Political thread: Where do you stand on your party?

[Burgold]

This thread is only intended for those who registered Republican or Democrat. It's just a testing the water thread. How do you feel your party (the party you registered for) is doing? Are they standing up for your platform well? Have they strayed too far in one ideological direction or the other? Are they floundering? Are content in every way imaginable?

I'll start. I registered Democrat and I am dissatisfied with the Democrats. Now, not having control of any of the three branches allows for some rationalization, but still, I hear a lot of hot air and not much action. I dislike the electioneering strategy of letting the other guy fail. If you see a problematic area and there are many... I believe you were elected to fix it or do your best to at least address it... I think the lack of will to cooperate and force issues is irresponsible. Mind you, I know some of this is because Republicans have refused to let Democrat ideas reach the floor to be voted on... and some Democratic ideas were stolen by Republicans who then took credit for them, but that doesn't matter. Stealing credit is part of the game and everyone knows that coming in. The big picture is there are too many willing to be silent and let things get worse for the chance at greater power.

[chomerics]

This thread is only intended for those who registered Republican or Democrat. It's just a testing the water thread. How do you feel your party (the party you registered for) is doing? Are they standing up for your platform well? Have they strayed too far in one ideological direction or the other? Are they floundering? Are content in every way imaginable?

I'll start. I registered Democrat and I am dissatisfied with the Democrats. Now, not having control of any of the three branches allows for some rationalization, but still, I hear a lot of hot air and not much action. I dislike the electioneering strategy of letting the other guy fail. If you see a problematic area and there are many... I believe you were elected to fix it or do your best to at least address it... I think the lack of will to cooperate and force issues is irresponsible. Mind you, I know some of this is because Republicans have refused to let Democrat ideas reach the floor to be voted on... and some Democratic ideas were stolen by Republicans who then took credit for them, but that doesn't matter. Stealing credit is part of the game and everyone knows that coming in. The big picture is there are too many willing to be silent and let things get worse for the chance at greater power.

I am a registered independent, but obviously lean left now so I will chime in. I am not 100% satisfied on the democrats, but they are so far above, by leaps and bounds, anything else out there, they will get my vote. They are focusing on the last 90 days and are eyeing winning back the house or both the house and senate. It will be interesting to see how their campaign looks, but I do like their chances this go around. The real interesting race to wach is Liberman vs LaMont in Conn. If LaMont wins, it will be a real bad sign for the republicans, because it means the democrats are coming out in droves for this election cycle.

[SkinsHokieFan]

Registered R

Quite simply, they do not act like Republicans anymore (except my old Congressman, yea baby!)

Best thing to do is to once again lose power and get real conservatives back in the fold after Bush leaves office. Once America sees how ineffective D's are while in power, hopefully they will vote back in true small gov't conservatives

[Midnight Judges]

I'm not registered as a Dem yet but I should be. I am not dissatisfied with them because they have almost zero power. If they take the house or the Senate I will have real expectations for them, and if they fail I will vote Republican after that. I want them to have real lobbying reform, campaign finance reform, raise minimum wage, restore checks and balances over presidential powers, get real on immigration, put more pressure on the Bush administration to create a viable (long term if need be) exit strategy for Iraq.

[chomerics]

Once America sees how ineffective D's are while in power, hopefully they will vote back in true small gov't conservatives

:laugh: You still believe in small government conservatism :laugh:.

Here is a secret for ya Ish, there is no such thing as a small government party. The only time a party is for "small government" is when is when they are not in power. Its not your fault you were fooled and hoodwinked by Newt, but don't think the ideology will ever be for small government, they just use as a campaign slogan, very Orwellian in nature when you think about it.

[Sarge]

:laugh: You still believe in small government conservatism :laugh:.

The only time a party is for "small government" is when is when they are not in power.

Then why are the Dems still for more taxing and spending even today?

[tapstaks2000]

I used to be able to name every nut that there was. And it used to drive my mother crazy, because she used to say, "Harlan Pepper, if you don't stop naming nuts," and the joke was that we lived in Pine Nut, and I think that's what put it in my mind at that point. So she would hear me in the other room, and she'd just start yelling. I'd say, "Peanut. Hazelnut. Cashew nut. Macadamia nut." That was the one that would send her into going crazy. She'd say, "Would you stop naming nuts!" And Hubert used to be able to make the sound, he couldn't talk, but he'd go "rrrawr rrawr" and that sounded like Macadamia nut. Pine nut, which is a nut, but it's also the name of a town. Pistachio nut. Red pistachio nut. Natural, all natural white pistachio nut.

