Mandatory knowledge
- Thread starter Troponin
- Start date
- Status
Bull****
Republicans and Democrats are not necessarily Conservatives and Liberals...
Bush is a Moderate masquerading as a Conservative and a Republican...
The Republicans have NOT had a deciding majority in Congress for several decades...
Conservatives have never been in the majority... in either house of congress...
The entitlements are compromises "capitulated" by so-called Republicans... not by Conservatives...
ok so there have been no republican presidents or republican controlled congresses during the past 50-60 years? 
You are right that conservatives and liberals are not the same as Republicans and Democrats but the conservatives have no business claiming the high horse any more than the liberals.
You are right that conservatives and liberals are not the same as Republicans and Democrats but the conservatives have no business claiming the high horse any more than the liberals.
Once again, if you don't agree with Pointer you can't possibly be a conservative.
So now you've switched targets from Democrats to non-conservatives after witnessing the failure of the Republicans as well?
I'm sorry, but I fail to see how being a moderate is some terrible sin. Moderates aren't going to go out there and yank your gun out of your hands, they're not going to nationalize health care, they're not going to fire the border patrol, they're not going to legalize heroin, they're not going to mandate lower sentences for violent criminals from underpriviliged neighborhoods. They're moderate, and so promote policies most people won't find repugnant.
I'm sorry, but I fail to see how being a moderate is some terrible sin. Moderates aren't going to go out there and yank your gun out of your hands, they're not going to nationalize health care, they're not going to fire the border patrol, they're not going to legalize heroin, they're not going to mandate lower sentences for violent criminals from underpriviliged neighborhoods. They're moderate, and so promote policies most people won't find repugnant.
Slugthrower
New member
Democrat/Republican.
Never was a democracy.
Hasn't been a constitutional republic for some time.
Seems that we have no representation.
When the collective IQ of a nation is only in the double digits, you get what we have now. The dumb masses are helping to elect those that would see us live in a socialist utopia that can never be.
Government is an evil, albeit a necessary one.
Rights are not granted by government. Government denies rights. Freedom is not about dependency on government.
Do politicians really want people to be independent? Does either party have plans to downsize the scope of government? Will any politician ever give up any power that they have over the people through legislation?
Maybe any new laws that are passed should be restrictions on what government can do as opposed to what the individual can do. Do we serve the government or do they serve us?
The paths we are heading down lead either to fascism or communism. Both are not satisfactory results. Sad that the very things we fought, we are now becoming. Is this really the will of the people?
Never was a democracy.
Hasn't been a constitutional republic for some time.
Seems that we have no representation.
When the collective IQ of a nation is only in the double digits, you get what we have now. The dumb masses are helping to elect those that would see us live in a socialist utopia that can never be.
Government is an evil, albeit a necessary one.
Rights are not granted by government. Government denies rights. Freedom is not about dependency on government.
Do politicians really want people to be independent? Does either party have plans to downsize the scope of government? Will any politician ever give up any power that they have over the people through legislation?
Maybe any new laws that are passed should be restrictions on what government can do as opposed to what the individual can do. Do we serve the government or do they serve us?
The paths we are heading down lead either to fascism or communism. Both are not satisfactory results. Sad that the very things we fought, we are now becoming. Is this really the will of the people?
A 51% majority, in either house of the legislative, is NOT a controlling majority... They still have to have the "permission" of the opposition to pass a bill...
A ruling majority is a minimum of 66% and in certain situations, an even greater percentage is required... I believe overriding a Presidential Veto is one of those...
It isn't... but President Bush won the election by masquerading as a Conservative and the masquerade is the "sin"...
This kind of statement is so typical of Liberals... (Democrats have never been my "target".)
I call it "wish-think"...
It is the way they "wish it to be" that bubbles forth... and they "think" that by saying the lie out loud, it somehow makes it true...
Therefore, they think it must be axiomatic and therefore... there can be no retort...
