Did you SEE that?

Remove all ads!

scarampella,
Nice try. Where did I label anyone? I will label you: Disappointed democrat. Do you have any comment about the outcome of the elections? The cause of the democrat defeat (IMO it is more that then a republican victory)? Or are you just going to referee from the sidelines?

As far as Shralps comment, he addressed it. Additionally, he was addressing one person whom he has sparred with in the past on these forums in the same manner.
The other post branded an entire group of elected officials "rednecks". My point is that this is the kind of polarizing rhetoric that splits our country (and is one of the reasons that the democrats got their asses handed to them). If you can't see the difference, or choose not to, then that is your problem.

 

Boy, you are one angry man Jack. If this is how you are when you are happy I'd hate to bump into you on the street on a bad day.

 

It's funny how people seem to think that now that the GOP is in power, things will be any different. Save for judicial and other official nominations there would be little different in the end than if Democrats were in control. In fact, I'll argue that personalities aside, there is virtually no difference remaining between the two parties.

[ November 09, 2002, 03:35: Message edited by: Alex ]

 

isn't that labeling someone?

 

You've got a point there, Alex, they all cater to the ones that give them the most money. I'd like to see these people manage to to run a campaign without spending more than $100,000. I don't think it could happen.

 

Stefanina- you pay less than 50% income tax? In Canada I think even kids delivering papers pay more than 23% tax. People who actually work regularly for a living pay in the 40-55% range; it's a common joke here that until then end of June you're a slave for the government, but after July 1 you're free and can work for pay. Although I'm scandalised by the idea of a conservative government being expected to tax more than a liberal one. What kind of conservatives do you *have* down there anyway?

BTA- thank you for that excellent link. I particularly liked the sidebar, which I will use in future arguments with Joacqin as Exhibit A of the morality of "free people spending their own money" vs "governments spending people's money for them".

And lastly, what's with this "commie" comment, and people here indiscriminately calling socialists "liberals"? I believe the politically correct term is "pinko". Just teasing you dear left-wingers on this board, I realise your hearts are in the right place.

 

Yeah, Scampy. When you can't debate the logic, just attack the person. Yeesh.

Golly, Jack, you must be one a dem angry white guyz. You shore are full o hate. I best not eben lissin to your argyments, cuz I donwanna turn muhself into no racist hater guy.

 

I disagree that with the idea that there is no difference between the parties.

The "there's no difference" bit is a result of three factors.

(1) The Whiny Third Party Complex. This is where whiny third parties try to proclaim themselves the only true alternative to the evil Repulocrat empire. They do this, oddly enough, out of superiority. If only the electorate were as smart and well educated as they, they would realize that not only is there no difference between the two parties, but that their Third Party has got it all right.

Strangely, given that most-to-all third parties tend to have platforms as far from center as Koresh was from the Pope, well...the natural thought that "Maybe most people think we're full of bollucks" never seems to come up.

(2) The Media. For a variety of reasons (pick your bias) it seems to make their job easier to pretend that Democrats and Republicans have few differences.

(3) The Democrats themselves. After centering themselves fiscally under Clinton, getting spanked soundly on one of their more noticiable liberal concepts (health care), they've taken to portraying themselves centrist on everything. It hasn't occured to them that the reason Clinton was elected was because he ditched the most unpopular extremist concepts (actually, it wasn't that he ditched them. More that he was obviously "not in favor of them". Few dems were, really) but also had ideas of his own. Plus, frankly, there was something of a backlash against Republicans both elections.

What this means, of course, is that both sides play centrist during election season, and while there are large grounds of true commonality, after than things depart radically.

Besides, you can show that the "There is no difference" bit is a load of codswallop merely by pointing out two facts:

1) Would Gore have rolled back as many enviromental regulations as Bush?

2) Would Gore have nominated people like Owens to the Federal courts?

"No".

 

Note I made an exception for judicial and official nominations. I said personality is about the only major remaining difference. That would result in drastically different nominations.

 

Well, even if the only difference was in nominations that is an incredibly huge difference.

That is hardly the only difference though. Look at all the talk about the type of legislation expected to come through now over the course of the next two years.

With democrats in charge it would be far less likely that we would see the type of wholesale social security privatization that is now a real possibility.

With democrats in charge we are far less likely to see alterations to the clean water act like has now become a very real possiblity.

With deomocrats in charge we are far less likely to see legislation come to the floor to limit the right to abortion.

With democrats in charge it is far less likely that the tax cuts would be made permanent. Now it is highly probable that the capital gains and estate reductions at the very least will be permanent.

That's just the tip of the iceberg and those are massive differences. So, not only is there a huge difference in the government due to nominations but also due to the type of new legislation we can expect.

Note, I'm not taking a stance on whether any of the above is a good thing or not.

 

I guess I must be the only one who found Shralps last comment in extremely poor taste...

 

Scarampella,

If I wanted to bait you, I would quote Mitt Romney and describe your behavior as unbecoming. Which it is. But I wouldn't want to bait you.
Seriously, you have debated intelligently on this topic in this forum. While I was harsh on you in the previous post (for which I apologize), you still have not posted on topic once in this thread.

