Pretty good read on what may happen if Obama wins, in combination with a majority in the Senate.

A Liberal Supermajority
Get ready for 'change' we haven't seen since 1965, or 1933.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122420205889842989.html?mod=rss_opinion_main

Quote :

"If the current polls hold, Barack Obama will win the White House on November 4 and Democrats will consolidate their Congressional majorities, probably with a filibuster-proof Senate or very close to it. Without the ability to filibuster, the Senate would become like the House, able to pass whatever the majority wants. [Review & Outlook] AP Though we doubt most Americans realize it, this would be one of the most profound political and ideological shifts in U.S. history. Liberals would dominate the entire government in a way they haven't since 1965, or 1933. In other words, the election would mark the restoration of the activist government that fell out of public favor in the 1970s. If the U.S. really is entering a period of unchecked left-wing ascendancy, Americans at least ought to understand what they will be getting, especially with the media cheering it all on. The nearby table shows the major bills that passed the House this year or last before being stopped by the Senate minority. Keep in mind that the most important power of the filibuster is to shape legislation, not merely to block it. The threat of 41 committed Senators can cause the House to modify its desires even before legislation comes to a vote. Without that restraining power, all of the following have very good chances of becoming law in 2009 or 2010. [Review & Outlook] - Medicare for all. When HillaryCare cratered in 1994, the Democrats concluded they had overreached, so they carved up the old agenda into smaller incremental steps, such as Schip for children. A strongly Democratic Congress is now likely to lay the final flagstones on the path to government-run health insurance from cradle to grave. Mr. Obama wants to build a public insurance program, modeled after Medicare and open to everyone of any income. According to the Lewin Group, the gold standard of health policy analysis, the Obama plan would shift between 32 million and 52 million from private coverage to the huge new entitlement. Like Medicare or the Canadian system, this would never be repealed. The commitments would start slow, so as not to cause immediate alarm. But as U.S. health-care spending flowed into the default government options, taxes would have to rise or services would be rationed, or both. Single payer is the inevitable next step, as Mr. Obama has already said is his ultimate ideal. - The business climate. "We have some harsh decisions to make," Speaker Nancy Pelosi warned recently, speaking about retribution for the financial panic. Look for a replay of the Pecora hearings of the 1930s, with Henry Waxman, John Conyers and Ed Markey sponsoring ritual hangings to further their agenda to control more of the private economy. The financial industry will get an overhaul in any case, but telecom, biotech and drug makers, among many others, can expect to be investigated and face new, more onerous rules. See the "Issues and Legislation" tab on Mr. Waxman's Web site for a not-so-brief target list. The danger is that Democrats could cause the economic downturn to last longer than it otherwise will by enacting regulatory overkill like Sarbanes-Oxley. Something more punitive is likely as well, for instance a windfall profits tax on oil, and maybe other industries. - Union supremacy. One program certain to be given right of way is "card check." Unions have been in decline for decades, now claiming only 7.4% of the private-sector work force, so Big Labor wants to trash the secret-ballot elections that have been in place since the 1930s. The "Employee Free Choice Act" would convert workplaces into union shops merely by gathering signatures from a majority of employees, which means organizers could strongarm those who opposed such a petition. The bill also imposes a compulsory arbitration regime that results in an automatic two-year union "contract" after 130 days of failed negotiation. The point is to force businesses to recognize a union whether the workers support it or not. This would be the biggest pro-union shift in the balance of labor-management power since the Wagner Act of 1935. - Taxes. Taxes will rise substantially, the only question being how high. Mr. Obama would raise the top income, dividend and capital-gains rates for "the rich," substantially increasing the cost of new investment in the U.S. More radically, he wants to lift or eliminate the cap on income subject to payroll taxes that fund Medicare and Social Security. This would convert what was meant to be a pension insurance program into an overt income redistribution program. It would also impose a probably unrepealable increase in marginal tax rates, and a permanent shift upward in the federal tax share of GDP. - The green revolution. A tax-and-regulation scheme in the name of climate change is a top left-wing priority. Cap and trade would hand Congress trillions of dollars in new spending from the auction of carbon credits, which it would use to pick winners and losers in the energy business and across the economy. Huge chunks of GDP and millions of jobs would be at the mercy of Congress and a vast new global-warming bureaucracy. Without the GOP votes to help stage a filibuster, Senators from carbon-intensive states would have less ability to temper coastal liberals who answer to the green elites. - Free speech and voting rights. A liberal supermajority would move quickly to impose procedural advantages that could cement Democratic rule for years to come. One early effort would be national, election-day voter registration. This is a long-time goal of Acorn and others on the "community organizer" left and would make it far easier to stack the voter rolls. The District of Columbia would also get votes in Congress -- Democratic, naturally. Felons may also get the right to vote nationwide, while the Fairness Doctrine is likely to be reimposed either by Congress or the Obama FCC. A major goal of the supermajority left would be to shut down talk radio and other voices of political opposition. - Special-interest potpourri. Look for the watering down of No Child Left Behind testing standards, as a favor to the National Education Association. The tort bar's ship would also come in, including limits on arbitration to settle disputes and watering down the 1995 law limiting strike suits. New causes of legal action would be sprinkled throughout most legislation. The anti-antiterror lobby would be rewarded with the end of Guantanamo and military commissions, which probably means trying terrorists in civilian courts. Google and MoveOn.org would get "net neutrality" rules, subjecting the Internet to intrusive regulation for the first time. It's always possible that events -- such as a recession -- would temper some of these ambitions. Republicans also feared the worst in 1993 when Democrats ran the entire government, but it didn't turn out that way. On the other hand, Bob Dole then had 43 GOP Senators to support a filibuster, and the entire Democratic Party has since moved sharply to the left. Mr. Obama's agenda is far more liberal than Bill Clinton's was in 1992, and the Southern Democrats who killed Al Gore's BTU tax and modified liberal ambitions are long gone. In both 1933 and 1965, liberal majorities imposed vast expansions of government that have never been repealed, and the current financial panic may give today's left another pretext to return to those heydays of welfare-state liberalism. Americans voting for "change" should know they may get far more than they ever imagined."

