwise. It shows how smart and realistic the Democrats are. It shows how much they are in tune with the majority of Americans. Two-thirds of Americans think this country is on the wrong track.
It shows that the White House and Republics who have gotten the country to this point will be held accountable at last. There is no way on earth that the Democrats will try to impeach Bush, but they will hold him accountable.
The Democrats will fight the war on terror much more effectively than Bush has. For one thing they'll will pass bills to spend money on strengthening our domestic security, ports, chemical plants, food supplies, etc. These are things that Democrats in Congress have tried to get passed, but the Republics refuse to pass them. Once passed, the Democrats will DARE Bush to veto them.
Democrats will try to work with Bush to find a comprehensive solution to the immigration problem, a solution which the rabid right in Congress have continued to block.
Democrats will try to reverse the trend of deficit spending by the Republics by returning the tax rates for the richest to their 2000 level. They will not raise taxes on the middle and lower classes.
None of you have ever defined the term "activist judge". From what I gather, it means a judge who rules differently from what you want.
Regardless, you obviously don't understand how government works. You see, Bush would nominate judges. He would not nominate a liberal judge. And even if he did, even a Republic Senate minority would not consent to one.
So your 5 points are phoney, false, and, uh, pointless.
Nice try though.
there is NO policy that two thirds of Americans agree with Dem's on...is it amnesty for illegals....no
cut and run....no
higher taxes....no
Dem's don't even understand our enemy...how can they fight them...will they give some other terrorist nation nuclear weapons...is that how jim?
Jim's answer to a comprehensive illegal immigration solution includes amnesty...so that sucks.
Dem's are going to raise taxes...be a man and admit it...
We shall see if they stay away from impeachment...
and Republicans are not obstructionists in regards to judges like liberals are...
but nice try jim...
An "activist judge", as the term is commonly used, is one who strays from strict interpretation in order to create a situation more in line with his own desires, such as Roe v Wade. A conservative judge would not have created out of thin air, a right to privacy that permits the killing of one's own offspring. There is nothing in history or precedant that justifies Roe.
The Democrats pretty much agree with George W. Bush on immigration. Wow! How did that happen?
There isn't one Democrat in favor of "cut and run". This is a made up term for something that nobody is proposing. What is ironic is that the Bush administration may end up doing pretty much what they've been calling "cut and run" themselves. Iraq is a mess and there are no good options. Bush's option is to keep on plugging away 100 dead US soldiers at a time.
There isn't one Democrat who favors raising your taxes unless you happen to be making over $200,000 a year. This is a great tactic that the Repubics backed Rove on. Lower taxes during a war, drive up the national debt and then blame the Democrats for trying to make ends meet.
And you are wrong about Republics and judges. They blocked many, many of Clinton's nominations. They'll do whatever it takes to get their way. They already proved that back in 2004 when they threatened to destroy Senate tradition by invoking the "nuclear option." So don't tell me the Republics won't do this or that. They already have.
Finally, Iran and North Korea had no nuclear weapons until Bush declared them part of an axis of evil and invaded the other part. In 2000, neither country had nuclear weapons. Six years of Bush later, North Korea DOES and Iran may be working hard on theirs.
Just exact who let them have nuclear weapons?
who gave North Korea the technology???
you can not be intellectually honest on anything, can you?
now that I think about it, I can't remember ONE time jim came on here and bashed a liberal....
Our ally Pakistan, wasn't it? All we did was promise to help them with light water energy reactors which were unsuitable for manufacturing weapons grade nuclear materials.
We gave them no capability to manufacture nuclear weapons.
The Agreed Framework was working and North Korea HAD NO nuclear weapons until Bush repudiated the Agreed Framework. THEN NK developed the bomb.
Just whom should I bash, Game? You are doing plenty for everyone. Who am I supposed to bash?
My only question?
When is Clinton going to be held accountable for ignoring the various terrorist attacks that took place under his term in office, therefore escalating it until 9/11 took place? Since we can't "impeach" a former president, can we throw his butt in jail for spending more time in the oval office cheating on his wife than actually taking care of this country?
Jim,
Despite not using the words "cut and run" themselves, the Dems in large part have backed such ideas as scheduled pull-outs. They are ready to bail on the Iraq effort at the earliest whether or not the Iraqi people can handle things without us. This is the cut and run attitude. Murtha called it redeployment, but the effect is the same: sent a timetable for withdrawal, stick to it without regard for Iraqi security, and pretend that the enemy won't sit back and bide their time.
It doesn't matter whose taxes are being raised. Raising taxes on the biggest producers is proven to have a negative impact on productivity. The Dems believe they will make hay on demonizing the wealthy and creating a class war. Conservatives of every income level can see through that lame wedge tactic. Dems will justify ANY tax increase if they feel it necessary, thus, with them in power, we are all at risk financially.