Surely, as a long time Democrat, you must have something to say about the *snicker* outcome of the elections!?!

As far as your comment about me being angry, I'll just let it go. As far as Shralps comment, pure satire. Beautiful, unedited, non-PC satire.

 

True, Sprite, I do pay far less than people outside the US, but that rate is very high within the US. But the US does not have things like nationwide healthcare. That's the big one I can think of right now. My daily use of Gov't spent money is roadways and libraries. That's it (that I can think of for the moment). And even those are more state and local money than federal.

 

Back to the part about oil in Alaska...

Actually, the oil fields will probably no longer be "clean". The president was and still is planning to drill for oil in Alaska in the middle of a natural preserve I believe. The ones opposing this are most of us here, the local Indians, and a large group of conservationists. Say goodbye to the pristine blanket of snow in Alaska...

 

scarampella, all of Shralps comments are in extremely poor taste.

 

Stefanina, I was just teasing you. I think 23% is too high too! Canada doesn't have nationwide health care either- it has waiting lists, in the hopes that eventually people will get so tired of waiting for the government to buy them some health care that they move to the US, or die.

 

Thank you Jack for your comments.

I have mixed feelings about the results. On the one hand, I'm tired of deadlock and do nothing congresses. I prefer giving any president the opportunity to put into action the ideas/goals they campaigned for. Let the guy do what he will and may the cards fall where they may. That is my feeling regardless of who is in the oval office.

On the other hand, I find it disconcerting after Enron and Aurthur Anderson people are still willing to continue to allow the Republican agenda of de-regulation, or their dismantling of oversight committees and the checks and balances that keep greedy, big business men from stealing from the little guy.

What is going on in CA right now is so truly scandalous, it's amazing what little a blip it makes on the media radar screen. Why Whitewater managed to take up space and money for eight years (for nothing) and our energy crisis seems to bother no one but us should be enough to put any assertions the media is controlled by liberals to rest.

I'm bothered because I don't like what Republicans stand for and how that will play out.

BTW, I thought Republicans stood for states rights? What's up with Ashcroft butting into and superseeding state elected laws?

[ November 10, 2002, 21:34: Message edited by: scarampella ]

 

Actually, more than 20 people were sent to prison as a result of the Whitewater investigation. Dems like to call it a failure because Hillary and Bill got off scott free, but the probe did in fact nail several people for unethical business practices.

I'm amazed that anyone can claim that Enron and Arthur Anderson's business practices were caused by Republicans. Even the Dem leadership knows better (mostly because Enron and Arthur Anderson gave heavily to Democrats as well as Republicans).

I'd also like to know what you mean by "our energy crisis." I work as a contractor for the Department of Energy. There is no energy crisis that I'm aware of, but if you point it out maybe I can pass it on and get a raise.

Sorry if my reversion to my native southern Illinois accent (above) offended anyone.

No, wait. I'm not.

[Edit:] Ah, you're in California. Last year's energy shortage was, of course, caused by a bad reshuffling of the electricity market. It was not deregulated. There were a host of factors, including the El Paso natural gas pipeline being shut down, the forcing of electricity distributors to divest themselves of their generation facilities, and the forced closure of other generation facilities due to California's clean air regulations. But primarily it was a stupid law that put a price cap on some electricity rates while removing them on others.... Deregulation worked almost perfectly in Texas, Pennsylvania, and other states. The problem was that California did things only half-way. It could have been rectified any number of ways (full deregulation to allow distributors to charge market rates, repeal of environmental laws that kept facilities closed, etc.). But other political factors set in. At any rate, the shortages and blackouts were the result of legislation (from Dems and the GOP both), not of lack of power.

[ November 11, 2002, 19:21: Message edited by: Shralp ]

 

My point about Whitewater referred to the political attack on Hillary and Bill and the way the media used this investigation (and her association with it) as a means to smear their reputations and propogate continuous negative campaigning. I am bothered by the way the media obstructs what are important issues by barraging us with sensationalism.

You would do well to read more clearly what someone says. I did not say the Enron/Anderson fiasco was caused by Republicans; The people involved are responsible for their own crimes. Rather, my intention was to say Republicans support policies that reduce oversight and regulations upon business. Anderson should not have been auditing a company it had stock in, that is an obvious conflict of interest and with proper legislation people who are greedy would not have had the opportunity to dip their fingers in the honey pot.

I've been using that term 'energy crisis' because it is the word of the day out here. To me it encompasses more than just shortage of energy which I agree we are not short of. To me this tinkering around with the supply and demand has caused a financial crisis which ultimately Californians will have to pay for years to come. I agree with you there were a host of factors, but I would add that a few of them involved manipulation of the market by a few people who saw an opportunity to enrich themselves. Our de-regulation as you said was only half way. I'm not informed on the other states de-regulation so I cannot comment on that.

 

Fudge. I miss Clinton...