Originally Posted by isly ilwott

I contend that electing a Republican would be the safest thing to do this time around. Faced with a Democratic House and Senate, he would not be able to have his way as a Democrat would.

I believe the Democrats, left unchecked, would put us in an economic tailspin ending in a severely stricken posture.

Agreed. The last time the Democrats had the trifecta for the full four years this country was in such economic and political morass it wasn't funny. The same thing could have happened in the 90's if it wasn't for the GOP trouncing of Congress in 1994.

Originally Posted by isly ilwott

I contend that electing a Republican would be the safest thing to do this time around. Faced with a Democratic House and Senate, he would not be able to have his way as a Democrat would.

I believe the Democrats, left unchecked, would put us in an economic tailspin ending in a severely stricken posture.

Although I can't stand John McCain, and believe he is the worst possible choice from the Republican side, he is better than the other choices we have in Hillary and Obama. And I also agree with your concerns about the Democrats holding all of the Political cards as it relates to the economy.

Originally Posted by Archangel

Although I can't stand John McCain, and believe he is the worst possible choice from the Republican side, he is better than the other choices we have in Hillary and Obama. And I also agree with your concerns about the Democrats holding all of the Political cards as it relates to the economy.

About the ONLY thing that would make McCain's ticket appealing is if he picks a dyed-in-the-wool Conservative as his running mate.

Originally Posted by Bassman

About the ONLY thing that would make McCain's ticket appealing is if he picks a dyed-in-the-wool Conservative as his running mate.

Yeah, and what are the odds of that happening? Have you heard gossip that Leiberman might be a consideration for him as VP? I mean, as Democrats go Leiberman is great, but for a Republican Vice President, it's a nightmare in the making.

Originally Posted by Archangel

Yeah, and what are the odds of that happening? Have you heard gossip that Leiberman might be a consideration for him as VP? I mean, as Democrats go Leiberman is great, but for a Republican Vice President, it's a nightmare in the making.

If McCain is stupid enough to do that, then we've just about guaranteed an Obama presidency. G-d help us.

Originally Posted by Bassman

If McCain is stupid enough to do that, then we've just about guaranteed an Obama presidency. G-d help us.

That's what is so scary about this; a Leiberman-McCain match might just go over big with moderates on both sides of the aisle right now. And in this Political atmosphere, add those voters to the conservatives who would vote McCain by default and it is possible they could be seen as a perfect compromise to the extreme far left politics that Obama/Hillary represents.

And one more thing; I'm not ready to absolutely declare her politically dead yet, but I am so happy to see Hillary's campaign imploding as it is. Because her and Obama agree so closely on so many core issues she can't figure out how to attack him without trashing her own policies. I just love it. She also must walk on egg shells so as not to disenfranchise those blacks who do support her.

I maintain though that it will be easy for the Republican Machine to very effectively define the Tax and Spend, Pacifistic, Socialistic Liberalism that Obama represents. You'll find this interesting:

http://rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0geu7d.Jc...m/voteratings/

Obama: Most Liberal Senator In 2007
RELATED STORIES:

By Brian Friel, Richard E. Cohen and Kirk Victor, National Journal
© National Journal Group Inc.
Thursday, Jan. 31, 2008

Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., was the most liberal senator in 2007, according to National Journal's 27th annual vote ratings. The insurgent presidential candidate shifted further to the left last year in the run-up to the primaries, after ranking as the 16th- and 10th-most-liberal during his first two years in the Senate.

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., the other front-runner in the Democratic presidential race, also shifted to the left last year. She ranked as the 16th-most-liberal senator in the 2007 ratings, a computer-assisted analysis that used 99 key Senate votes, selected by NJ reporters and editors, to place every senator on a liberal-to-conservative scale in each of three issue categories. In 2006, Clinton was the 32nd-most-liberal senator.

In their yearlong race for the Democratic presidential nomination, Obama and Clinton have had strikingly similar voting records. Of the 267 measures on which both senators cast votes in 2007, the two differed on only 10. "The policy differences between Clinton and Obama are so slight they are almost nonexistent to the average voter," said Richard Lau, a Rutgers University political scientist.

Given this info, how far do you think he will go in the real World once this voting record is made common knowledge in all 50 States? Especially if he picks Hillary as his running mate.

Originally Posted by isly ilwott

I contend that electing a Republican would be the safest thing to do this time around.

And of course you are wrong.