[praise_gibbs]

I used to be able to name every nut that there was. And it used to drive my mother crazy, because she used to say, "Harlan Pepper, if you don't stop naming nuts," and the joke was that we lived in Pine Nut, and I think that's what put it in my mind at that point. So she would hear me in the other room, and she'd just start yelling. I'd say, "Peanut. Hazelnut. Cashew nut. Macadamia nut." That was the one that would send her into going crazy. She'd say, "Would you stop naming nuts!" And Hubert used to be able to make the sound, he couldn't talk, but he'd go "rrrawr rrawr" and that sounded like Macadamia nut. Pine nut, which is a nut, but it's also the name of a town. Pistachio nut. Red pistachio nut. Natural, all natural white pistachio nut.

Riiiiight.

[SkinsHokieFan]

:laugh: You still believe in small government conservatism :laugh:.

Here is a secret for ya Ish, there is no such thing as a small government party. The only time a party is for "small government" is when is when they are not in power. Its not your fault you were fooled and hoodwinked by Newt, but don't think the ideology will ever be for small government, they just use as a campaign slogan, very Orwellian in nature when you think about it.

Bingo. Divided gov't anyone?

1 vote for it right here

Of course, I am old enough to have witnessed the disaster of all D's in power between 1993 and 1995. Those 2 years showed how dangerous an all D gov't will be in expanding the gov't to the most bloated of proportions

Hillary care? Remember that?

[DeanCollins]

in the old days, I would always stand near the keg

[Mass_SkinsFan]

:laugh: You still believe in small government conservatism :laugh:.

Yes, believe it or not some of us DO still believe in small government conservatism. I know that you could never accept that idea since the City of Boston has the death penalty for anyone who even thinks a conservative thought, but there are still some of us around who really do believe in small government conservatism.

Here is a secret for ya Ish, there is no such thing as a small government party. The only time a party is for "small government" is when is when they are not in power.

I will agree that there's no small government party. That's a large part of why I believe the Party system needs to be done away with. The party system and professional politicians need to be gotten rid of entirely. Once that is done the concept of small government conservatism can be reborn in this country.

Oh, and the Democrats are never for small government anything. Whether they're in power or not.

[chomerics]

Then why are the Dems still for more taxing and spending even today?

Really? Did you think of that one all by yourself, or did ya learn it from your lunatic talk radio buddies like Savage?

BTW Sarge, the last time a dem was in office, the budget was balanced. . .I would prefer to actually make more money then to spend more then we make, but then again, that is not the conservative way. . . spend your kids future and bankrupt the country in the process.

[chomerics]

Oh, and the Democrats are never for small government anything. Whether they're in power or not.

Well then tell me how, when a democrat was in office, the deficit DECREASED for 8 straight years. You can't say it was Congress either, because the same congress has spent unmercifully.

[chomerics]

Of course, I am old enough to have witnessed the disaster of all D's in power between 1993 and 1995. Those 2 years showed how dangerous an all D gov't will be in expanding the gov't to the most bloated of proportions

Hillary care? Remember that?

Funny, but I seem to remember a decreasing deficit and a budget that started to become balanced back then. I also don't see Hillary care anywhere, so how was it so bad when they were in power? Which would you rather have, 93-95 or 00-06? I'd take the 90's over this cluster***k anyday, as well as the vast majority of Americans.

[Mass_SkinsFan]

Well then tell me how, when a democrat was in office, the deficit DECREASED for 8 straight years. You can't say it was Congress either, because the same congress has spent unmercifully.

Imaginative Accounting mostly. Additionally, the Democrats under Slick Willie did cut some spending. Of course it was mostly spending on the few Constitutional items in the budget so they could raise spending on the unConstitutional items, but I'm sure that doesn't bother you.

I do find it terribly interesting that this is the only part of my comments you responded to.

[Mass_SkinsFan]

Funny, but I seem to remember a decreasing deficit and a budget that started to become balanced back then. I also don't see Hillary care anywhere, so how was it so bad when they were in power? Which would you rather have, 93-95 or 00-06? I'd take the 90's over this cluster***k anyday, as well as the vast majority of Americans.

Sorry, but I'll take 00-06 over the 90's any day. Bill Clinton stands in my mind as one of the most disgraceful Americans of all time. Hillary is close behind. The policies and non-policies of that administration are still hurting this country to this day.

[chomerics]

Imaginative Accounting mostly.

There we have it folks, blatently refusing to admit to numbers which don;t support an outdated and outlandish viewoint.

