Main > Everything Else
Election night 2005 - Brits, what's the score?
mr.Curmudgeon:
--- Quote from: fredster on May 06, 2005, 01:07:23 pm --- The only Plan I've heard from you side is "That won't work". "This won't work" is not a "Plan".
--- End quote ---
I can't argue with you when you generalize so badly, please provide specifics if you really want an answer. What issues are you talking about? If it's Social Security, then Dems *do* have a plan....it's called SOCIAL SECURITY. Your man is the one trying to dismantle is by screaming "crisis"...NO ONE BELIEVES HIM. The friggin' SS "plan" Bush proposed in his last press conference, was one of many plans DRAFTED BY A DEMOCRAT (Pozen). He couldn't even come up with his own. If you're talking about Iraq, the Dems did present a plan in 2004. More troops, increased armor, broadening coalition support, bringing the U.N. into the fold again, and on, and on. If you're talking about deficit spending, Kerry proposed repealing the tax-cut for the rich. If you're talking about record job loss in America under Bush, Kerry had proposed closing the loop-holes for corporate outsourcing. If you are talking about our dependence on foreign oil, Kerry and the Dems proposed increased funding for alternative fuels, and incentives for automakers to create more efficient cars. There a TON of proposals out there, you just REFUSE to listen. Doesn't mean that aren't out there, just means your either being too stubborn or too ignorant to understand them.
--- Quote ---Solve this:
Illegal Immigration
What's your side's plan? Our side doesn't have one. What do your people say?
Now is your chance!
--- End quote ---
Here you go again. It doesn't matter to you if the Dems solved the Immigration problem, you'd still vote Republican. You've already said so. So why do you keep acting as if this would change the bearing on your political compass, you're a kool-aid drinker dude. That ain't going to change no matter what the Dems do or say. So give it up and at least try to be honest about your undying love of Bush.
Anyhow, for what's it's worth...'Hillary Clinton Is To The Right Of National Republican Leadership On Immigration' (link) (Hope your head doesn't explode) ;)
She's voiced support for an ID-card system, increased technology at the border, increased spending on said technology (Advanced radar systems, biometric and other kinds of identification systems). She has also talked about ways to cut down on the employment of illegals and increase patrols at our borders or our ports.
She has been hawkish about North Korea, proposing a tougher stance against the outlaw regime, that has since gone nuclear under the Bush administration.
So, given that 'W' and his party haven't done jack-squat about either issue, I suppose we can count on your vote for Hillary in 2008 then, huh?
mrC
fredster:
--- Quote ---Here you go again. It doesn't matter to you if the Dems solved the Immigration problem, you'd still vote Republican.
--- End quote ---
And that's a plan? It's a circle back to "BUSH". How about framing some problems and not using "BUSH" or any reference to the existing adminstration in it?
Hillary Clinton is a Senator, right now, in an active seat. She says a lot of crap. Let's see the legislation okay? Let's see the actual plan. Let's see the debates. What about all the things Kerry had in mind? Why don't we see him put it into law as a Senator? Where's the drive?
And what of these so called "concepts" you call "plans". How does this help us solve the problem? Do you support the ID system based on the right of privacy? What would it do to help this situation? Is that on the road to some futher solution? What is "increased techonolgy" exactly? What ways does she talk about cutting down employment of illegals? IS there any tangible evidence she has done a single solitary thing as a law to back up the rhetoric?
Simple answer, no.
Let me tell you this, if a Dem did come out with a plan that sounded reasonable and was well thought out on illegal immigration and healthcare solutions, yep, I'd go blue. No problem here, and most people who voted for Bush would be behind that.
But to just come out with some "concept" without working out the plan will go as far as the "concept" of private accounts in SSI.
We need more from your side besides "concepts". We need real solutions to real problems.
fredster:
And I have to continue.
I'm not "refusing" to listen to anything. You are. You did only 1/2 the research. Did you find any thing to be against the private accounts or did you limit your late night research to just what was wrong with it?
