 |
| Register | Login | |||||
 |
Main
| Memberlist
| Active users
| Calendar
| Chat
| Online users Ranks | FAQ | ACS | Stats | Color Chart | Search | Photo album |
|
| | ||
|
| Register | Login | |||||
|
Main
| Memberlist
| Active users
| Calendar
| Chat
| Online users Ranks | FAQ | ACS | Stats | Color Chart | Search | Photo album |
|
| | ||
| 0 users currently in World Affairs/Debate. |
| Acmlm's Board - I3 Archive - World Affairs/Debate - Looks like the Dems are winning |
New poll |  |  |
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 | Add to favorites | Next newer thread | Next older thread |
| User | Post | ||
Dr_Death16   970                    Since: 05-07-06 From: Iowa Last post: 6279 days Last view: 6279 days |
| ||
Originally posted by Plus Sign AbominationI didn't say "Sorry" apologetically; it was more of a sorry for you misunderstanding me. Everyone knows Socrates was dead by that time and that the conversations did not really take place. I never said they did. I specifically said that Socrates was a "character" and that in the book, it is "his Republic", and since Socrates is the character who outlines the just society with his three parts, I can justifiably call it his, even though no-one is sure that he thought this exact thing. Frankly, nobody--including yourself-- knows if exactly Plato wrote The Republic as a reflection of his own views, of Socrates', or whether they both had the same views and agreed on the issues outlined in the book. And this information I cite from my own philosophy professor, so, its about as "objective" as it gets, buddy. So, to recap, Socrates' character outlines the Republic, therefore, it is Socrates' (the character's at the least) Republic. Again, sorry for you failing to realize what I'm trying to communicate. I hope you got it this time. Also, I don't see what this: Originally posted by Plus Sign Abominationhas to do with anything I said. I didn't claim anything, I merely said I find it interesting if he was indeed referring to American soldiers. Patronizing me won't work if you don't even have any premises with which to do so. (edited by Dr_Death16 on 11-10-06 08:31 PM) |
|||
Shadic The Adventure of Link Perfect Member Since: 11-18-05 From: Olympia, Washington Last post: 6285 days Last view: 6281 days |
| ||
To that Military Guy:
So, you misinterpret a joke Kerry made at Bush, and yet you call us stupid? Good work. Just because I don't want to get shot for a war that I don't support doesn't mean I'm a pansy, I'm just not in support of running off to because a meatshield so that we can get our precious oil. By the way, your precious little Bush ran away from the draft too.
No, the Republicans are just forced to rile up supporters with issues such as gay rights so that they can get anybody to vote for them. The Republicans make as much, if not moreso of an issue out of gay rights than the Democrats.
Think again before you say that, just who exactly got rid of habeas corpus? So, traditional values now include walking around the Constitution!? Damn, I never knew that.
Remind me again how disliking what the President stands for also includes sitting on your ass. |
|||
Jomb Deddorokku  Since: 12-03-05 From: purgatory Last post: 6281 days Last view: 6281 days |
| ||
| The Kerry joke thing is kinda ridiculous I think. If you watch his entire speech and not just that one little snippet it's obvious he is talking about Bush, right before that joke was a series of jokes at the president's expense, and you can tell that one went with them. It's really pathetic i think, to blow up a botched joke out of context as if it really meant something. What's next? Taking snippets out of books written over a decade ago out of context and trying to make them sound sinister? Why dont we cut individual words out of speeches and re-arrange them till they say something that would hurt the candidate, that's where this is heading. | |||
|
Dr_Death16 970 Since: 05-07-06 From: Iowa Last post: 6279 days Last view: 6279 days |
| ||
| Shadic, I would have only one thing to comment about your argument; the writ of habeas corpus has been suspended before, by the great Abraham Lincoln, during the Civil War, no less. Whether or not Bush is right in doing so via the Patriot Act is not my point, I'm just adding that "walking around the Constitution" is not a new device of the administrations post-1788.. | |||
drjayphd Torosu OW! BURNY!  Since: 11-18-05 From: CT Last post: 6282 days Last view: 6279 days |
| ||
Originally posted by Jomb Conflation and bloviation by commentators! It's FAN-tastic! (rolls eyes) Too bad it didn't work too well this time.  |
|||
|
||bass Administrator  Since: 11-17-05 From: Salem, Connecticut Last post: 6280 days Last view: 6279 days |
| ||
Originally posted by ArwonOh really? No offense meant but I don't think you have the understanding of American politics that you think you do. Two-term presidents almost VERY OFTEN end up with a congress where the majority is of the opposing party after the off-year election of their second term. This is a common occurrence and you shouldn't misinterpret the underlying meaning. This is NOT a swing against the Republican party. This is simply the American people shaking things up a bit because an administration tends to grow a bit stale later in it's second term (should it have one). The same thing happened with Clinton in 98 and the Republican dominated congress. That wasn't a swing against the democrats either. It's just a commonly occurring pattern that has a documented history of happening. |
|||
Arwon Bazu Since: 11-18-05 From: Randwick, Sydney, NSW, Australia Last post: 6280 days Last view: 6280 days |
| ||
| "This is NOT a swing against the Republican party."
