I am nervous about one party having control of the Congress and White House at the same.
In this election, for instance, a 60 seat majority would eliminate the possibility of filibuster for the Republicans on the floor of the senate.
As a result we could see some really outlandish legislation passed with no possibility of dissent.
Does the Idea of one party having complete, filibuster proof control over the Senate, and the Whitehouse, bother you?
Dissent is important in government.
If there is no dissent, or if the dissent has virtually no power, the party in power can be somewhat totalitarian.
This would be a great opportunity for Obama, if he has any extreme legislation he wants passed, it probably will in the next two years.
Granted I would rather see this situation with conservative politicians, but we just had a Republican congress and white house and we all know what a bang up job they did.
I get worried when either party has this much control. It creates an environment of reactionary legislation and we tend to go OH BOY! we can do what we want now, rather than focusing on balanced solutions that are utilitarian.
|
Does the Idea of a Democrati 60 seat senate 218 seat house, and white house both you? |
engrish?
unpossible. fixed.
it enjoy the unfamiliar prospect of shit getting done in congress… especially the systematic reversal of everything that happened in the last 8 years… starting with /guantanamo, /taxloopholes, /corporatesubsidies, /oilindustrythrowbacks, /bigbusinessderegulation, /kyotobailout, /calepadisenfranchisement, etc…
obviously, clearly, having one party dominate means it’ll be more bipartisan.
!!!
/lulz
Better than the republicans having the same power
hopefully they’ll repeal the patriot act and other such bills.
the bush administration did not deregulate business. they were complacent.
but my concern is not changing this that we done. its what happens after that. going off the deep end to the left, after they have undone what bush did.
Better than when the Republicans controlled the White House and Congress. Looks what a fucking mess our country is in
|
Better than the republicans having the same power
hopefully they’ll repeal the patriot act and other such bills. |
i see it as the same thing for both parties. it is not what they will repeal or take down with reactionary bills. It is what they have hiding in their back pocket to pass.
Like universal healthcare program that just puts us into such incredible debt and marginalizes the quality of healthcare in the country
we cannot speak to that until 2012
|
the bush administration did not deregulate business. they were complacent.
but my concern is not changing this that we done. its what happens after that. going off the deep end to the left, after they have undone what bush did. |
yea well reagan did and time made it very evident that ‘reaganomics’ was a load of shit. bush did drag us down with 8 years of supply-side and trickle-down horseshit though. obama is not an ideologue like reagan and bush 2, i doubt he’s going to lead the party to the ideological extreme. the guy seems more interested in restructuring the broken system, mending the cultural rift and returning this country to its true ideals. i have no doubt he means what he says too.
For a short period(an election cycle or two) I think it’s a great thing, thing will actually get done.
Of course! Nancy Pelosi said it, not me
i hope you are right. I am very skeptical of him going past that point and over the edge.
how are you not jaded to gop fearmongering rhetoric by now?
Say for hypothetical purposes, an example that concerns me: that the Democratic congress proposes something that is truly over the top or go on an unchallenged spending spree, like outlining a Trillion dollar health care system. Which we cannot afford.
Would you not want any dissent, like, maybe we can’t afford that and we have to put our ideologies aside and think of a more feasible solution.
I dont want to hear the argument about well the war cost us X, or the tax cuts cost us X. That money is already gone, how do you finance these ideas that you have Mr President and Mrs Congress.
I would want to know what there was opposition, that could at least bring further discussion if not enough to stop such a bill
I am not voting for McCain. I consider this GOP, the neocon GOP, not my GOP, to be as fiscally liberal as the democrats.
Our spending is unacceptable.
Socially I really have no qualms with abortion, rights, marriage, stem cell research, and all that. it is not my business.
I like national defense, america-first, nonintervention. I like hardworking america, my business is based on them. I like people who work hard to be rewarded regardless of their income, both high and low. I like a strong economy that does not rely on debt financing, but something concrete. I do believe that there are bad people out there that we have to keep our eyes out for, and respond appropriately to.
I enjoy the constitution.
Good poll… and an interesting question.
Obviously, "a balance of power" is the correct choice… but everybody feels good when their party has control… so when emotions get involved, more people would likely choose the second option.
That being said, the Dems will likely not gain the 60 seats they need. They will probably fall one or two short.
|
Say for hypothetical purposes, an example that concerns me: that the Democratic congress proposes something that is truly over the top or go on an unchallenged spending spree, like outlining a Trillion dollar health care system. Which we cannot afford.