I do find it terribly interesting that this is the only part of my comments you responded to.

Your other stuff wasn't worthy of commenting on, and thus was left out.

[chomerics]

Sorry, but I'll take 00-06 over the 90's any day. Bill Clinton stands in my mind as one of the most disgraceful Americans of all time. Hillary is close behind. The policies and non-policies of that administration are still hurting this country to this day.

:laugh: Yea, the country really stunk in the 90's and it is just so great now. :doh:

So it was Clintonian policies, not the republican controlled Congress' policies that are hurting our country now, they didn't "balance the budget" they were using "imaginative accounting", and that CIA controlled mind altering device fails to work because of your tinfoil hat. . . gotcha :laugh:

[Mass_SkinsFan]

There we have it folks, blatently refusing to admit to numbers which don;t support an outdated and outlandish viewoint.

The numbers were cooked up Chom and you know it. The same way that the numbers get cooked up by every administration to make them say what they want. The same way that "cutting spending" is never really a cut, but simply a reduction in the rate of increase for a program. If you have an ounce of honesty in your body, you know that.

[Mass_SkinsFan]

:laugh: Yea, the country really stunk in the 90's and it is just so great now. :doh:

I never said things were great now, Chom. Just that they were better now than when we had an adulterous Socialist in the Oval Office.

So it was Clintonian policies, not the republican controlled Congress' policies that are hurting our country now, they didn't "balance the budget" they were using "imaginative accounting"

It's a combination of things. Both Clintonian policies and a lack of will and backbone by the Republican members of the Senate to do the Right things that have caused most of our current issues. Clinton never balanced the budget and you know it.

[88Comrade2000]

I'm not registered as a Dem yet but I should be. I am not dissatisfied with them because they have almost zero power. If they take the house or the Senate I will have real expectations for them, and if they fail I will vote Republican after that. I want them to have real lobbying reform, campaign finance reform, raise minimum wage, restore checks and balances over presidential powers, get real on immigration, put more pressure on the Bush administration to create a viable (long term if need be) exit strategy for Iraq.

Democrats won't do a thing on immigration other than allowing more illegals to come in. They want hispanics and don't care about the rest of their voters. They now hispanics will lean more towards democrats.

[chomerics]

The numbers were cooked up Chom and you know it. The same way that the numbers get cooked up by every administration to make them say what they want. The same way that "cutting spending" is never really a cut, but simply a reduction in the rate of increase for a program. If you have an ounce of honesty in your body, you know that.

Where did I say they cut spending? I said they balanced the budget, they are not mutually excluive things. Spending was curbed, programs were cut, such as welfare, and others expanded. The budget was balanced, and it was almost a linear line to solvency. We had projected a $10Trillion surplus and now we have a projected $10trillion debt. That is not called progress, it is called regression.

With that said, government jobs actually decreased during his tenure (I have to find the information, but I did read it somewhere) and that in essence is cutting government though.

http://www.brookings.edu/gs/cps/light20030905.pdf

[chomerics]

Democrats won't do a thing on immigration other than allowing more illegals to come in. They want hispanics and don't care about the rest of their voters. They now hispanics will lean more towards democrats.

Really? WHat have republicans done? They have all the power, and have they done ANYTHING? Kind of hard to say dems would do something worse then the status quo we have now don't ya think?

[88Comrade2000]

Really? Did you think of that one all by yourself, or did ya learn it from your lunatic talk radio buddies like Savage?

BTW Sarge, the last time a dem was in office, the budget was balanced. . .I would prefer to actually make more money then to spend more then we make, but then again, that is not the conservative way. . . spend your kids future and bankrupt the country in the process.

One thing you are forgetting- We had divided government. A democratic president and a republican congress. I don't think we would've had a surplus if Clinton had a democratic congress his last 6 years.

Part of the reason for Bush's tax cuts were to starve the government of money. Except the liberal Bush increased spending while cutting taxes.

I am all for divided government- its the checks and balances we need. It will be fun watching the democrats impeach Bush next year- everything else will shut down. The less the government does the better.

[chomerics]

It's a combination of things. Both Clintonian policies and a lack of will and backbone by the Republican members of the Senate to do the Right things that have caused most of our current issues. Clinton never balanced the budget and you know it.

No, Clinton DID balance the budget, YOU know it. Here, try to explain away this graph to "funny math"

See that "break even point"? Above that is balancing the budget, below that is not. . .Clinton did in fact balance the budget, I can't believe you would actually argue that he didn;t when the numbers prove you wrong.