10/18/2008 12:16:54 PM

The results of democratic majority will be a cohesive government capable of taking action on the environment, getting us out of Iraq responsibly, getting us off a fossil fuel addiction, and working on the economy. If they don't get this majority then the republicans will have to oppose Obama's initiatives as president so they can try to make him look ineffective in hopes that he wont get re-elected. Our country survived for around 150 years without much divided government, so it is nothing new, and nothing we can't handle, and in some ways it will be good for making an effective, efficient government.

10/18/2008 12:36:31 PM

This has already been posted in 218375401295 threads.

And it's ridiculous in its hyperbole. Let's just keep in mind that this is the paper that caters to the people who got us in the current mess we're in.

10/18/2008 12:42:33 PM

I don't understand how this can even be considered a valid argument. The best argument to not vote for Obama is the fact that Republicans have fucked up so bad over the past 8 years and have let the Democrats get possible supermajority?

10/18/2008 1:18:17 PM

but guys

it's all part of the LIBERAL CONSPIRACY

they hate america and with a supermajority, they will put in place their plans to destroy it

10/18/2008 1:22:24 PM

Quote :

"The results of democratic majority will be a cohesive government capable of taking action on the environment, getting us out of Iraq responsibly, getting us off a fossil fuel addiction, and working on the economy. If they don't get this majority then the republicans will have to oppose Obama's initiatives as president so they can try to make him look ineffective in hopes that he wont get re-elected. Our country survived for around 150 years without much divided government, so it is nothing new, and nothing we can't handle, and in some ways it will be good for making an effective, efficient government."

So I assume this post is fair game when the eventual supermajority does in fact roll around and we still don't see shit done about say, civil liberties, out-of-control governmental spending, etc? All because, despite the fact that Democrats have held a majority in Congress for 2 years now, they've failed to do shit about anything, and thus enjoy even lower approval ratings than the current president?