Oh my. That's a new one. The spin machine's in full swing I guess. Also didn't the Republicans take congress in 1994? |
|||
MathOnNapkins 1100  In SPC700 HELL Since: 11-18-05 Last post: 6279 days Last view: 6279 days |
| ||
| It's just a commonly occurring pattern that has a documented history of happening.
Definitely. If this were more than just the coat tails effect, then I think you'd see some more dramatic progress against the republican side. The dems have the senate by one seat, and a slim majority in the house. This is pretty typical American politics. |
|||
emcee Red Super Koopa Since: 11-20-05 Last post: 6279 days Last view: 6279 days |
| ||
| Or maybe its just because the country is still very conservative. Especially socially conservative in large regions, like the entire south and most of the Great Plains. They weren't voting for the Democrats because they agree with their politics, they voted for the Democrats because they were the only other choice. Which really shows how upset people really were with the Republicans. | |||
|
Shadic The Adventure of Link Perfect Member Since: 11-18-05 From: Olympia, Washington Last post: 6285 days Last view: 6281 days |
| ||
Originally posted by Dr_Death16 Yes, but Lincoln did that when the nation itself was split in half. If the West Coast breaks apart from the East (Let the West Join Canada plzkthx) then perhaps something should be done in regards to habeas corpus. However, a few planes were flown into buildings, now we're in an oil war, have North Korea pissed at us, and we've lost civil liberties because of it? Hell, I don't feel any more secure on planes either.. (edited by Shadic on 11-11-06 05:52 AM) |
|||
|
||bass Administrator Since: 11-17-05 From: Salem, Connecticut Last post: 6280 days Last view: 6279 days |
| ||
Originally posted by MathOnNapkinsMathOnNapkins hit the nail square on the head here. Arwon, seriously, the only spin in this is in your own head, hope you aren't getting dizzy. If this was such a major swing against Republican politics, the Democrats would have won by a hell of a lot more than the razor thin margin that they did. This is just the typical swing of politics during the second term of a two-term president. Had you ever actually studied American politics in school (which I assume you haven't considering the fact you don't live here) you would know well that this is a typical pattern. |
|||
|
Arwon Bazu Since: 11-18-05 From: Randwick, Sydney, NSW, Australia Last post: 6280 days Last view: 6280 days |
| ||
| One thing has changed though... thanks to electoral redistricting and bipartisan gerrymandering, there are less and less competitive seats available in the congress than there once was. What exactly is the incumbency rate in congress? I know it's some absurdly high percentage point.
It's not a matter of how big the margins in the house are, it's a question of the size of the swing in vote terms. Is it really a "razor" margin when of the seats considered realistically up for grabs, the Democrats won virtually all of them? When nothing went from D to R at all? Didn't they win, against most predictions, enough senate seats to pinch the upper house? Sure it's only one seat, but they still won virtually every realistically competitive senate seat. The mere winning of the senate illustrates that it was a fairly decent swing. I contend that this was a swing towards the large end, rather than the narrow end, of the realistic spectrum of possible outcomes. I mean, who seriously predicted both houses switching? Even if though a swing was expected, this was still a larger than predicted swing against the Republicans (it certainly seems to have suprised the hell out of Bush). How could it not be, given their dismal performance of late? We have a saying here, oppositions don't win elections, governments lose them. What do people on the conservative side of politics gain by minimising the size of the rebuke and making excuses about the supposed conservative nature of all the new democrats, and the "expected course of politics" rather than seriously looking at what's gone wrong over the last few years? How long ago was it that Republicans were crowing about a 'permanent majority'? |
|||
|
drjayphd Torosu OW! BURNY! Since: 11-18-05 From: CT Last post: 6282 days Last view: 6279 days |
| ||
| Incumbency? I think it's somewhere north of 90%. I vote for taking the power to draw districts out of any party's hands (and I forget the state that does this).
Anyway, what Arwon said about the voting outcome. No incumbent Democratic Senators lost, the Republicans ended up -5 or -6, and the House went more Democratic than was reasonably expected. And I'd be willing to say this wasn't just the traditional sixth-year pounding. The Republicans, at least on a federal level, had gone for their base and rustled up the 50%+1 for three elections. Now, the actions of several prominent Republicans or members of groups with more access to the White House than, say, you, have pissed off the members of that base that yeah, they'd vote against gay marriage, but they'd also vote against the Republicans. At this rate, the evangelical bloc might just stay at home at 2008. But not having their full support, due to the actions of those prominent people, is what killed the Republicans this time. Not just business as usual. |
|||
Ailure Mr. Shine I just want peace...  Since: 11-17-05 From: Sweden Last post: 6279 days Last view: 6279 days |
| ||
| "I would just likes to say liberals are probably the dumbest people on earth."
I would like to say that calling a political group stupid is a proof of inmaturity. 
