I recently read an interesting analysis which concluded that more meaningful legislation was enacted when Presidents & the Congressional majority were opposite parties.

Why is obviously open to judgement but one common reason, voiced by participants, was that the extremes were sidelined & compromise tended to prevail.

One may deduce that the extremes possess more similar attributes w each other than either has with the (natural) majority in the center. this would apply to not only the left/right axis but also the authoritarian/liberitarian intersect axis.

Now perhaps we can move forward w immigration reform, budgetary discipline, & ethics guidelines.

Talk is cheap. I don't believe the Dems when the say they will be bipartisan and I certainly don't believe Bush. Bush has proven the opposite the last 6 years. Actions always speak louder than words.

We can also bank on it that he's willing to compromise heavily on policy - but not principle - in order to get Democrats on board with a positive agenda for the American people.

Mark, for all their rhetoric, the Dems are not really interested in a "positive agenda for the American people" as is evidenced by who votes for them. The people who make up the majority in America are not Democrats. The Democrat Party is made up of a conglomeration of fringe and special interest groups, held together by the common thread of what's good for them, not what's good for America.

We are, however, dangerously close to the point where all those fringe and special interest groups will, combined, become a majority. When that happens and the majority of the population can vote themselves "free" stuff from the public coffer at the expense of the producers, then we will join the likes of the EU. The Libs, of course, will celebrate the fact that we are no longer King of the Hill, as will the rest of the world until it comes time for us to bail someone's ass out of the fire, and we're no longer able to. And when we get to that "OMG, what have we done moment", it'll be too late. I'm glad I'll be ashes in the wind by then.

In the meantime, I'd like to note that at least one of my 2006 New Year's predictions came true - The DOW closed above 12,000.

I am hopeful we can find common ground without compromising our principles.

The Republican Party, for most of my adult life, has stood for the principles of limited government, lower taxes, personal responsibility and entrepreneurism. The fact that they lost control of both houses of Congress last fall stemmed, in no small part, from their abandonment or deviation from some of those principles.

I'm curious if any of our resident Lib Democrats can articulate the principles of the Democrat Party. How about it, folks? What attracts you to the Democrat Party? Aside from raising taxes and surrendering to the Islamofacists, what do you hope your party accomplishes if they control all three branches of government in 2008?

mark....three things
-you said bush is "man enough" and "christian enough" ???? you must be kidding to use that kind of verbage. what are you thinking?
-bush claims in his wsj op-ed piece that they have cut the deficit in half ahead of schedule? that's because they sandbagged it in the first place.
-finally.....spook....you're right...the democrats don't have a strong message. they suck. the repubs had a message and it sucks more than the democrats. they controlled all 3 branches and failed miserably. i'm hoping that a 3rd party will finally rise above all of
this to really control spending, minimize govt and push tax reform.

Spooky-

Glad you asked. I’d be more than happy to describe exactly why I am a Democrat and why I have been a proud member of the Democratic party since I began voting lo those many years ago. (Oh, and as a side note: it’s the Democratic party, not the “Democrat” party. Nice to see that you’ve adopted Dubya’s cute little rhetorical hiccup. I wonder: is he stupid or is he just being an a**hole?)

But back to the main topic:

I am a Democrat because my party believes that the power of the government should lie, first and foremost, with the people. Oh, I can hear the howls of my conservative friends, but you asked the question and that’s my answer. The simple truth is: Democrats look out for the little guy, Republicans look out for the big guys and assume the little guys will be content with the crumbs. Interesting, in my view, how Republicans can be social Darwinists without actually believing Darwin, but there you go.

Democrats believe that the government, as an entity, is not a bad thing. After all, if our founding fathers thought it would work, who are we to argue? State rights are all important, but sometimes, just sometimes, the federal government must step in an impose a fair solution. (See school integration, pollution standards, etc. etc.) Government is not always the answer, of course, but it isn’t always the problem, either.