The safest thing to do would be to throw out virtually every republican and democrat and give the Senate, House and White house to independent libertarians. Anyone who thinks that the GOP is better then the Democrats needs to have their head examined. Anyone who still thinks that parties are a good thing should be toss into detention for one week with a huge amount of information detailing just how bad parties are and how the early leaders of America recognized that with nothing else to do but read and study.

Faced with a Democratic House and Senate, he would not be able to have his way as a Democrat would.

I do suppose you have a point there. Letting the GOP have all three parts of the Federal Government was a huge debacle. Letting the Democrats who are just as bad will likely result in similar outcomes.

I believe the Democrats, left unchecked, would put us in an economic tailspin ending in a severely stricken posture.

You're a little late. The unchecked Republicans have already put us in an economic tailspin ending in a severely stricken posture. At least the Democrats would fund their poorly planned agenda with dollar for dollar taxation instead of the GOP funding their poorly planned agenda with debt financing.

Originally Posted by Bassman

Agreed. The last time the Democrats had the trifecta for the full four years this country was in such economic and political morass it wasn't funny.

And yet you are a GOP supporter who still believes the GOP is great even after 7 full years of control.

Do you remember this post?

The same thing could have happened in the 90's if it wasn't for the GOP trouncing of Congress in 1994.

Too bad that the GOP of 1994 bares no resembles to the GOP of today.

Originally Posted by obvious_child

And of course you are wrong.

I may be wrong but not of course.

The safest thing to do would be to throw out virtually every republican and democrat and give the Senate, House and White house to independent libertarians.

Now can you propose something from the realm of possible things to do?

Anyone who thinks that the GOP is better then the Democrats needs to have their head examined.

I agree that the Democrats need to have their heads examined.

The Republicans are no better than the Democrats...they just appear to be so.

Anyone who still thinks that parties are a good thing should be toss into detention for one week with a huge amount of information detailing just how bad parties are and how the early leaders of America recognized that with nothing else to do but read and study.

I've attended several exceptionally good parties in my life.

I'm curious, what happens when someone is "toss into detention"...?

What makes you say that the early leaders had nothing to do but read and study?

I do suppose you have a point there. Letting the GOP have all three parts of the Federal Government was a huge debacle. Letting the Democrats who are just as bad will likely result in similar outcomes.

Here you seem to be making the same argument that I presented...the very reason for your saying I am wrong, of course.

You're a little late. The unchecked Republicans have already put us in an economic tailspin ending in a severely stricken posture. At least the Democrats would fund their poorly planned agenda with dollar for dollar taxation instead of the GOP funding their poorly planned agenda with debt financing.

I'm not sure what the Democrats would do. I know we've been worse off before.

Originally Posted by isly ilwott

Now can you propose something from the realm of possible things to do?

Start voting your incumbents out of office. The US has the highest rate of incumbency in the entire democratic world. That is part of the problem.

I agree that the Democrats need to have their heads examined.

The Republicans are no better than the Democrats...they just appear to be so.

Your first comment is irrelevant. And your second is quite wrong given the atmosphere leading to the current election.

I'm curious, what happens when someone is "toss into detention"...?

Mandatory schooling for one week.

What makes you say that the early leaders had nothing to do but read and study?

You either lack proper reading skills or are deliberately trying to distort what I stated.

I stated, which you are distorting, that the founders knew parties were bad from the get go. George Mason I believe wrote a piece on how the future government should prevent the creation of parties. I never stated, as you are falsely stating (runs in the family with marc eh?) that they had nothing to do but read and study.

Here you seem to be making the same argument that I presented...the very reason for your saying I am wrong, of course.

Again, you either lack proper reading skills or are deliberately trying to distort what I stated. You are wrong because the safest thing is to throw them all out. The fact that I'm agreeing with you that the parties are bad is not relevant to why you are wrong. Your assertion on the safest thing to do is wrong, not that the Dem and Gop parties are bad. Learn to read or cut the distortion.

I'm not sure what the Democrats would do. I know we've been worse off before.

Now? Perhaps. Let the economic situation the GOP created run its course and you'll be wishing for those days.

Originally Posted by obvious_child

Start voting your incumbents out of office. The US has the highest rate of incumbency in the entire democratic world. That is part of the problem.

Apparently, you missed the part about "this time around" meaning "this coming election". You have mentioned a plan that has been unsuccessfully tried many times...to vote out all incumbents. Come up with something that is possible to do in this coming election that you think would be safer than electing a Republican.