And all because, "But we just need more Democrats!" And "This is all the Republicans' fault!"

10/18/2008 1:44:40 PM

the congressional democrat leadership has been shit-tastic

pelosi can suck my nuts

we wanted democrats who would stand up to the bush administration but all we got was talk.

[Edited on October 18, 2008 at 1:49 PM. Reason : .]

10/18/2008 1:48:29 PM

rabble rabble rabble they'll ruin the country!

rabble rabble rabble they won't change a thing!

10/18/2008 1:48:53 PM

^ They've had two years. What the fuck do they have to show for it?

Other than your incessant partisan cheerleading, that is.

"Remember kids - the Republicans will always be worse!"

10/18/2008 1:50:03 PM

And yet we're supposed to fear them in power? Isn't that the point of this thread?

10/18/2008 1:53:27 PM

Wait a minute, so is the problem that the democrats would try to change too many things, or that they're not changing enough things? I'm confused.

10/18/2008 1:53:46 PM

There's two independent arguments being made.

The first is, by stock Republicans and so forth, that there is something to fear from a Democratic supermajority.

The second, made by independents who value things like civil liberties (something the useful idiots of this forum rah-rahing the Democrats couldn't give two squirts of piss about) saying the Democrats won't do shit on the matter - something which comes as a rejoinder to the argument that somehow the coming Democratic supermajority will "do something.". And, given the last two years, the former group of people (such as myself) have the weight of evidence behind them thus so far.

Meanwhile, we get entreated to plaintive wailing about how we just need more and better Democrats than the useless bunch of dicklickers currently in charge of both houses of Congress right now.

10/18/2008 2:00:51 PM

Quote :

"who value things like civil liberties (something the useful idiots of this forum rah-rahing the Democrats couldn't give two squirts of piss about)"

wait, wait...

what?

What universe are you living in? Patriot Act? Gay Marriage? Church and State? When have Democrats been on the wrong site of civil liberties? The worst you can indict them with is that they let the Republicans roll them over on these issues.

10/18/2008 2:04:18 PM

I love how its gone downhill in the past 8 years, but

Quote :

"All because, despite the fact that Democrats have held a majority in Congress for 2 years now, they've failed to do shit about anything, and thus enjoy even lower approval ratings than the current president?"

Destruction is always quicker and easier than construction.

10/18/2008 2:14:13 PM

Quote :

"What universe are you living in? Patriot Act? Gay Marriage? Church and State? When have Democrats been on the wrong site of civil liberties? The worst you can indict them with is that they let the Republicans roll them over on these issues."

You are so fucking full of shit it's coming out of your ears. Seriously.

USA PATRIOT Act: 98-1-0 in the Senate. But oh! In 2001, Democrats had 1 seat, right?

PATRIOT Act Renewal, March 2006 - passes both houses again. Let's see now... must have been totally Republicans' doing again. Despite the Senate going to Democratic control as early as 2004, and the House in 2006. Right. All Republicans.

Retroactive Telecom Immunity - passed the House and Senate. But oh again - the Democrats clearly didn't have a majority, right?

Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 - 1996... Republican President?

Defense of Marriage Act - oh, well let's see here - 1996, so again - Republican President?

Meanwhile, Joe Biden is running on the Republican ticket, right?

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10024163-38.html?tag=newsLeadStoriesArea.0

I mean, just checking here.

10/18/2008 2:17:09 PM

Quote :

"The worst you can indict them with is that they let the Republicans roll them over on these issues."

How many times have we heard Democrats rail against the Patriot Act? Did you really expect them to oppose the -Patriot- Act immediately after 9/11?

You're being extremely selective about who you blame these things on.

Plus, the fact that they've done nothing in regards to civil liberties means they're already light years ahead of the Republicans, who certainly did "get things done" in regards to civil liberties in 2001-2006.