Democrats believe in a strong economy, but also in preserving our natural resources. We do not believe that we should sacrifice our environment for the sake of corporate profits, so we are the party of environmentalists. We believe that having a robust economy and engaging in proper stewardship of the planet are not mutually exclusive.

Democrats believe in the right of a woman to choose whether to continue with an unplanned pregnancy or terminate that pregnancy. This is, and long has been, a thorny issue (among the thorniest, in fact), but at this time we have the Supreme Court and the majority of public opinion to back us up on this subject. I respect those who disagree with abortion (I truly do) and I hope that you can respect my disagreement with you (though I have my doubts).

Democrats believe that people should have the right to own and use firearms, but we further believe that with such awesome power comes grave responsibilities. Registering these weapons, tracking their use and sale, even training those who purchase them seem to be common sense solutions to us, but certainly not to some. It has always struck me as a bit odd that we license people to drive a car, but balk at the idea of licensing gun owners. But that’s just me, I guess.

Democrats believe in a strong military, but, again this awesome power should be used carefully and wisely. Our military has achieved some of the greatest victories in history, but have also been involved in some of history’s greatest debacles. Learning from past mistakes is essential, but not hesitating from using our military might when absolutely necessary is equally important.

Primarily, Democrats believe in fairness. No, not communism. Just fairness. We believe that the richest, most powerful nation on earth should have a strong safety net for our most vulnerable citizens. We do not believe that it is acceptable for any American child to go hungry. Or live in the street. Or go without medical care. Or be denied an education.

We further realize that corporations are a good thing, even a wonderful thing, but that these companies need to be watched carefully. Those who run powerful corporations will sometimes break the law, pollute our waters and air, rob their worker’s pension plans, hold down worker’s wages and engage in all kinds of deplorable acts in order to turn a profit. Not always, but sometimes. And monitoring these abuses, and correcting them, is very important.

In conclusion, here is a good way to tell whether or not you’re a Democrat:

If you hear about a worker claiming that he was unfairly dismissed from his job and you automatically assume the corporation is probably right, you’re not a Democrat. If you hear about an accusation of police brutality and assume that the victim probably asked for it, you’re not a Democrat. If you learn about a proposal to open up a wildlife preserve to oil interests and you automatically see this as a good step towards solving our energy crisis, you are not a Democrat. If you hear of a citizen, whether he or she is a person off the street, a war protester, a pundit, a country and western singer or movie star expressing their opinion about our government and your first thought is that they should shut up, you’re definitely not a Democrat.

I could go on (and on) but I’m pretty sure I answered your question. Right, Spooky?

Spook-

What drove me to the Democrats in '06 (after voting Republican in '04): The fact that they aren't Republicans...

As anyone who has ever read my any of my comments should know, I tend to lie on my left side when it comes to social issues (except for affirmative action (state sponsored racism)... grrr...), and I think that the Republicans are more likely to be counter productive in that area than Democrats would be counter productive in economic areas (where my views tend to be more conservative).

While there were only 6 or so moderate Republicans in the last senate, Democrats were able to win in '06 by running fiscally conservative candidates in Republican districts... so the Democrats won't have an easy time passing things like socialized healthcare, especially with Bush in office. Just so you know... the minimum wage increase, even in the unlikely even that Bush signs with without tax breaks, won't cause as much trouble as people say that they will... they won't help much either... (Trying to fix poverty with a minimum wage increase is kind of like putting a band-aid on a bullet wound: sure you did something, but did it really help? That money would be better spent teaching finances in public schools.)

However, with how things were going in the Republican Congress, I could see them having an easy time intruding into private matters and doing things like "faith based initiatives(grr)" and monuments to Christianity with my money.

I voted Libertarian when I could... but voting anything besides Republican in Georgia (outside of Atlanta) is pretty much pointless.

Besides, the Republican Congress has proven to be less than fiscally conservative... or even sane. Financing an entire war (Iraq) with borrowed money seems kind of stupid to me. Total spending has increased more than 42% since Bush has entered office. They seem to have come up with a new version of the Democrats' "tax and spend" economic policy: "borrow and spend".