It makes a very frustrating condition for communication and that's the main reason there is little or no understanding between them and whomever they are currently "schreeching" at.
They are so accustomed to "spinning and twisting" what other people are actually saying that they soon become experts at "double-talk" and "wormtonguing" and thereby evading, the truth that stares them in the face...
EXAMPLE: The the Immigration quotas and national border's, have been held open for many decades by the bleeding heart liberals... and now that it has become a major issue...
They immediately transfer the blame for all the chaos at the borders and the immigration problems to what they like to pitch as "Big Business".
The ever-present and underpinning problem with ignorance... is that everybody recognizes it except the one who suffers from it...
Last edited:
Ok, so how often have the Democrats had a controlling majority?
do you really believe conservatives don't "spin" and "doubletalk" and "wormtounge" as much as liberals? you still missed a spot on that halo
and christ on a cracker, dude....that formatting is making my eyes bleed. do you spend more time making your posts look pretty than actually typing them out?
:barf:
I am not a *smudge*ing liberal! I believe in privately-run health care and the death penalty, dang.
And by the way, ad hominem much? I observed the fact that you had stopped griping about Democrats and determined that moderates and liberals were the problem instead. Then you spend the rest of your post detailing how I am clearly ignorant of the issues then say that some people have claimed big business is causing our immigration problems (an argument I have never heard by the way*).
Speaking about ignorance, you need a simple majority in the House to be able to set the agenda and pass legislation, and a 60% majority in the Senate to pass leglislation that the other side really doesn't like (and likewise, 41% to stop legislation you really don't like). The 2/3 majority is used in both houses to overcome the President's veto, and I believe to be allowed to send a constitutional amendment to the states for ratification (3/4 of which must ratify it).
*On this issue, I will say that I have heard the argument that if the hiring of illegal workers was punished, the illegals wouldn't come over (at least not the ones looking for work) since they couldn't find jobs.
So where was I? Oh yeah, calm down. I see you complaining a lot about how liberals are this ignorant group of bleeding hearts who just don't get it, but not a whole lot about why it's a good idea to be charitable to those who need it, but not to allow the government to serve in this role.
I am not a *smudge*ing liberal! I believe in privately-run health care and the death penalty, dang.
And by the way, ad hominem much? I observed the fact that you had stopped griping about Democrats and determined that moderates and liberals were the problem instead. Then you spend the rest of your post detailing how I am clearly ignorant of the issues then say that some people have claimed big business is causing our immigration problems (an argument I have never heard by the way*).
Speaking about ignorance, you need a simple majority in the House to be able to set the agenda and pass legislation, and a 60% majority in the Senate to pass leglislation that the other side really doesn't like (and likewise, 41% to stop legislation you really don't like). The 2/3 majority is used in both houses to overcome the President's veto, and I believe to be allowed to send a constitutional amendment to the states for ratification (3/4 of which must ratify it).
*On this issue, I will say that I have heard the argument that if the hiring of illegal workers was punished, the illegals wouldn't come over (at least not the ones looking for work) since they couldn't find jobs.
So where was I? Oh yeah, calm down. I see you complaining a lot about how liberals are this ignorant group of bleeding hearts who just don't get it, but not a whole lot about why it's a good idea to be charitable to those who need it, but not to allow the government to serve in this role.
I work with a flaming liberal and it makes for a hostile work enviroment. He is a bull in a china shop when it comes to his views and opinions, and forget a rational and intelligent discussion. Our main issue has been RKBA. He believes that all guns should go, except of course for the police who should be completely unrestricted to carry and use. He believes that common folk are too stupid to own firearms and furthermore, if you own a gun, you are "just itching to kill someone".
I have tried to counter his emotional propaganda with facts, but he just screeches louder. The more factual my argument, or the more sense my argument makes, the more frenzied he gets. These encounters usually end with him vilifying me and my beliefs.