[Edited on October 18, 2008 at 2:27 PM. Reason : ]

10/18/2008 2:20:37 PM

So how many goddamned times do the Democrats have to get "rolled over" on civil liberties issues before one can claim that they are in fact accessories? What the hell do you think voting to roll on Civil Liberties exactly means, here? "Oh gnoes, the Republicans tricked us again!" Are you even being serious here?

But okay. Oh, those nasty Republicans are so clever, they trick all those honest Democrats into selling us up the river on civil liberties. Well, whew - good thing that they're not in the majority of both houses of Congress anymore, right? So let's get to work undoing the damage we've done.

No? Not even a peep from The Lightworker? Oh. Guess civil liberties aren't so important after all.

Which make sense when you're an accomplice to the very same act of trashing them. Or, in Biden's case, a chief antagonist.

http://www.tnr.com/columnists/story.html?id=ba9b09bb-ed01-4582-b6ec-444834c9df73&k=93697

But Democrats have never acted negatively on civil liberties, right?

(Oh, and call me when even one Democrat proposes meaningful reductions on the War on Drugs. Unlike, say, your VP pick, one of the most gung-ho drug warriors in the Senate.)

[Edited on October 18, 2008 at 2:28 PM. Reason : .]

10/18/2008 2:27:33 PM

Ok, I think I'm missing your point.

You're conceding the point that Democrats are better at civil liberties, but you're arguing that because they didn't take a stand often enough, the party that's worse (R) on civil liberties should remain in power?

10/18/2008 2:33:52 PM

Quote :

"Ok, I think I'm missing your point."

Clearly, you are.

Quote :

"You're conceding the point that Democrats are better at civil liberties, but you're arguing that because they didn't take a stand often enough, the party that's worse (R) on civil liberties should remain in power?"

Not in the slightest, on either count.

The fact is, Democrats have been just as happy to act as accessories to trashing civil liberties when the prevailing political winds suit them. They've been doing that as far back as Clinton. Some, like Biden (which, remind me - Republican?), actually brag about sponsoring bills which in later iterations would become things like the PATRIOT Act. (Or Biden's other brainchild, the RAVE Act.) Others simply bitch about the issue then turn around and vote for these intrusions anyway, like retroactive immunity for telecom providers who provided illegal wiretapping.

Which pretty much reduces your case to, "Well at least they didn't lead the charge on trashing civil liberties!" Which both requires you to start throwing out some data points (like Biden, J. and Lieberman, J.) and grade on a pretty severe curve.

With that being said, it would appear my original point has already been conceded, then - the Democrats aren't going to do shit on civil liberties, even if they do get a supermajority - because while they love bitching about it around election time, the only time they get around to voting on the matter is when they support yet another ratcheting down of our protections.

We've had two years and seen nothing as far as undoing the damage - one might begin to suspect that the whole uproar is simply an election-time ruse designed to get voters like you saying exactly what you're saying - "But you don't want the Republicans in charge, do you?"

You don't a passing grade by not failing as badly as the other guy. Especially when your own failures consist of helping that guy.

10/18/2008 2:43:01 PM

Quote :

"We've had two years and seen nothing"

Which is significantly better than the "something" we saw in 2001-2006, no?


And you really haven't explained how the Democrats should go about taking on issues like the Patriot Act when Bush would veto such legislation in a heartbeat. I mean, just give me a scenario in which the Democrats could try something, right now, and succeed.

If this WSJ piece got anything right, it's that a supermajority will change things.

[Edited on October 18, 2008 at 2:48 PM. Reason : ]

10/18/2008 2:47:27 PM

Quote :

"Which is significantly better than the "something" we saw in 2001-2006, no?"

That's like saying a 2x4 will feel pretty good after I pull this railroad tie out of your ass.

10/18/2008 2:49:35 PM

Well then give us an example of how the Dems could have succeeded with <60 senators and Bush in office.

10/18/2008 2:51:35 PM

Quote :

"Which is significantly better than the "something" we saw in 2001-2006, no?"

You tell me - as the Democrats were just as happy in 2001-2006 to vote for these steaming piles. What exactly does that say about them?

"Well, at least we didn't introduce those steaming piles!"