Something that I have never seen referenced on this site (possibly because it goes against your overly rosy picture of the economy) is that the income gap in this country is growing (something that real GDP per capita doesn't represent) and the value of the dollar as compared to other forms of currency is quickly diminishing, caused by the massive trade defecit that we are amassing, particularly in China.

Someone referenced low interest rates recently... that, one could argue, is one of the main reasons that the savings rate here is either 0% or pretty damn close to it. The artificially low interest rates (done by Greenspan in his infinite "wisdom") contributed to the housing boom, but also contributed to inflation. Now that Bernanke (who has the undesirable job of inheriting Greenspan's mess) is raising interest rates (to slow inflation), the housing market is cooling off... eventually leading to an excess of supply and plummeting home values (similar to what happened with the Tech bubble).

Simply, the Republicans are antithetical to everything that I want in government leadership, and that is why I voted Democrat (when I couldn't vote Libertarian)... I wish that I didn't have to vote for them (they do suck)... but I can't bring myself to vote for another republican...

Spook, you seem to dislike the people who vote Democratic... referencing them as people that are bad for America (or at least not positive)... then you provided a link to the different groups who voted for Kerry and Bush in '04...

From the chart, one can see that poor people, minorities, women, and union members primarily voted for Kerry and that white males generally voted for Bush... Now, if you are saying that the people who voted for Kerry are not proponents for a positive direction for America, and that chart holds just who those people are, then does it further show that you have a problem with poor people, minorities, and women?

Seems like a far stretch... but that is what the chart you referenced implies in the context in which it is given...

Cyber,

But you'll never get away from the fact that the people don't want gay marriage, want severe restrictions on abortion (especially late-term abortions) and despise the way affirmative action has become a method of racial spoilsmanship...and each time the people VOTE to change things, it is you Democrats who go whining to the Courts to try and overthrow the carefully considered will of the people.

You see, for you Democrats, "the people" are a theory, not a reality...you adore humanity, but you just can't stand actual humans, especially when they perversely refuse to fall into your little preconceived notions of what they are supposed to want. A working class man is supposed to want a union - well, most of them don't. A woman is supposed to want abortion on demand - well, most of them dont. Immigrants are supposed to want to keep entirely to the culture of their former nation - well, most of them don't. Black Americans are supposed to be held down by racism - well, most of them aren't. Middle class people are supposed to want tax increases on the wealthy - well, most of them don't.

You see, most people don't live in a world of envy and spite, which is precisely where most liberals and leftists live. We live in a world of hope, commanded by God and thus we simply don't fall for your class-warfare, hate-filled ACTIONS in spite of a lot of rhetoric about love and charity.

You've got your phony majority by grace of Pelosi and Reid hiding for the last month of the campaign while a score of Democrats campaigned as Republicans in Republican districts - fine and dandy; but if you do what you THINK the people want rather than what they ACTUALLY want, then you'll be tossed out on your ears in 2008.

Looks like the President has gotten out his veto pen; that is what this article is all about; he's ready to VETO; and he will because he is a person who is of integrity

Oh, Mark, Mark, Mark. Why must your posts always be so filled with hate?

Let’s dissect this a bit:

Mark: “But you'll never get away from the fact that the people don't want gay marriage...”

Excuse me? Show me a Democratic candidate that ran on a platform of “gay marriage” and I’ll concede this point. But otherwise, don’t change the subject.

Mark: “want severe restrictions on abortion (especially late-term abortions)”

Oh, you’d be happy with “restrictions” on abortion, Mark? Or do you want to outlaw it? Because the majority of Americans want abortion to be legal. You DO want to respect what the majority desires, don’t you?

Mark: “and despise the way affirmative action has become a method of racial spoilsmanship...”

Hey! Mark made up a word! Cool, isn’t it? Please note that I did not once mention affirmative action in my post. Can you not address ANYTHING I mentioned?

