Are the democrats worse than republicans?

No Limit

No Limit

Party Escort Bot
Joined
Sep 14, 2003
Messages
9,018
Reaction score
1
I don't know if many of you follow what is going on with giving american companies immunity for allowing Bush to spy on us illegally. Well today house democrats caved and passed this retroactive immunity. This is a very good article that I think hits the nail on the head. These democrats are ****ing cowards that need to be thrown out of there, they are being bullied by a president that has a 25% approval rating, the lowest in american history.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cenk-uygur/are-the-democrats-worse-t_b_108310.html

Are the Democrats Worse Than the Republicans?
By Cenk Uygur

President Bush is the most unpopular president of all time - literally. No one has had approval ratings this low for this long in American history. Yet he keeps on kicking the crap out of the Democrats.

If you keep losing to the worst, what does that make you?

Today, President Bush will win another huge victory on telecom immunity. He will get away with breaking the law and ordering private companies to break the law for him, which he freely admits. He is making the argument that the president is above the law in the United States of America. And the Democrats can't find a way to beat that argument.

I have no respect for the Democrats. You'd be crazy to have any. Crazy. Blinded by hope or partisan fever to have any respect for these bunch of losers. They keep telling us that they can't possibly beat the most unpopular president of all time. Is there a word worse than loser? Because if there is, it should be applied to the Democrats; if there isn't, they should create one for the Democrats.

On the one had, Democrats will keep telling you that they can't get anything passed in this Congress because the Republicans have 41 Senators that they can filibuster any legislation with. On the other hand, the Republicans will now get this telecom immunity passed through Congress. So, do the Democrats not have 41 Senators, so they can block this bill? Of course they do. They just don't have the nerve. They are collaborators.

I don't believe there is anything the President could have done that would make the Democrats actually challenge him. He broke this law, admitted it, rubbed it in their faces and then made them pass a law that immunizes his law breaking. What other laws could the president have broken? Based on this precedent, just about anything.

If they cared to do this right, the proper strategy would have been painfully easy. Pass an intelligence bill that closes the foreign communication loophole (the only real national security issue that has to be addressed) and don't put in any provision about telecom immunity. Then send it to the president. Have him veto it. And then scream bloody murder that the president is jeopardizing national security. Because he would be.

Telecom immunity has nothing to do with national security at this point. First of all, it's retroactive, so it has nothing to do with current security issues. Secondly, they'll have their day in court. If they are right, then they have nothing to worry about. Their actions will be judged to be legal and they will have no liability. Problem solved.

It's not that this case is hard to make. It's that the Democrats don't want to make it. That's because they don't want to make any case or pick any fight or win on any issue. They are scared to death of the Republicans, to this day as the Republicans are running for the hills and figuring out how many more seats they are going to lose in Congress.

One quick side note. This might mean the Democrats lack all courage. It might mean they are callous and want to lose on purpose. But it doesn't mean they're stupid. They have calculated that policy losses will lead to political victories. And it looks like they are right. But these policy losses have real consequences for our country and our constitution.

Think about this for example. If the president is authorized to order private companies to break the law for national security, why couldn't he order other companies to do a break in - say at a complex like the Watergate building in Washington - and then say it was for national security?

You say that's absurd? But what is warrantless wiretapping but a break-in? It's breaking and entering into your private conversations and communications without a warrant and outside of the law. Do we even know who they wiretapped? Isn't it possible that the Democrats are now authorizing retroactively wiretaps of their own phones?

Since I am still a na?ve and gullible guy, I don't think the Bush administration wiretapped the Democrats. But I have no basis for believing that. How do we know if they did or didn't? How do we know the Democrats aren't immunizing this very act? They don't know, because they didn't even bother to find out who got wiretapped and for what reason.

Now, I have to give the standard caveats about how there are some who do the right thing in the Democratic Party. I will give the standard example of Russ Feingold (he is the standard example because he seems to be the only who does the right thing on a regular basis). Having said that, if you think your particular Congressman or Senator is one of the good ones, you're probably wrong. This is capitulation en masse. They almost all go along to get along.

And then of course there is the standard caveat about how the Republicans are worse. Yes, of course, they are. They are the ones committing the crimes in the first place. But I get them, I get their motivation. It's the stomach churning capitulation by the Democrats that's infuriating. Who respects a collaborator? Aren't those the kind of people you least want to be associated with?

The main advantage of the Democrats is that they know we have nowhere to turn. They know we're smart enough to not vote for these Republicans. And that might be true in the short-term. But we better be making plans to throw these bums out the next time around. Make a list of all the people who collaborated with the Republicans when it mattered. And in due time, they should all get a knock on the door, from a primary opponent. Let's make a list and check it twice. And never forget those names.
Click to expand...
 
Combine_Advisor said:
simple anwser:
No
Click to expand...

Did you read the article?

Here is a kicker, here is Pelosi's explaination for why they caved:

Code: 
Leading Democrats acknowledged that the surveillance legislation is not their preferred approach, but they said their refusal in February to pass a version supported by the Bush administration paved the way for victories on other legislation, such as the war funding bill. 

"When they saw that we were unified in sending that bill rather than falling for their scare tactics, I think it sent them a message," said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.). "So our leverage was increased because of our Democratic unity in both cases."

See, by banding over backwards all you are really doing is making sure you aren't going to have to bend backwards for other legislation. Great reasoning.
 
Yes! Your one biased article proves everything!!! Anything this objective surely must be posted everywhere to rub in the faces of those damn dirty liberals!!!!!
 