Would you not want any dissent, like, maybe we can’t afford that and we have to put our ideologies aside and think of a more feasible solution. I dont want to hear the argument about well the war cost us X, or the tax cuts cost us X. That money is already gone, how do you finance these ideas that you have Mr President and Mrs Congress. I would want to know what there was opposition, that could at least bring further discussion if not enough to stop such a bill |
I think Obama has the type of temperment that allows him to listen to reason. Unlike bush, who would just not work with anyone who didn’t see it his way. Or Chaney’s way for that matter.
That being the case, I feel better knowing I have leader like Obama, who is willing to work together with others toward common goals. Granted, it’s early to tell, but if the way he ran his campaign is any indicator, Obama will be great at running the country and making the decisions that need to be made. A unified congress and executive branch has to be better than what we’ve had for the past 8 years.
|
Good poll… and an interesting question.
Obviously, "a balance of power" is the correct choice… but everybody feels good when their party has control… so when emotions get involved, more people would likely choose the second option. That being said, the Dems will likely not gain the 60 seats they need. They will probably fall one or two short. |
Emotions get in the way of reason. The emotional response to 9/11 spawned the Patriot Act, that had OVERWHELMING support when it was passed. It was reactionary policy that some now regret. It should be avoided.
I’m hoping the democrats will fall short of 60 (and/or Lieberman will leave the caucus).
I really DO NOT want a 60 seat democratic Senate. Nothing good will come of that.
agreed
I assume anyone bothered by this voted for Kerry in 2004?
not I. And unchecked majorities bother me
I tend to agree with more Republican policies than Democrat polices so not nearly as much.
|
I am not voting for McCain. I consider this GOP, the neocon GOP, not my GOP, to be as fiscally liberal as the democrats.
Our spending is unacceptable. Socially I really have no qualms with abortion, rights, marriage, stem cell research, and all that. I like national defense, america-first, nonintervention. I like hardworking america, my business is based on them. I like people who work hard to be rewarded regardless of their income, both high and low. I like a strong economy that does not rely on debt financing, but something concrete. I do believe that there are bad people out there that we have to keep our eyes out for, and respond appropriately to. I enjoy the constitution. |
i enjoy the constitution as well. and as a constitutional scholar, so does obama. he said yesterday on the brian williams interview that he interprets the 2nd amendment as an individual right and so there really is no threat of him stepping all over it as bush has done. he also outlined his criteria for nominating supreme court justices, which isn’t based on a leftist agenda.
|
I am not voting for McCain. I consider this GOP, the neocon GOP, not my GOP, to be as fiscally liberal as the democrats.
Our spending is unacceptable. Socially I really have no qualms with abortion, rights, marriage, stem cell research, and all that. it is not my business. I like national defense, america-first, nonintervention. I like hardworking america, my business is based on them. I like people who work hard to be rewarded regardless of their income, both high and low. I like a strong economy that does not rely on debt financing, but something concrete. I do believe that there are bad people out there that we have to keep our eyes out for, and respond appropriately to. I enjoy the constitution. |
That pretty much sums it up for me. Any single party majority is bad. Repubs or Dems. Its why in the end I had to vote McCain even though I didn’t want to.
entitled to his opinion of lesser evil. I wouldnt do it, but at least he is participating.
like I said before: I will have to wait and see. I do not know what to expect from him. I do not underestimate his raw intelligence and charisma, it is a very attractive quality, especially after this president. I can be told 9 ways to Sunday about the greatness of his intentions. I need to see 6 months of him to make a fair assessment. Because I usually will sit on the other side of the aisle, I am not gung-ho Obama by any measure.
No party should ever have complete control.
I’d be just as pissed with an R supermajority as much as a D supermajority.
Nope, it doesn’t. Let’s try doing things for a change instead of gridlock.
His votes in the Illinois State legislature and as a Senator fly direct in the face of that.
Such as?
there are several instances of this, hence my skepticism.
|
Better than the republicans having the same power
hopefully they’ll repeal the patriot act and other such bills. |
Yeah the Democrats really showed us how it’s done with the FISA vote… Oh wait.
important to my decision is the fact that obama’s head is capable of generating rational and fresh ideas, he is comfortable with dissenting opinion and his ego is impervious to personal attack, things that mccain/palin are demonstrably incapable of…
that was so summer ‘08, participate or
a lot of it comes down to policy for me.
Is Obama is smarter than McCain, probably.
Is Obama a better speaker, by a long shot.
Are both candidates pathetic in their respective pity parties and dumb TV ads, definitely.
Is Obama a new alternative to what we currently have? Yes.
Is it the right alternative? I’m not convinced.
Is McCain the same as Bush? No.
Does he have a similar voting record and core values about what america is? Yes
Is McCain sometimes not given a fair shot because of Bush? Yes.
