Why?Follow

Ok I agree with Joph etc and am mostly posting totally off subject.

GROOOOOOOO!!!!!

I love it I had forgoten about him and miss his comics thanks to you I am now perusing archives.

Thank you.

This. Also: I'm enough of an adult to accept that the world isn't "fair" and I'd rather see a world in which people are healthy and happy than one where people literally die in the street of starvation while others sit on a pile of gold while clinging to some childish and inhumane notion of "mine, mine, mine".

I guess I should mention that I side with the democrats because we don't have a "dirty socialist" party.

Nexa

I was raised by my Father, a life long member of the Plumber & Pipefitters Union, and my Stepmother, a Teacher.

Suffice to say, my family is pro union. Democrats are pro union.

I too was a Union member for about 5 years before working my way up into management. I've seen both the "good" & "bad" that comes along with unions.

And suffice to say, the good outways the bad by a large margin.

Also, having always been middle class, Dem's economic policies directly benifit me.

I also believe in science, that gay rights really are the last thing left for the civil rights movement to accomplish, sex ed, free healthcare (everyone has a right to live), a women's right to choose, diplomacy, and that we Must separate the church and skate!

If I had paid for premium, I would clap!

I would however point out that in the UK they are currently discussing letting some patients pay for care (thereby introducing a 2 tier NHS). But thats another rant ...

You said it better than I could have. /agree

edit:

They no longer support those views, which is why I can affiliate with the party. I'm not going to hold the past against the party, especially since it's currently the more progressive of the two parties.

I imagine the Republican party is going to have to recreate itself, given the current political tide, if they want to stay competitive in politics.

Edited, Nov 4th 2008 7:20am by Ranzera

More than likely they'll have to suffer an even greater loss than this to force them to recreate. Since this election is so close they'll believe that they only have to do a few things different to win. Not to mention that politics goes in phases. The dems will probably have the next 8-12 years, then the repubs will be back in. The only sad thing, well sad to me, is that most likely the dems will have the Super-majority, unable to be delayed by a filibuster, or any slowing in the processes in the house or senate. They could very easily hit the magic number in the senate.

For the repubs to be forced into recreation, it'll prolly have to be like 1937-1939 when they had 19 in the senate to the dems 76. That kind of loss will make them reconsider what they stand for, but I hope that never happens.

EDIT: Hey I finally hit 900, YAY!

Edited, Nov 4th 2008 8:38am by weedjedi

While I'm for a few years of a fillibuster-proof democratic senate, I'm also pretty sure it won't happen. I think they'll get close enough to where a few moderate repubs will prevent a few fillibusters. If I had to wager, I'd say the Dems get 59 seats(including the independants). That 60th seat would have to come from Georgia, Mississippi, or Kentucky and frankly I don't see any of those races going Dem.

I think the repubs absolutely should recreate their party. The moderate Republicans should take their party back, and base their campaigns on the issues and not fear. I may not have shared the party's beliefs, but I can remember a time where I had a decent amount of respect for the candidates on their ticket.

Well that's basically, I don't respect him for this, because he sold his soul and values to win the Nom, and possibly in an attempt to win the election.

Well, good thing Flea isn't voting in the 1865 election.

Hey now, we're actually having a pretty civil discussion about politics. Lets leave all the finger pointing to all the flame-ridden threads =p

Even if it's true, I'd still be curious to know how much is cause and how much is effect. Or did you just mean that ours are bigger, with more robust synaptic connections?

Why are you a republican? Why do you come here asking people's opinion without first giving yours?

You can't both stand for a women's reproductive rights concerning abortion and then try and defend the 'rights' of a fertilized egg. This you know. You don't agree with abortion - say as much without the bull.

You can't understand the 'dems' tax theory, or any other because you don't want to. You're sure that you are being taken advantage of by the government, by the needy, by the jobless, by the environmentalists. Yet, you most likely don't lack for food, shelter, education, and even some luxuries.

Most likely you have no actual 'knowledge' of tax systems. Your example of the business owner is flawed in many ways yet succeeds in pointing out the error made by the last administration in buying into this idea profits are earnings. They're not.

Business's are not in the business to make 'profits', they're in the business to earn wealth and provide income to the owners and workers. 'Super-profit' can and should be taxed heavily - it's the excess.

The twisting of Obamas words is in the ear of the listener....and to compare and contrast; I find Palin's words not twisted but more like 'bent' as in respect to the truth. But this is strictly opinion and has no place in this discussion that you called for.

If you're really interested as to know why I align myself more with democrats vs. republicans, to summarize it most concisely I guess it's because I think a governments first responsibility is to strive to provide for a society that is secure, just, equal and efficient. The republican agenda for the last thirty years or so has tipped the scale too far, ignoring equality and making mince meat of personal freedoms. I'm hoping the dems can, ever so gently, rebalance things.

Btw, you gettin' rated down by me, just cuz despite your claims you sound like every other ignorant, arrogant trolling ******* that passes through here.