Your first comment is irrelevant. And your second is quite wrong given the atmosphere leading to the current election.

Not at all. It points at your obvious errant choice of words. I simply agreed with your false conclusion ....."then the Democrats needs to have their head examined."

My second comment was correct also. The Republicans do not appear to blatantly sabotage the good works of a sitting President the way the Democrats do.

Mandatory schooling for one week.

I am in favor of mandatory schooling for years. I discern that you have missed some important lessons along the way.

You either lack proper reading skills or are deliberately trying to distort what I stated.

I stated, which you are distorting, that the founders knew parties were bad from the get go. George Mason I believe wrote a piece on how the future government should prevent the creation of parties. I never stated, as you are falsely stating (runs in the family with marc eh?) that they had nothing to do but read and study.



Again, you either lack proper reading skills or are deliberately trying to distort what I stated. You are wrong because the safest thing is to throw them all out. The fact that I'm agreeing with you that the parties are bad is not relevant to why you are wrong. Your assertion on the safest thing to do is wrong, not that the Dem and Gop parties are bad. Learn to read or cut the distortion.

No. I am mocking your errant ways...something I suspect is all too easy to do.

This:

"Anyone who still thinks that parties are a good thing should be toss into detention for one week with a huge amount of information detailing just how bad parties are and how the early leaders of America recognized that with nothing else to do but read and study."


...is a textbook example of a sentence in shambles.

Now? Perhaps. Let the economic situation the GOP created run its course and you'll be wishing for those days.

It will difficult the lay all the blame for the state of the economy on either side...at any given time. The GOP has likely not contributed as much to a weakening dollar as the Democrats.

Originally Posted by isly ilwott

Apparently, you missed the part about "this time around" meaning "this coming election". You have mentioned a plan that has been unsuccessfully tried many times...to vote out all incumbents. Come up with something that is possible to do in this coming election that you think would be safer than electing a Republican.

Electing a independent.

Not at all. It points at your obvious errant choice of words. I simply agreed with your false conclusion ....."then the Democrats needs to have their head examined."

Amusing how someone who prides themselves on common courtesy, maturity, etc, etc has no problem engaging in cheap grammar attacks. You are quite transparent. And what I and other see in you is not pretty.

My second comment was correct also. The Republicans do not appear to blatantly sabotage the good works of a sitting President the way the Democrats do.

Aside from the Democrats showing better polling results and a good chance of taking the Whitehouse...how are they appearing worse? If they appeared worse, then why isn't McCain showing a clear lead over Obama in polls?

I am in favor of mandatory schooling for years. I discern that you have missed some important lessons along the way.

Obviously you missed the implicit target: adults.

For one who claims to be mature, you sure have no problems engaging in grade school jabs. Again, your facade is not working. You're basically Marc, but one who tries to obey the TOS.

No. I am mocking your errant ways...something I suspect is all too easy to do.

And yet you can't refute anything and must act like a child to attack someone. Notice you haven't actually addressed my points. Just relied on personal insults.

...is a textbook example of a sentence in shambles.

I made a point early to you. I often write in a manner that people who have intelligence will be able to obviously figure out. Obviously I have not adapted to someone who lacks the capacity to read between the lines, which is you. Or more likely, you know full well what I mean, but are intentionally trying to needle me as you lack the ability to actually address my points. It won't work as I already have pegged you for who you really are.

It will difficult the lay all the blame for the state of the economy on either side...at any given time.

In general no. Now yes.

The GOP has likely not contributed as much to a weakening dollar as the Democrats.

Apparently you missed the session where the GOP sold our future to pay for their little adventure.

Explain to me how the Democratic Congress has contributed more to the weakening dollar then the GOP who raised the debt levels to huge levels, financed virtually everything with debt, had no practical way of ever dealing with long term debt financing, flooded the market with huge amounts of currency at the same time as supporting interest rate cuts.

Or are you economically ignorant and do not understand the relationship between the decline of the currency's wealth with fiscal policy and monetary policy?

You seem to defend both AA and Marc so it would seem likely that you are just as economically ignorant as they are.

Originally Posted by isly ilwott

It will difficult the lay all the blame for the state of the economy on either side...at any given time. The GOP has likely not contributed as much to a weakening dollar as the Democrats.

Both parties have contributed to our financial problems. What the GOP has done in the last 8 years, though, is made them terminal.