If it was such a "bad" plan, then why to you make a big point of saying the "bad plan" came from a democrat???
I like the "concept" but Bush didn't sell me on the details. If he doesn't sell his base, he can't pass it. What he did bring out was the problem. Social security isn't fixed. Now we should do something or you and I won't have a retirement income from the government that we paid into.
Isn't that a problem? Let's see the first bill, either side, it doesn't matter to me.
And then this meaningless statement -
--- Quote ---She has been hawkish about North Korea, proposing a tougher stance against the outlaw regime, that has since gone nuclear under the Bush administration.
--- End quote ---
Ok, that means you support us taking aggressive action against a soverign state and changing the regimeme by force?
huh.
What does "tougher stance" mean? We already have sanctioned them to death and have 5 or 6 countries negotating with them. What's left there diplomatically dude?
They have starved the people so much the reports I've seen says that there is no animals alive in the wilderness because of the people eating anything that moves.
--- Quote ---just means your either being too stubborn or too ignorant to understand them.
--- End quote ---
Help me get over my "ignorance". Explain me this -. Where's the plan in "we need to take a tougher stance"?
mr.Curmudgeon:
--- Quote from: fredster on May 06, 2005, 02:09:45 pm ---How about framing some problems and not using "BUSH" or any reference to the existing adminstration in it?
--- End quote ---
Too bad. He's president...how are the Dems *not* supposed to address him or his plans when coming up with their own? How are they *not* supposed to criticize him or his plans when they are so obviously failures waiting to happen? Sure they could do more to present their ideas in an easy to understand "Fox news" ready packaging, but to suggest that the president is somehow outside the frame of reference is one of the most absurd and scary things I've heard of late.
--- Quote ---We need more from your side besides "concepts". We need real solutions to real problems.
--- End quote ---
I agree with this. I'm hoping they continue to refine their message and present more plans. Right now the Dems have an awful lot of fighting to do that's keeping them busy otherwise, (Bolton, Filibuster, stemming the tide of increased hateful religious rhetoric, British Memo leak proving Bush/Blair had the intelligence Doctored to fit their agenda,etc)
Right now the Dems *are* fighting for the integrity of our diplomacy by refusing to let Bolton through, the Dems are fighting for the sanctity of our legislature by fighting to keep the filibuster alive, and they are fighting to keep safe the very essence of our great Democracy by working to preserve the separation of church and state. These things take a tremendous amount of time and resources, across the board. I support their efforts and I look forward to a time when they can address the many other issues that we face in this nation today.
mrC
mr.Curmudgeon:
--- Quote from: fredster on May 06, 2005, 02:22:39 pm ---Did you find any thing to be against the private accounts or did you limit your late night research to just what was wrong with it?
If it was such a "bad" plan, then why to you make a big point of saying the "bad plan" came from a democrat???
--- End quote ---
There is a *lot* wrong with "privatization" (the words "private accounts" are just Republican spin, btw). For one, Social Security was developed as a safety net, in lieu of the stock market crash that led to the Great Depression. To basically put SS *back* into the hands of the market, goes against the very essence of the program itself. Do you trust the Enrons of America more than you trust your own government?
It may be astonishing to you, but I can still consider a plan "bad" even if it comes from a Democrat. If it's bad, it's bad. My point was that you expressed the notion that the Dems never have any plans, so I pointed to the fact that the very plan the President proposed involved a internal framework developed by a Democrat.
The Dems have put forth other options to "fix" Social Security. I imagine they'll certainly have the most know how, since the Dems were the ones that created it in the first place under FDR.
Anyhow, I'm done talking about SS for now, there are certainly other, more pressing issues at hand. I can thank all the omniscient deities, that Bush privatization plan is dead in the water. At least SS is safe for the foreseeable future. As soon as the Dems feel Bush has fried himself enough on the "third rail", I'll be gunning for them to get done what needs to be done to fix the program. It's their baby, after all.
mrC