If the democrats winning means that USA will take human rights seriously then I am happy. (Honestly, torturing people is WRONG. And to top it off, alot of them might even be innocent. There's a good reason why your current US president is hated by the rest of the world...) And I find it kind of depressing how huge the political apathy is in USA. (edited by Ailure on 11-14-06 06:17 AM) (edited by Ailure on 11-14-06 06:20 AM) |
|||
|
MathOnNapkins 1100 In SPC700 HELL Since: 11-18-05 Last post: 6279 days Last view: 6279 days |
| ||
| Spoilers didn't work with my layout so half of this is commented out, quote me to view it. I only commented it out b/c Randy used spoilers and I figured I'd go along with obscuring some of the harsher language
Randy, perhaps your friend failed to understand that not only Dems, but many Republicans are fed up with the management of the Iraq situation. I think it was the lack of an exit strategy that we've been waiting on for oh... 3 and a half years so far. It more or less a common opinion that there just aren't enough soldiers in Iraq to do what we want to do there - establish democracy. As for balls to defend our country, that's ridiculous given that our country is not under attack by any state power. If I wanted to protect our country I'd try to join the FBI, the CIA, or the NSA - not the military, in this age of terrorism. Your friend is a drill sargeant yet doesn't understand this - It's HIS job as a member of the military to shut his fucking mouth and do what he's told. Homosexual rights are irrelevant in this context so it only comes off as bigotry. Lastly, no one doubts that good things happen in Iraq on a daily basis. Again, the issue is the lack of any reasonable plan to eventually withdraw from Iraq. It might be a plan that would take 10 years, but as of now there IS no plan and that's why people are pissed off. Unsubstantiated bullshit that is also irrelvant to the discussion. Besides, everyone throws around the words "traditional values" but no one ever defines them. "You know, back in the good ol' days...." No, the good old days are gone, things change. Your friend just wants a scapegoat, and thus we have the liberal. rant rant rant. This doesn't even make sense. 1. Democrats are usually working class (though so are may repubs), hence not wellfare. Besides, if people are too lazy to work and receive wellfare, chances are they don't vote either. 2. Democrats don't try to look patrotiotic in most cases because of modesty. So the claim that Dems wave flags and claim to be patriots is just nonsense to me. 3. The military is not the end all be all of bravery. I myself will never join the military b/c I don't care for the military lifestyle. |
|||
|
skrenename1337 Hammer Since: 11-20-06 Last post: 6341 days Last view: 6341 days |
| ||
|
I'm thinking that although democrats primarily won seats in the house and senate, it doesn't necessarily mean they'll be able to touch the executive branch of government. The three main runners for the 2008 democratic race: Obama, Hilary Clinton, and the other guy are a failure waiting to happen. It's not because of their views -- Obama is very well liked, as is Hilary Clinton. The fact of it is that it's impossible to get a minority into the presidency. 2/3 of the possible candidates for presidency are a minority (African-American, Women) and will have a very difficult job of getting office. I'm voting Obama. It'll be interesting to see it all play out. Oh, and just in time for college! Go Dems! |
|||
Ogama Dobe Rope  Since: 11-15-06 From: The Darkness of my Soul Last post: 6279 days Last view: 6279 days |
| ||
| I'm one of the more inbetween people, I share views with both sides. However if Bush continues to screw up badly, then people may hate the Republicans enough for the Democrats to have enough votes to get into the White House. However, we haven't made it to '07 yet, so maybe Bush can clean up the Republican name. Who knows? I certainly don't. (edited by Xkeeper on 12-05-06 12:43 AM) |
|||
beneficii Broom Hatter Since: 11-18-05 Last post: 6282 days Last view: 6279 days |
| ||
| You know, women don't exactly compose a minority if you add all the numbers together.... | |||
Koneko Plasma Whisp  Since: 11-17-05 From: Tartarus. We get faster internet than you. Last post: 6279 days Last view: 6279 days |
| ||
| Women aren't a minority of the population, but they definitely are a minority of Congress and the federal government in general.
It's the same sort of effect as the glass ceiling in business environments. People are used to male leaders, so when they picture their ideal leader, it's usually a male one. It's possible, I suppose, that there's some kind of organized male conspiracy to keep women out of the high spots purely for the sake of continued social dominance, and I wouldn't put it past us. We members of the masculine gender can be pretty vicious at times. Huh. I wonder when that turned into sarcasm. The beginning sure wasn't. |
|||
|
BiteMark1992 [21:03] Xkeeper: Just ban him already, he's an idiot. [21:03] Hiryuu: you mind if I quote you on that? [21:03] Xkeeper: Go right ahead. [21:03] Hiryuu: ok  Since: 12-17-06 Last post: 6341 days Last view: 6313 days |
| ||
| If the democrats win (and they did) america will suck
If Hillery Clinton gets elected president I am moving to Japan |
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 | Add to favorites | Next newer thread | Next older thread |
| Acmlm's Board - I3 Archive - World Affairs/Debate - Looks like the Dems are winning |
| |