Quote :

"And you really haven't explained how the Democrats should go about taking on issues like the Patriot Act when Bush would veto such legislation in a heartbeat."

Yeah, uh - haven't even tried. Let's see them force a showdown on the issue. Let's see Bush actually veto something - something he didn't even do in his first term.

Even when there's something new coming down the pike, they still vote for it. PATRIOT Act renewal? Would have expired had it not passed. Veto threat is impotent here. Democrats still vote for it. Retroactive telecom immunity? New provision. Veto threat impotent here.

Seeing a trend yet, or should I go on?

Quote :

"If this WSJ piece got anything right, it's that a supermajority will change things."

Keep dreaming. "Yes we can! (Roll over on civil liberties like a bunch of useless dicklickers and then complain about it later)"

10/18/2008 2:52:20 PM

Quote :

"Well then give us an example of how the Dems could have succeeded with <60 senators and Bush in office."

Easy. Let's start with not voting to renew the PATRIOT Act and not voting for Telecom immunity.

Were those too hard or just tooooo scaaawwy for the Democrats currently in Congress?

10/18/2008 2:53:29 PM

If only the Patriot Act were a simple issue of yes or no.

We need a lot of stuff in the Act.

Now if the Dems were to rewrite it, leaving out many elements that Bush considered essential, what would've happened?


It would've been nice to vote against it in order to take a stand on certain elements within it, but they did that with the war funding bill. Nothing was accomplished, and they're still being beaten over the head with it.


[Edited on October 18, 2008 at 3:08 PM. Reason : ]

10/18/2008 3:03:40 PM

Hey look, another issue where Democrats can't be bothered to take a stand - their bete noir, the Iraq War!

Can't be bothered to actually force a showdown with the president on that one - oh gnoes, support the troops!

10/18/2008 3:10:42 PM

All of the things in that article are great news except the conservative opinions of the author. America will likely return to being the greatest country on earth. Lets get it started!

10/18/2008 3:17:41 PM

My position on the supermajority issue is that I hope the Dems get both houses and the Presidency in such a way that they can do whatever they want, for one particular reason.

There will be no room to bitch about ANYTHING if they don't change things.

Right now and for the last several years they have had excuses for why certain things couldn't get done. Some of those I feel are valid, and others are spurious bullshit. When the opposition party doesn't have the ability to create any sort of gridlock, I know that can be dangerous and one group can run rampant, but at the same time they must shoulder all the responsibility for failure.

Some people see the different branches being under opposite control as balance, I see it as a way for both sides to make excuses for failures. If the Democrats don't succeed, then they will be voted out in the next election. If they get things done, then good for everyone.

(Incidentally, I am an unaffiliated voter who usually leans democrat, in case you are wondering about my "bias".)

10/18/2008 3:22:39 PM

A good article (IMO) by Pat Buchanan:

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=78333

Quote :