Cornerstone said:
Yes! Your one biased article proves everything!!! Anything this objective surely must be posted everywhere to rub in the faces of those damn dirty liberals!!!!!
Click to expand...

I don't think you know me very well. ;)
 
Well, obviously. They have a DONKEY as their animal. They just screams 'We're jackasses.'
 
I remember I was reading the stances of the two parties out of a pamphlet about the 2004 election or something, and the democrat and republican platforms were pretty much the same, except the democrats mentioned something about pulling troops out of iraq. And the republicans might have mentioned outlawing abortions.
 
They both have their redeeming qualities, and their weak points. If I had to choose, I'd have to go for Republicans, though.
 
An article, "Are democrats worse than republicans?" screams self praise as the lesser evil on the behalf of a conservative republican minded writer.

On the one had, Democrats will keep telling you that they can't get anything passed in this Congress because the Republicans have 41 Senators that they can filibuster any legislation with. On the other hand, the Republicans will now get this telecom immunity passed through Congress. So, do the Democrats not have 41 Senators, so they can block this bill? Of course they do. They just don't have the nerve. They are collaborators.

I don't believe there is anything the President could have done that would make the Democrats actually challenge him. He broke this law, admitted it, rubbed it in their faces and then made them pass a law that immunizes his law breaking. What other laws could the president have broken? Based on this precedent, just about anything.
Click to expand...

On the one hand, lets say you have an evil warlord, bent on destruction and total devastation. Then you have these little guys who have the mindset to stand against the evil warlord, yet for whatever reasons they can't actually do what they would really like to do. That makes the little guys worse than the evil warlord how?

The article describes, at least from what I quoted, that the republicans are trying to pass this bad thing. And so because the democrats aren't effectively blocking it, this makes them the bad guys how? I fail to see how incompetence or less than stellar performance is more terrible than malicious intent.

All the descriptors I used isn't to be taken literally, FYI.
 
The majority of politicians are spineless. The only politicians that have principles seem to be the slightly crazy ones like Ron Paul or Mike Gravel.
 
Raziaar, you are making it sound like the democrats are powerless. That's the point, they aren't. They have full control of the system now, they can block everything they want to block. yet they have caved in to every single thing Bush has asked for, no matter how absurd Bush's demands have been.
 
And so let's say hypothetically that they have done exactly that. You think the republicans are better because of that fact?

That makes no sense.
 
It's lucky he didn't say anything to that effect, then.
 
I changed my wording. Just woke up when I wrote that. He's agreeing with the article and the article is claiming that republicans are better than democrats for that reason.
 
Raziaar said:
And so let's say hypothetically that they have done exactly that. You think the republicans are better because of that fact?

That makes no sense.
Click to expand...

That makes perfect sense. The republicans have a reason to do what they do. Most in my opinion dso it for greed, some might do it because they actually believe they are right. But the democrats know that what is going on is wrong and they have the power to stop it, but they refuse to. This way the bad shit that the republicans want happens anyway, so why in the world even bother with a opposition party? Every single democrat that caved in to this president needs to be thrown out the next primary season, it's that simple.
 
Thread title should read

"Are politicians worse than politicians?"
 
See, by banding over backwards all you are really doing is making sure you aren't going to have to bend backwards for other legislation. Great reasoning.
Click to expand...

So, now we are pretty much all screwed?

... great.
 
both parties are shit. I lean more to the republican side on some things, but to be honest, both sides are filled with idiots that can't see past their egos or their wallets.

IMO the ones on top, the big players, seem to be more than happy to take your rights away, only depending on their party they come at you from different directions. Its like a classic good cop/bad cop scenario. It doesn't matter which cop you respond to, you are still equally screwed.
 
^This. Both parties have been leaving much to be desired of late. We need a pioneer. Someone to shake things up and bring America back on it's feet. (It won't be easy though. Who ever said that change for the better would be a smooth road anyways?)
 
Don't get your hopes up Saturos. Whoever "shakes things up" will still be a politician :(
 
"I've said it before and I'll say it again; democracy simply doesn't work."
 
Democracy does work -- it just these Yay-hoo's who keep screwing it up.

Not sure that I'll vote for Barrack, but assuming he can challenge congress on more issues then McCain ... then well, I'll vote for him.

Despite the fact he wants to socialize medicine, but thats just my bit to pick.
 
I really don't understand how you can be against "socializing" medicine.

Your current system is shit. You pay outragous amounts of money to profiteers. Over here you are guaranteed medical cover for free provided by the government.
 
K e r b e r o s said:
Despite the fact he wants to socialize medicine, but thats just my bit to pick.
Click to expand...

Actually that absolutely untrue. I am all for socializing medicine, and Obama's plan doesn't come close to socialized medicine.

Soloris, you have to understand that most people in this country don't even really know what "socialized" means. It's a boogie man for the right wing to throw out, kind of like "liberul".
 
Strictly speaking Obama plans for fascist health care, as it's a fusion of government planning with corporate health insurance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Terminator
Long time...
Replies
10
Views
579
Raziaar
Raziaar
Acepilotf14
steam group bad link
Replies
3
Views
337
Xtremecherry95YT
Xtremecherry95YT
Krynn72
You guys, what the **** is up.
Replies
11
Views
1K
Tollbooth Willie
Tollbooth Willie
Tollbooth Willie
HL2.NET HORROR SLAP
Replies
7
Views
2K
Tollbooth Willie
Tollbooth Willie
Tollbooth Willie
To Those That Stand, Those That Fell
Replies
6
Views
2K
Tollbooth Willie
Tollbooth Willie
Back
Top