A common refrain from him and other liberals that I have encountered, is how open minded and enlightened they are. When someone presents you with a truth that you choose not to accept, wailing and deriding the person and/or the truth does not make you an open minded or enlightened person. It makes you exactly what you are accusing the other person of being.
I have tried to counter his emotional propaganda with facts, but he just screeches louder. The more factual my argument, or the more sense my argument makes, the more frenzied he gets. These encounters usually end with him vilifying me and my beliefs.
A common refrain from him and other liberals that I have encountered, is how open minded and enlightened they are. When someone presents you with a truth that you choose not to accept, wailing and deriding the person and/or the truth does not make you an open minded or enlightened person. It makes you exactly what you are accusing the other person of being.
USN_JWS
Very well stated...
Redworm
And when they do use it they are less rabid and they tend to feel a little twinge of guilt... Liberals don't recognize that "feeling"...
Thanks for asking...
The Democrats have had the "controlling vote" in one or both houses of Congress for about five or six decades... When Bush was elected the Republicans also got a very marginal, minimum majority in both houses for the first time in several decades...
For "one brief, shining moment"... the Conservatives thought there was a chance at real reform...
The "Liberal Left" (Having seen the writing on the wall.) began a systematic propaganda scheme to bring the Bush Administration and the Republican Party down... and they convinced the general public that there was a "vast RIGHT wing conspiracy" supposedly started in the Clinton years.
Goebels, Hitler's right-hand-man and Chief of Propaganda, said that...
"You can say anything, often enough, long enough, and in enough different ways... and the people will come to believe it".
...and to our great consternation... Bush actually went "all in" with all the chips and the whole damned farm.
He played right into their hands...
So much for "Texas Hold 'em"...
Very well stated...
Redworm
Yes...
And when they do use it they are less rabid and they tend to feel a little twinge of guilt... Liberals don't recognize that "feeling"...
Now that's an respectful and open-minded question...
Thanks for asking...
The Democrats have had the "controlling vote" in one or both houses of Congress for about five or six decades... When Bush was elected the Republicans also got a very marginal, minimum majority in both houses for the first time in several decades...
For "one brief, shining moment"... the Conservatives thought there was a chance at real reform...
The "Liberal Left" (Having seen the writing on the wall.) began a systematic propaganda scheme to bring the Bush Administration and the Republican Party down... and they convinced the general public that there was a "vast RIGHT wing conspiracy" supposedly started in the Clinton years.
Goebels, Hitler's right-hand-man and Chief of Propaganda, said that...
"You can say anything, often enough, long enough, and in enough different ways... and the people will come to believe it".
...and to our great consternation... Bush actually went "all in" with all the chips and the whole damned farm.
He played right into their hands...
So much for "Texas Hold 'em"...
Well I can't say I agree with you. When conservatives talk of the bible as a scientific theory, complain about other languages being taught in school and pretend it's not about xenophobia, claim that their "traditional values" are not about forcing others to follow the rules of their religion, whine about the drug war while consuming crappy beer and puffing on cigars...sounds pretty rabid to me. And I don't see how you or anyone else can claim to know how much guilt anyone else feels. You are no mind reader.
could ya back that up? when was the last time democrats had the veto-capable majority you brought up in both houses?
The Bush Administration brought itself down with a stupid, illegal and unjustified war. The Republican party brought itself down with ridiculous attempts to pull the nation's attention away from said stupid, illegal and unjustified war by pretending that flag burning and gay marriage were a threat to society.
The Federal Government's roll is very simple...
And it should not be involved in the business of the States...
Education, Welfare, Local Militia (NG), local disasters (Katrina) and many other things... like supporting the arts, financing special studies, enacting laws in the courts (Ninth Circus), and inviting every Non-American and many Anti-Americans into this country UNCHALLENGED.
The Liberal's have often complained that Conservatives believe in the "Trickle down stystem"... The richer the rich, the richer the rest of the world will be...
And they deride this point of view as being discriminatory...
Yet... they are in favor of open borders so that all the "poor and down-trodden" can come and partake of the "trickle down system"...