There are no Supreme Court Justices that I can recall that the Republicans blocked during Clinton's admin. There are far more lower court judges nominated and it's doubtful that anyone claimed none were blocked. Don't think there's any comparison percentage wise that would show Bush wasn't blocked more.
Finally, Clinton allowed N Korea to store their rods in N Korea as if they couldn't just take them if they wanted to use them, which they did. Clinton secured nothing from the N Koreans that didn't serve N Korea. You can't deny the shortsightedness of Clinton's dealings with this despot. Raggin' on Bush because he wouldn't bend over and spread 'em the way Clinton and Albright did won't get it done. So, considering that Clinton didn't have the stones to remove or destroy the rods, the answer to your question is, BUBBA let them have nukes.
You make the same mistake as others when you believe that wackjobs like Il or Ahmadinijad or Arafat act in good faith. The self-deceiving Carter and Clinton can pretend all they want about having done well with these scumbags, but now we know just how well they did. Which was not very.
And I'm telling you, the only way Bush is going to get anywhere with Iraq is to do a staged withdrawal and redeployment. He'll end up doing exactly what you all are calling "cut and run".
There is no body out there besides Bush and Cheney who believes there is a military solution to the Iraq debacle. The military did their job and ousted Saddam. The only solution for Iraq is political, not military.
Please provide the data and source to prove that "Raising taxes on the biggest producers is proven to have a negative impact on productivity. Are we talking about the Laffer curve? I popped that bubble in an earlier post.
Actually in the first for years of their terms, Bush's nominees were confirmed 88% on the time versus Clinton's 81% for Circuit and District Court.
Clinton made the best of a difficult situation with Korea. And it was working. The NKs didn't remove the rods until Bush repudiated the Agreed Framework.
I'm sorry that you are so disappointed that Clinton didn't bomb the shit out of North Korea. When will Bush be doing that?
Jim,
Are you insane or on drugs?
Here's another thing Dems would do, they'd continue to look the other way at such incidents.
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/LarryElder/2006/10/19/high_school_student_and_his_bush-bashing_english_teacher
on judges..
you seem to be making my point...
republicans let 81% through while the Republican control congress could only get 88% through of their own kind...how many would have clinton gotten through if Dem's would have been in charge?
Shows how hard Dem's worked to fight judges
and marshall...good points on the taxes...jim has NO HONESTY to not call a tax raise a tax raise...and prove the Laffer curve wrong again...all stats and facts show that when people get a tax cut (up to a certain point, you actually get MORE out of taxes)
on judges..
you seem to be making my point...
republicans let 81% through while the Republican control congress could only get 88% through of their own kind...how many would have clinton gotten through if Dem's would have been in charge?
Shows how hard Dem's worked to fight judges
and marshall...good points on the taxes...jim has NO HONESTY to not call a tax raise a tax raise...and prove the Laffer curve wrong again...all stats and facts show that when people get a tax cut (up to a certain point, you actually get MORE out of taxes)
The Game said... there is NO policy that two thirds of Americans agree with Dem's on
A lie!
Try this, specifically about Pelosi's agenda, my bold:
Most worrisome for the president, should the Democrats retake one or both houses of Congress, the American public supports their proposed “First 100 Hours” agenda. An overwhelming majority says allowing the government to negotiate lower drug prices directly with pharmaceutical companies should be a top priority for a Democratic Congress (74 percent, including 70 percent of Republicans); 68 percent want increasing the minimum wage to be a top priority, including 53 percent of Republicans; 62 percent want investigating impropriety by members of Congress to be a top priority; and 58 percent want investigating government contracts in Iraq to be a top priority. Fifty-two percent say investigating why we went to war in Iraq should be a top priority.
So, Game, while not every item on the agenda enjoys 2/3 support, I count two that do, two more at around 60%, and one more over 50%. That makes you . . . a liar!
60 minutes showed excatly what would happen if The deomRATs were to gain conrtol of the hill. Pelosi,Rangel, Conyers and Dingell. The luntic fringe.
No the lunatic fringe is Santorum, Stephens, Sensenbrenner, and Burns among others.
60 Minutes showed that Pelosi will return the House of Representatives to it's duty of accountability and oversight. There is no sense in impeaching Bush and EVERYONE KNOWS IT. Getting rid of Bush would leave us with Cheney who has a favorable rating in the teens. I'd rather deal with a moron as president than Dr. Evil.
All this time and I still don't understand such descriptions of Cheney or Rove or Bush as "evil". Upon what is this based? It sounds like liberal bed-wetting, but they say it so much...
I didn't call Cheney evil. I compared him to a character in a movie who is a super secret megalomaniac.
Post a Comment