Mark: “and each time the people VOTE to change things, it is you Democrats who go whining to the Courts to try and overthrow the carefully considered will of the people.”

If you oppose the judicial system so much, Mark, why is it that you continue to applaud cases like the Wisconsin Right to Life case? Either the courts are bad or they are good, Mark. You can’t just cherry pick.

Mark: “You see, for you Democrats, "the people" are a theory, not a reality...you adore humanity, but you just can't stand actual humans, especially when they perversely refuse to fall into your little preconceived notions of what they are supposed to want.”

Ah, but you see, we don’t impose anything on anyone. That’s the beauty of the Democratic theory of government. You want to be in a Union? You should have that right. Don’t want to be Union? A-okay with us. A woman wants an abortion? The law allows you to have one. Don’t want to have an abortion? Terrific. We wish you and your baby a happy and healthy future. Immigrants want to legally move here, work and contribute to our society but they also want to have strong roots in the country of their birth? Super. Immigrants want to assimilate? Good for them!

Democrats are about choice, Mark. Republicans are the ones telling people what they should do. Sorry, but that’s the way it is.

Mark: “You see, most people don't live in a world of envy and spite, which is precisely where most liberals and leftists live. We live in a world of hope, commanded by God and thus we simply don't fall for your class-warfare, hate-filled ACTIONS in spite of a lot of rhetoric about love and charity.”

Yeesh! What a grouch!

Sorry, but I am neither envious nor spiteful. Nor do I believe that the laws of your God should be imposed upon the rest of the nation. Want to live under God’s commandments? Go ahead. I’ll live under the laws of our nation, thanks very much. Is that okay with you?

Should the people with the most money pay the most taxes? Of course they should. Should lower- and middle-class taxpayers get the most tax breaks? Of course they should. Should there be strong anti-corruption, anti-pollution and pro-labor laws on the books to keep the very few bad corporations in line? Of course there should. Is the rapidly expanding income inequality crisis in our country a bad thing? Of course it is.

No one is preaching hate around here but you, Mark. And it is both unseemly and creepy. But then, those are the leading characteristics of your party, so I’m hardly surprised.

Mark- what does a gay marriage have to do with ANYTING? Does it scare you? are you afraid of all the homos- ruining your marriage? Typical Paranoid righty.
--

spook- you are NUTs. Of course the majority of the american population is democrat. Why do you think that al lthe votes are never counted? duhh- let's see if we dicard- oh 40% of the demacratic votes, it might *look* like a close race. gee- imagine that. Imagine a state in which the REPULICAN presiential candidate sues and is awarded president of the United States by....you guessed it that state's republican A.G.

More so imagine a vote in which the majority of minority districts have all the mishaps- missing votes- like 95% of them!! or faulty- "rigged" voting machines. oh i'd love to see the TRUE count of votes. If i had to wager- i would bet Righty gets roughly 30% or less in a typical election- HONEST election that is.

--

Any way Bush is talking about challenging the dems on budget control! ha haahahahhaa aahhh ahhhaaa- oh- my side hurts!!!

man- that's like the slave master offering a whip to the slaves! it's a facade.

Cyber and Frawg,

You both gave comprehensive and civil (see, it's not so hard) answers to my question. I'll be on the run the rest of the day and don't have time for a lengthy reply. Besides, Mark's last post reflects my sentiments to near perfection.

For now I just want to address a couple things. First of all, Cyber, I refer to it as the Democrat Party for three reasons. It is the Republican Party, made up of Republicans. It is not the Democratic Party made up of Democratics. Second, "Democratic" does not acurately describe the leadership of the modern Democrat Party. If some of the moderate/conservative Democrats that were elected in November gain a foothold in the Party, that may change, but the Democrat Party is currently led by a bunch of corrupt Leftists. Third, I'm not sure why so many Democrats are bugged by their party being called the Democrat Party, but I derive a great deal of satisfaction from the fact that it does.