This is the ONLY nation in the world where open imigration exists... and we can't even begin to control it... The Liberals will not co-operate... and the law is only applicable when it suits their purposes...
Redworm
More propaganda...
English, Spanish, German, French and Latin are all available to the pupils in our public schools...
The "complaint" is that we are expected, nay...demanded, to "teach" the cirriculum in the language of the student...
Well let's see here... Going back since 1951, a "controlling" majority as you say (2/3 majority) is 290 members in the House. Democrats have had "control" of the House for three legislative sessions (out of twenty-five sessions of two years of length each) between 1951 and 2000 by that definition (only 218 is needed for a simple majority, and they only lacked that once before 1995 [so this is out of twenty-two sessions now]; of course with sitting Republican presidents for thirteen of their "majority" sessions, their effect would be lessened).
In the Senate, they've had a 2/3 majority for two legislative sessions in the same period of time, and 50% or more all but four times before 1995. Ten of their simple majority sessions were under a Republican president. Seven of their legislative sessions put them at having enough votes to end debate in the Senate.
The number of sessions where they have either controlled both houses with a simple majority with a Democratic president and the ability to end debate in the Senate or both houses with a Republican president and a veto-proof majority totals out to five sessions (Kennedy, Johnson, and one Carter session).
This is fact, not spin or doubletalk. If you would like to question the truth of my statistics, they are posted at a table at the bottom of this page (which I must admit I didn't bother reading the rest of) and you can point out sessions that are either incorrect or I miscounted.
The Republican majorities of 2001-2006 were indeed weaker than the majorities the Democrats enjoyed during the 1951-2000 years, but the Democrats only really had control of a fifth of those fifty years.
In the Senate, they've had a 2/3 majority for two legislative sessions in the same period of time, and 50% or more all but four times before 1995. Ten of their simple majority sessions were under a Republican president. Seven of their legislative sessions put them at having enough votes to end debate in the Senate.
The number of sessions where they have either controlled both houses with a simple majority with a Democratic president and the ability to end debate in the Senate or both houses with a Republican president and a veto-proof majority totals out to five sessions (Kennedy, Johnson, and one Carter session).
This is fact, not spin or doubletalk. If you would like to question the truth of my statistics, they are posted at a table at the bottom of this page (which I must admit I didn't bother reading the rest of) and you can point out sessions that are either incorrect or I miscounted.
The Republican majorities of 2001-2006 were indeed weaker than the majorities the Democrats enjoyed during the 1951-2000 years, but the Democrats only really had control of a fifth of those fifty years.
Edits beget edits.
I was incorrect due to a miscount, and I apoligize. During one of Carter's sessions and Truman's session the Democrats lacked the ability to end debate in the Senate, so they have only had the ability to ramrod legislation through Congress for ten of those fifty years.
I was incorrect due to a miscount, and I apoligize. During one of Carter's sessions and Truman's session the Democrats lacked the ability to end debate in the Senate, so they have only had the ability to ramrod legislation through Congress for ten of those fifty years.
A simple majority gets the party the power to control committees...and who is selected to be the head of those committees...
And thus control, or delay, what comes to the floor for debate or vote...
There is more than one way to skin this cat... it still seems to me that the Liberals have had more, and more, and more, "control" over what went on in the Legislature than Republicans.
I may not be perfectly accurate with the percentages and numbers...
but lopsided power is still lopsided... regardless the reasons.
And thus control, or delay, what comes to the floor for debate or vote...
There is more than one way to skin this cat... it still seems to me that the Liberals have had more, and more, and more, "control" over what went on in the Legislature than Republicans.
I may not be perfectly accurate with the percentages and numbers...
but lopsided power is still lopsided... regardless the reasons.
Yeah, a simple majority in the House gives you the power to stall all you want (basically). But to actually PASS anything, you need to avoid a veto or be able to overpower it, and that only happened for five terms. So while the Democrats clearly had the advantage for that long stretch of time, it's far from being able to enact everything they wished during that period of time.