"The Barack backlash Posted: October 17, 2008 5:13 pm Eastern © 2008 As Americans render what Catholics call temporal judgment on George Bush, are they aware of the radical course correction they are about to make? This center-right country is about to vastly strengthen a liberal Congress whose approval rating is 10 percent and implant in Washington a regime further to the left than any in U.S. history. Consider. As of today, Speaker Nancy Pelosi, the San Francisco Democrat, anticipates gains of 15-30 seats. Sen. Harry Reid, whose partisanship grates even on many in his own party, may see his caucus expand to a filibuster-proof majority where he can ignore Republican dissent. Headed for the White House is the most left-wing member of the Senate, according to the National Journal. To the vice president's mansion is headed Joe Biden, third-most liberal as ranked by the National Journal, ahead of No. 4, Vermont Socialist Bernie Sanders. What will this mean to America? An administration that is either at war with its base or at war with the nation. America may desperately desire to close the book on the Bush presidency. Yet there is, as of now, no hard evidence it has embraced Obama, his ideology, or agenda. Indeed, his campaign testifies, by its policy shifts, that it is fully aware the nation is still resisting the idea of an Obama presidency. In the later primaries, even as a panicked media were demanding that Hillary drop out of the race, she consistently routed Obama in Ohio and Pennsylvania and crushed him in West Virginia and Kentucky. By April and May, the Democratic Party was manifesting all the symptoms of buyer's remorse over how it had voted in January and February. Obama's convention put him eight points up. But, as soon as America heard Sarah Palin in St. Paul, the Republicans shot up 10 points and seemed headed for victory. What brought about the Obama-Biden resurgence was nothing Obama and Biden did, but the mid-September crash of Fannie, Freddie, Lehman Brothers, AIG, the stock market, where $4 trillion was wiped out, the $700 billion bailout of Wall Street that enraged Middle America – and John McCain's classically inept handling of the crisis. In short, Obama has still not closed the sale. Every time America takes a second look at him, it has second thoughts, and backs away. Even after the media have mocked and pilloried Palin and ceded Obama and Biden victory in all four debates, the nation, according to Gallup, is slowly moving back toward the Republican ticket. Moreover, Obama knows Middle America harbors deep suspicions of him. Thus, he has jettisoned the rhetoric about the "fierce urgency of now," and "We are the people we've been waiting for," even as he has jettisoned position after position to make himself acceptable. His "flip-flops" testify most convincingly to the fact that Obama knows that where he comes from is far outside the American mainstream. For what are flip-flops other than concessions that a position is untenable and must be abandoned? Flip-flopping reveals the prime meridian of presidential politics. If an analyst will collate all the positions to which all the candidates move, he will find himself close to the true center of national politics. Thus, though he is the nominee of a party that is in thrall to the environmental movement, Obama has signaled conditional support for offshore drilling and pumping out of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. While holding to his pledge for a pullout of combat brigades from Iraq in 16 months, he has talked of "refining" his position and of a residual U.S. force to train the Iraqi army and deal with al-Qaida. On Afghanistan, he has called for 10,000 more troops and U.S. strikes in Pakistan to kill bin Laden, even without prior notice or the permission of the Pakistani government. Since securing the nomination, Obama has adopted the Scalia position on the death penalty for child rape and the right to keep a handgun in the home. He voted to give the telecoms immunity from prosecution for colluding in Bush wiretaps. This onetime sympathizer of the Palestinians now does a passable imitation of Ariel Sharon. No Democrat has ever come out of the far left of his party to win the presidency. McGovern, the furthest left, stayed true to his convictions and lost 49 states. Obama has chosen another course. Though he comes out of the McGovern-Jesse Jackson left, he has shed past positions like support for partial-birth abortion as fast as he has shed past associations, from William Ayers to ACORN, from the Rev. Jeremiah Wright to his fellow parishioners at Trinity United. One question remains: Will a President Obama, with his party in absolute control of both Houses, revert to the politics and policies of the left that brought him the nomination, or resist his ex-comrades' demands that he seize the hour and impose the agenda ACORN, Ayers, Jesse and Wright have long dreamed of? Whichever way he decides, he will be at war with them, or at war with us. If Barack wins, a backlash is coming. "

10/18/2008 3:41:17 PM

Buchanan's right

there's some people who can't wait to try get a shot off

10/18/2008 6:05:07 PM

Quote :

"Hey look, another issue where Democrats can't be bothered to take a stand - their bete noir, the Iraq War! Can't be bothered to actually force a showdown with the president on that one - oh gnoes, support the troops!"

I guess you don't remember the shit storm that was stirred up when they -did- have a showdown with the president.

10/18/2008 6:12:02 PM

what i dont understand, is how the goverment allows the communist media to perpetrate itself into our lives...isnt communism illegal or something?

10/18/2008 6:27:31 PM

Quote :

"I guess you don't remember the shit storm that was stirred up when they -did- have a showdown with the president."

If that is what you call a "showdown" then no wonder the Democrats have been completely useless as both a minority and then a majority party over the last decade.

Democrats: "Hey - at least we're not Republicans!"

10/18/2008 6:46:18 PM

^ You're an idiot.

