 |
| 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 - Are the Dems really winning? |
New poll |  | Thread closed |
| Pages: 1 2 | Add to favorites | Next newer thread | Next older thread |
| User | Post | ||
|
||bass Administrator                     Since: 11-17-05 From: Salem, Connecticut Last post: 6280 days Last view: 6278 days |
| ||
| Let me direct you to: http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/12/15/johnson.ap/index.html.
Now, a few things to keep in mind. Should Senator Johnson die or become otherwise permanently incapacitated, the governor of South Carolina will have the authority to APPOINT a replacement. The governor of South Carolina is Republican. Should Senator Johnson not fully recover (a very strong possibility), he will most probably be replaced by a Republican. The balance of the senate would then be 50+1 / 50 giving the Republicans the majority in the senate once again. (edited by ||bass on 12-15-06 02:44 PM) |
|||
|
Sinfjotle Lordly? No, not quite.  Since: 11-17-05 From: Kansas Last post: 6280 days Last view: 6279 days |
| ||
| If he gives it to a republican, he might get backlash in his next race.
However, the man isn't dead yet, so I don't see the point  |
|||
Arwon Bazu Since: 11-18-05 From: Randwick, Sydney, NSW, Australia Last post: 6280 days Last view: 6280 days |
| ||
| South Dakota's not a state which has special elections to replace casual vacancies, is it?
Now, as I understand it there's no rules about automatically replacing senators being too infirm to serve unless they resign (who was it who served out their last term in a hospital bed?), and senators are allowed to take time off for things like surgery, so I guess one possible outcome is a 50-49 majority for a while instead of 51-49... I bet there's gonna be ugly court battles up the wazoo if the guy should happen to not recover (though at the moment he's being reported responsive and awake, which means he should make a decent recovery). At any rate, I for one am amused by the idea of all those culture-of-lifers secretly hoping a dude dies. (edited by Arwon on 12-15-06 08:38 PM) |
|||
Dr_Death16   970 Since: 05-07-06 From: Iowa Last post: 6278 days Last view: 6278 days |
| ||
Originally posted by ArwonAnd I'm amused at the liberals who would make such a ruckus and cry themselves to sleep at night if they were to lose their slim majority... point being, that while you make the some of the conservatives sound 'inhumane', one could easily say that liberals only care about the guy's health if it costs their party some power. It'd make quite an story if this were to happen though, CNN and such would have a field day... |
|||
|
Sinfjotle Lordly? No, not quite. Since: 11-17-05 From: Kansas Last post: 6280 days Last view: 6279 days |
| ||
| Yes, because we all know that all democrats are liberal and all republicans are conservative.
People who play absolute party politics sicken me. |
|||
|
Dr_Death16 970 Since: 05-07-06 From: Iowa Last post: 6278 days Last view: 6278 days |
| ||
Originally posted by SinfjotleNo, no, that's not what I meant at all. I was merely using them as synonyms for the parties with which they are associated (given, I was a bit loose with the terms.) Culture-of-lifers is a direct reference to conservatives specifically (especially those of the Republican party), so I just made a generalization. Bad of me, yes. |
|||
|
Sinfjotle Lordly? No, not quite. Since: 11-17-05 From: Kansas Last post: 6280 days Last view: 6279 days |
| ||
| Democrats are not liberal.
You don't know what liberal is. |
|||
|
Arwon Bazu Since: 11-18-05 From: Randwick, Sydney, NSW, Australia Last post: 6280 days Last view: 6280 days |
| ||
Originally posted by Dr_Death16Originally posted by ArwonAnd I'm amused at the liberals who would make such a ruckus and cry themselves to sleep at night if they were to lose their slim majority... point being, that while you make the some of the conservatives sound 'inhumane', one could easily say that liberals only care about the guy's health if it costs their party some power. Well duh, that's politics. The only reason ANYONE is concerned about his health is that control of the senate apparently hinges on it. That's the absurd dark humour of the whole situation. At any rate, you're talking to someone who has openly wished his Prime Minister would die because his successor would be more likely to lose the next election, so don't try and be all OMG HYPOCRITE at me, sir. The point is, "culture-of-lifers" wanting someone to die is funny because apparently life is less valuable when it's elderly and Democrat as opposed to being a clump of foetal matter or a vegetable being kept alive on a tube. Also, I'm not a liberal, I'm a social democrat. Big difference. (edited by Arwon on 12-15-06 10:49 PM) |
|||
Salmon Red Cheep-cheep Since: 11-18-05 From: Norway Last post: 6295 days Last view: 6284 days |
| ||
| Nobody actively wants him to survive because they really feel for him and have personal emotions invested in him except for his family and friends. That's human nature. However, there is a great big difference between having the point of view that it is good if a particular person survives or at the very least being neutral towards it and actually wanting a person to die. It's like those pro-capital punishment people who rally outside of prisons when a prisoner is given his lethal injection and they cheer when they hear the news. How sick and twisted have you become when you cheer the death of another human being?