Do I agree with more of McCain’s policies than Obama’s?
Yes.
Am I voting for either of them?
No.
What kind of person they are is a factor for me, but is it the deciding factor? No. Policy is.
Emfuser summed it up very well in a resent post. I am sure he will not mind me reposting this in the context of this thread for this discussion
|
Disclaimer: I’m not a McCain supporter.
Since this is a discussion about the executive office… It looks like that silly gun ban obama site is good for something. With a voting record like this, you’d have to be insane to believe that gun rights are not in jeopardy with this guy at the helm. FACT: Barack Obama opposes four of the five Supreme Court justices who affirmed an individual right to keep and bear arms. He voted against the confirmation of Alito and Roberts and he has stated he would not have appointed Thomas or Scalia. 17
1. United States Senate, S. 397, vote number 219, July 29, 2005. () |
Because that was my only reason for voting for McCain. Not like I had other things I agree with him on.
This thread was talking about one thing and thats what I talked about.
So fuck off you screw head
No, because the way I see it there’s still balance. From 2000-2006 there was a Republican government, pretty much. Now the Democrats will probably have it from 2006-2012, at least. It just goes back and forth.
On the basis of their positions on the 2nd amendment? Correlation != causation. This is irrelevant.
FACT: Barack Obama voted for an Illinois State Senate bill to ban and confiscate “assault weapons,” but the bill was so poorly crafted, it would have also banned most semi-auto and single and double barrel shotguns commonly used by sportsmen. 18
FACT: Barack Obama voted to allow reckless lawsuits designed to bankrupt the firearms industry. 1
FACT: Barack Obama wants to re-impose the failed and discredited Clinton Gun Ban. 15
FACT: Barack Obama voted to ban almost all rifle ammunition commonly used for hunting and sport shooting. 3
marketed to pierce body armor. Unless you’re hunting cops, it’s hard to paint this as a ban on hunting ammunition.
FACT: Barack Obama has endorsed a 500% increase in the federal excise tax on firearms and ammunition. 9
, and hardly seems credible. Moreover, even the blog claims this was limited to weapons most likely to be used in homicides.
FACT: Barack Obama has endorsed a complete ban on handgun ownership. 2
He denies this.
FACT: Barack Obama supports local gun bans in Chicago, Washington, D.C., and other cities. 4
There’s been a long standing argument by constitutional scholars about whether the second amendment referred simply to militias or it spoke to an individual right to possess arms. I think the latter is the better argument. There is an individual right to bear arms, but it is subject to common-sense regulation just like most of our rights are subject to common-sense regulation."
…not going to go through every one of these, but this compilation is obviously an extremely biased take on the matter that you tards are simply copying whole and taking at face value without checking the sources.
wow good info to have. I have my permits in the system right now.
what threw you? what would you have liked to see.
Yet another person who’ll be randomly recopying a misleading wall of text.
I stopped reading the list at "reckless lawsuits" ….
|
Yet another person who’ll be randomly recopying a misleading wall of text. |
His list has sources, yours does not.
AND
I haven’t copied shit. So shut your hole.
|
Better than the republicans having the same power
hopefully they’ll repeal the patriot act and other such bills. |
98-1, yeah that patriot act was soooooo republican.
-always in for a very frozen govt that gets little if anything done.
Awfully defensive for someone who just proclaimed that clusterfuck "good info"
|
His list has sources, yours does not.
AND I haven’t copied shit. So shut your hole. |
provide sources and not opinion to back up your end and I will listen.
Laughing the opposition off and calling people defensive is a very common response for people that have poor arguments.
Maybe you should tone down the sensationalism of your responses to a perfectly reasonable reaction of someone who is being accused of nonsense.
|
98-1, yeah that patriot act was soooooo republican.
-always in for a very frozen govt that gets little if anything done. |
it was an emotional response
|
|
And he’s pushing for it.
|
marketed to pierce body armor. Unless you’re hunting cops, it’s hard to paint this as a ban on hunting ammunition. |
a projectile for a center-fire rifle, designed or marketed as having armor piercing capability, that the Attorney General determines, under section 926(d), to be more likely to penetrate body armor than standard ammunition of the same caliber.”.
(b) DETERMINATION OF THE CAPABILITY OF PROJECTILES TO PENETRATE BODY ARMOR.–Section 926 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
“(d)(1) Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this subsection, the Attorney General shall promulgate standards for the uniform testing of projectiles against Body Armor Exemplar.