And this is ignoring the annoying fact that I'm pretty sure that this was before the re-alignment of conservatives into the Republican party occured, meaning a good portion of your Democrats would have been conservative (judging from this semi-unrelated table I'm looking at in a book, I'd wager the realignment wasn't really over until the eighties). Now that the parties are polarized, you're looking at a 1.2 D:R ratio in the voting populace (i.e. six Democrats for every five Republicans).
And I must say that this is a much more pleasant conversation than we've been having previously in the thread.
And this is ignoring the annoying fact that I'm pretty sure that this was before the re-alignment of conservatives into the Republican party occured, meaning a good portion of your Democrats would have been conservative (judging from this semi-unrelated table I'm looking at in a book, I'd wager the realignment wasn't really over until the eighties). Now that the parties are polarized, you're looking at a 1.2 D:R ratio in the voting populace (i.e. six Democrats for every five Republicans).
And I must say that this is a much more pleasant conversation than we've been having previously in the thread.
Agreed... my family was Conservative Democrat until the Reagan years and we were part of the trans-migration.
I, personally, was angry that elected Democrats were willingly aligning themselves with, or at least riding the same wave with, the Socialist Left...
It meant a great deal to me to hear Democrat Zell Miller's speach at the Republican National Convention... he expressed much the same sentiments...
My apologies (It seems I'm doing a lot of that lately)... I am getting punchy from all the Liberal Propaganda and I was apparently wrong in seeing you as one of "them".
Even when I compliment one of them for an open-minded question... it turns out that he didn't really mean to be open-minded at all...
Gotta go now... I'll check back with the thread a little later... Thanks for the educational experience...
Last edited:
Heh, no worries about everything, and you're quite welcome for the mild lecture (I'm currently studying for a Political Science major, and no I don't seek to become a politician 
).
And naw, I'm not one of "them."
I may sound liberal in comparison to the typical supporter of guns, but I'd be far more well-described as a moderate. I'm clearly not lock-step on the "prisons as punishment/deterrent" method of crime control, for instance, but I'd be the first to try to slap some sense into somebody who told us that locking people up in prison served no purpose. But we've already been over that discussion, haven't we? 
).And naw, I'm not one of "them."
I may sound liberal in comparison to the typical supporter of guns, but I'd be far more well-described as a moderate. I'm clearly not lock-step on the "prisons as punishment/deterrent" method of crime control, for instance, but I'd be the first to try to slap some sense into somebody who told us that locking people up in prison served no purpose. But we've already been over that discussion, haven't we? Flaw
Without getting into the political debate (at this time), I would like to point out what I consider a flaw in the original poster's premise.
"Shouldn't there be a law....." We are in the fix we are in today because of generations of people saying "There should be a law...." whenever they percieved an injustice or inequality.
Every single issue group has people screaming "There ought to be a law...", and an awful lot of them have gotten laws. The drawback is that laws have unintended consequences.
But almost nobody bothers to examine the potential for harm even a "good" law can do. And since laws almost never go off the books, we just keep getting more and more piled on.
Is it a good idea that voters should know (and agree) with the positions of the candidates? Certainly. Should it be a law? I don't think so. Remember, everything can be abused.
Without getting into the political debate (at this time), I would like to point out what I consider a flaw in the original poster's premise.
"Shouldn't there be a law....." We are in the fix we are in today because of generations of people saying "There should be a law...." whenever they percieved an injustice or inequality.
Every single issue group has people screaming "There ought to be a law...", and an awful lot of them have gotten laws. The drawback is that laws have unintended consequences.
But almost nobody bothers to examine the potential for harm even a "good" law can do. And since laws almost never go off the books, we just keep getting more and more piled on.
Is it a good idea that voters should know (and agree) with the positions of the candidates? Certainly. Should it be a law? I don't think so. Remember, everything can be abused.
- Status