And liberal is a word that is being thrown around a lot, despite the fact that it has thousands of different meanings depending on the situation and the context. Around these parts, by the way, liberal is usually used to define someone on the far-right of the classic left-right axis, because we use liberal in the economic sense, i.e. a person wanting laissez-faire capitalism, or if you want a very free (thus liberal) market. Arwon's response reminds me of a discussion with an American way back, a situation I found very funny indeed.  Some guy was shooting his mouth off about how all liberals are socialists. I told him he had no idea what he was talking about. He told me I was just being afraid of being compared to a socialist and that I was in denial. I told him that that was not the case, as what I really was was being quite offended at being compared to a liberal. That's when he took his time to realize what I had just said and basically shut up and the discussion ended. (not that this really had anything to do with the current topic. I just like the story. Sorry for my digression) |
|||
Alkis Since: 12-28-06 From: Arletpolis < FA < Arletland Last post: 6303 days Last view: 6301 days |
| ||
| I think the system of the US senate is stupid and innefficient.
The Republicans have done many things to make Americans (and everyone else on this planet) angry at them. Enough Americans are disappointed at them because of the wars they have started, the money they have stupidly spent, and the non-honest deals with Halliburton and other contractors just for the sake of corporate friendship. For the good of the USA and the world, I hope the Democrats hold majority for a long time. I would hate to see another stupid contractor-happy war. |
|||
Koryo Keese Since: 10-17-06 From: Michigan, USA Last post: 6289 days Last view: 6289 days |
| ||
| Firstly, the system of the US Senate is not too dissimilar from most other democratic countries (such as those with parliamentary systems).
Second, the Republican-Halliburton conspiracy is a childish myth. The US government contracts with many, many companies, some of them through no bid contracts. Halliburton has only become a common name that everyone knows, so they repeat it every chance they get. Halliburton is also a many faceted corporation. Some parts of Halliburton are profitable. Others, such as the subsidiaries that are currently being used to feed US troops in Iraq, are not. Lastly, Halliburton was used by the government long before Bush came into office. Third, why would you want the democrats to stay in power for a long time? Any party that maintains power without significant opposition becomes corrupt. Any problems you may have with the republican party (the real ones, not the imagined ones) will simply migrate to the democratic party. There is nothing inherent in the democratic or republican party that makes one substantially better than the other. Both have fielded very good candidates at different times in history. The answer is not to give power to a different party, but to ensure that both parties have to compete for power. |
|||
|
Arwon Bazu Since: 11-18-05 From: Randwick, Sydney, NSW, Australia Last post: 6280 days Last view: 6280 days |
| ||
| Well, the US senate only has two senators per state (since it has so many), and it has first-past-the-post elections rather than the proportional elections and preferential voting of many other Houses of Review in other countries. These two features tend to ensure high incumbency rates and choke out voices that might otherwise get a run in a more competitive senate... especially those of people from outside the two dominant parties.
That said, it's still a damn sight better than the House of Lords or Canadian Senate. |
|||
|
Ziff B2BB BACKTOBASICSBITCHES Since: 11-18-05 From: A room Last post: 6278 days Last view: 6278 days |
| ||
Originally posted by Arwon We like our senate like old people sex without viagra. Pointless, without drive, boring, and totally lacking power. |
|||
|
Alkis Since: 12-28-06 From: Arletpolis < FA < Arletland Last post: 6303 days Last view: 6301 days |
| ||
| I don't like the Republican party because it's conservative and benefits the rich while making the poor get poorer. The Democrats are more social-oriented than money-oriented, which makes them better. They support social programs, and accept new (good) ideas. | |||
|
Koryo Keese Since: 10-17-06 From: Michigan, USA Last post: 6289 days Last view: 6289 days |
| ||
| I find your simplified view of American politics funny. Really, I'm giggling over hear. I encourage you to learn a bit more about... well everything really, before you continue to comment on American party politics. | |||
|
Ziff B2BB BACKTOBASICSBITCHES Since: 11-18-05 From: A room Last post: 6278 days Last view: 6278 days |
| ||
| Simplified, but not wholly incorrect. | |||
|
Alkis Since: 12-28-06 From: Arletpolis < FA < Arletland Last post: 6303 days Last view: 6301 days |
| ||
| You can't disagree, Republicans are corporate-oriented. Democrats are socially-oriented. However, Republicans have proven disastrous to the US economy, and to the world overall. There is some speculation the World Trade Center attacks were made by the CIA and not by muslim extremists. Also, the video that supposedly shows Osama Bin Laden admitting to ordering the attacks, doesn't show Bin Laden at all, but some other guy instead. The face is different, plus the guy is wearing a gold watch, which is illegal through muslim law. That makes it obvious. | |||
emcee Red Super Koopa Since: 11-20-05 Last post: 6279 days Last view: 6278 days |
| ||
| You started out half way credible in that post. | |||
|
Ziff B2BB BACKTOBASICSBITCHES Since: 11-18-05 From: A room Last post: 6278 days Last view: 6278 days |
| ||
| The first 4 sentences were pretty okay. | |||
|
Alkis Since: 12-28-06 From: Arletpolis < FA < Arletland Last post: 6303 days Last view: 6301 days |
| ||
| I can't help being carried away, the idea of attacking one self's country to please some corporate friends makes me furious. |
| Pages: 1 2 | Add to favorites | Next newer thread | Next older thread |
| Acmlm's Board - I3 Archive - World Affairs/Debate - Are the Dems really winning? |
| Thread closed |