It’s a bs law.
|
, and hardly seems credible. Moreover, even the blog claims this was limited to weapons most likely to be used in homicides. |
He gave the source. Chicago Defender, Dec. 13, 1999
And most commonly used = pistols.
|
There’s been a long standing argument by constitutional scholars about whether the second amendment referred simply to militias or it spoke to an individual right to possess arms. I think the latter is the better argument. There is an individual right to bear arms, but it is subject to common-sense regulation just like most of our rights are subject to common-sense regulation.. |
ie, we can ban anything we want as long as at least 1 firearm is available. Imagine if they said that to the 1st amendment.
"oh you still have the right, you just can’t use a computer. Or a telephone. You must use this printing press built before 1895."
awesome, maybe some of that change i hear about will happen
but i doubt it, all politicians are out for themselves and their business friends
oh a cynic, you’re useful!
|
On the basis of their positions on the 2nd amendment? Correlation != causation. This is irrelevant.
|
Alright, I can go with you there on that one.
FACT:
Barack Obama voted for an Illinois State Senate bill to ban and confiscate “assault weapons,” but the bill was so poorly crafted, it would have also banned most semi-auto and single and double barrel shotguns commonly used by sportsmen. 18 The text includes the following
|
(x) any firearm having a caliber of 50 or greater; (D) a semiautomatic shotgun that has any of the |
FACT:
Barack Obama voted to allow reckless lawsuits designed to bankrupt the firearms industry. 1
If you can sue the people that make the guns into oblivion, for something they should not be liable for in the first place, FACT:
Barack Obama wants to re-impose the failed and discredited Clinton Gun Ban. 15
|
|
The Department of Justice?
[quote] FACT:
Barack Obama voted to ban almost all rifle ammunition commonly used for hunting and sport shooting. 3
|
This is a flat lie, the text of the amendment explicitly cites an expansion of the definition of armor-piercing ammunition as ammunition being designed or |
|
marketed to pierce body armor. Unless you’re hunting cops, it’s hard to paint this as a ban on hunting ammunition. |
Do you even know what an armor piercing round is? .30-06 and .308, the most common hunting rifle cartridges in the United States, are defined as "armor piercing" because they can defeat soft armor. FACT:
Barack Obama has endorsed a 500% increase in the federal excise tax on firearms and ammunition. 9
|
, and hardly seems credible. Moreover, even the blog claims this was limited to weapons most likely to be used in homicides. |
The citation is a blog that discusses the Chicago Defender article. It is no more of a blog than Factcheck.org. As a matter of a fact, he tears Factcheck a new one on the very discussion of firearms.
Here:
and fact checking Factcheck again:
And its funny that the weapons most used in homicide (handguns) are the most likely to be used in self defense. FACT:
Barack Obama has endorsed a complete ban on handgun ownership. 2
|
He denies this. |
Alright, I will give you that much. FACT:
Barack Obama supports local gun bans in Chicago, Washington, D.C., and other cities. 4
|
There’s been a long standing argument by constitutional scholars about whether the second amendment referred simply to militias or it spoke to an individual right to possess arms. I think the latter is the better argument. There is an individual right to bear arms, but it is subject to common-sense regulation just like most of our rights are subject to common-sense regulation." |
So, are you saying that city wide gun bans, which have no effect on crime rate, are common-sense regulation.
Obama: "The city of Chicago has gun laws, so does Washington, DC," Obama said. "The notion that somehow local jurisdictions can’t initiate gun safety laws to deal with gangbangers and random shootings on the street isn’t born out by our Constitution."
Too bad SCOTUS has a little bit of a different opinion.
|
…not going to go through every one of these, but this compilation is obviously an extremely biased take on the matter that you tards are simply copying whole and taking at face value without checking the sources. |
I agree that it is slightly biased in the wording and presentation but the information is good for the most part.
Edit* God that formating sucks ass.
Just like with the Bailout bill, Democrats are going to try their best to get Republicans on with most of the legislation they pass. Everyone has to get re-elected, and they probably realize that it’s good to be able to turn around and say that the Republicans voted with them if, and when, their legislation fucks things up.
Related posts:
- TN senate democratic primary turns….oh what a surprise, racist what are your first impressions of this ad? It sums up the Memphis and western TN politcal landscape completely...
- House Democrats Contemplate Abolishing 401(k) Tax Breaks With Dems having majority in the house, senate, and with the Messiah at the helm, this is what we...
- can someone explain to me why people think it’s a good idea to invade iran I mean seriously, look how well we did in iraq and now they are talking about moving on to iran...
- ~~ Breaking $838 BILLION Economic Stimulus Bill Passes Senate ~~~ link?ill be using my $500 to stimulate car-toys and put my system in Cheer up - the bank rescue...