10/18/2008 6:52:25 PM

Astounding rejoinder there, sir. Up to par with the level of a rank-and-file Democrat, to be sure.

10/18/2008 7:30:22 PM

You actually asserted that the Bush-Democrat showdown over Iraq War funding was a minor event.

You're an idiot.

10/18/2008 7:36:43 PM

Quote :

"If that is what you call a "showdown" then no wonder the Democrats have been completely useless as both a minority and then a majority party over the last decade. Democrats: "Hey - at least we're not Republicans!""

If you have the choice of picking the people who were worthless and the people who messed everything up, how could you not pick the worthless ones?

10/18/2008 7:46:41 PM

Quote :

"You actually asserted that the Bush-Democrat showdown over Iraq War funding was a minor event. You're an idiot."

No, actually I argued that it was useless and ill-executed - they rolled over while getting zero concession.

But hey, I shouldn't expect anything more than that and "you're an idiot" from a burnt-out pothead like yourself. Sure do hope your blessed Obama/Biden administration doesn't throw your worthless stoner ass in prison. (Now wouldn't that be an irony of ironies!)

Quote :

"If you have the choice of picking the people who were worthless and the people who messed everything up, how could you not pick the worthless ones?"

Because "neither" is still an option. The key point to take away from this is like I said before - just because you fail less hard than the other guy (of whom you actively help in his failing) doesn't mean you're not a failure yourself. Life doesn't get graded on a curve.

[Edited on October 18, 2008 at 8:23 PM. Reason : .]

10/18/2008 8:23:21 PM

Quote :

"Life doesn't get graded on a curve."

Life doesn't get graded, period. It just is. Humans may grade or not grade as they please, but don't expect any consensus.

10/19/2008 12:07:05 AM

Liberal, conservative, I just want people who recognize and respect the SEPARATION of church and state.

10/19/2008 11:44:21 AM

Quote :

"Life doesn't get graded, period. It just is. Humans may grade or not grade as they please, but don't expect any consensus."

deep

10/19/2008 11:45:27 AM

^^ so, are you willing to take that to the logical extreme and remove any instance where the two collide, including science classes?

10/19/2008 3:08:56 PM

10/19/2008 3:11:51 PM

I'm just saying. in any case where the two collide, is he willing to rectify that by removing those situations. Not even going into the science/religion aspect. I'm just talking about generalities here.

most people who bitch and moan about "separation of church and state" are really just bitching about shit they don't understand. They are bitching that the instance they decry doesn't fit their desires, but they will happily ignore other instances which fit their desires.

10/19/2008 3:25:21 PM

Quote :

"USA PATRIOT Act: 98-1-0 in the Senate. But oh! In 2001, Democrats had 1 seat, right? "

you know just as well as I anyone voting against this in the wake of 9/11 would have been labeled as terrorist loving liberal pussies that don't want to take a stand against the terrorists.

10/19/2008 3:57:34 PM

10/19/2008 4:14:40 PM

well if we follow the path of russia or china, we'll become a military state?

[Edited on October 19, 2008 at 4:49 PM. Reason : +]

10/19/2008 4:48:23 PM

thats a pretty menacing flag.

10/19/2008 5:25:41 PM

My problem with this entire thread:


RAWR RAWR RAWR, THE REPUBLICANS SUCK!!!!

ergo

HUZZAH DEMOCRATS!!!!


The neoconservative movement was going to bankrupt us with a fascist policy of soft imperialism and more hard government intrusion into Civil Liberties. The new Liberalism movement will bankrupt us with protectionism, the soft intrusion of government programs, and will likely do nothing to restore our privacy.

10/19/2008 7:05:18 PM

Quote :

"The neoconservative movement was going to did bankrupt us with a fascist policy of soft imperialism and more hard government intrusion into Civil Liberties. The new Liberalism movement will might bankrupt us with protectionism, the soft intrusion of government programs, and will likely do nothing to restore our privacy."

fixed it for you imo

10/19/2008 7:56:27 PM