Frawg, I don't dislike Democrats in general. I've only voted a straight GOP ticket once since 1966, and that was in 1994. The voting pattern site I linked to was intended to show that the Democrat base is largely made up of demographic groups and economic classes of people who tend to be riding on the government wagon instead of pulling the wagon, people who tend to want more from government than they are willing to give back. I've always subscribed to the view of JFK: "ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country." This is not a view that is currently prevalent within the Democrat Party.

This promises to be an interesting thread if the first few posts are any indication. It would be nice to have a discussion without the usual name-calling and derogatory comments to start out the new year. I'll try to get back here later today.

"...the Democrat base is largely made up of demographic groups and economic classes of people who tend to be riding on the government wagon instead of pulling the wagon, people who tend to want more from government than they are willing to give back.."

what? I thought that was the REP. mantra? You know all the private school vouchers at TAX PAYER's expense. All the tax breaks for the wealthy- and al the benifits to use public roads, beahces, parks, etc.

sure sounds like a good song and dance spook.

I was just walking out the door when I heard the cute little female voice in my computer say "mail truck". Totally OT, but this link from a good friend of mine is just too funny to pass up.

I must tip my hard hat to Cyber and Georgia for articulating in a sensible manner much of the Democratic position. So many times on this board the left gets represented by useless vitriol in response to right wing ire which; sad to say, passes as discussion. (Not all of you...but you know who I’m talking about.)

Mr Stinson..

With all due respect but I have to wonder if you re-read what you wrote...about private vouchers and tax payer money...

The reason I ask is it has no logic to it's assumption or proported logical conclusion..

Everyone who spends a dime in this country pays taxes. Anyone here legally and in some cases illegally pays taxes. Anyone who owns property in this country pays taxes...

In other words some of us taxpayers are saying let tax payers decide...

Democrats with big union support are denying that choice. Even in instances where chidren are forced to attend failing schools...

As to the other "rich" mantra... you've merely proven spooks point.......

Cyber: "Sorry, but I am neither envious nor spiteful. Nor do I believe that the laws of your God should be imposed upon the rest of the nation. Want to live under God’s commandments? Go ahead. I’ll live under the laws of our nation, thanks very much. Is that okay with you?"

they don't realize that they are no different than the "arabs" that they attack for enforcing their religion. Righty seems to think their choice of a 1 God Chritian America is freedom. hmm- an arab god/religion or the illusion of freedom (hiding a 1 god christian nation)? hmm decisions decisions.

hey- how about my own free will?

na- righty would never buy that. LOL

duhhhh

"Black Americans are supposed to be held down by racism - well, most of them aren't...."

There you have it....racism officially exists no longer. This just in, from the whitest man in America....Mark Noonan.

black sheep: "In other words some of us taxpayers are saying let tax payers decide..."

oh- you mean like US TAXPAYERS deciding to not go to invade Iraw at bush's whim? or like us taxpayers deciding to have a legitimate election in 2000 and 2004? or do you mean the taxpayers that are being spied on by Bush's NAZI-ACT? Or the pandering of Bush to the flood of illegal imagrants and terrorist across the Mexican border?

which part of these do you mean to let the taxpayers have a say in? Please let us TAXPAYERs know. Because i'd love to know what choices I really have with the Bush regime.

Cyber-

Interesting how you pegged the Dems. You wrote,"If you hear about a worker claiming that he was unfairly dismissed ...... " with several other examples of Dem reactions.

It's illustrative because the reaction, I use that word precisely, because it is based on an emotional reaction: no FACTS.

If I heard those sound bites or read those ledes, I would look for the rest of the FACTS to make a conclusion. Guess THAT is what makes me a Republican.

Regarding the "Democratic" vs. "Democrat" discussion, I find it a bit amusing that you should at one point pose the wish that we begin the year without derogatory comments or namecalling and at the same time relish the idea that referring incorrectly to the name of our party is a fun way to needle Democrats. But I'll let that go...

As for this: "The voting pattern site I linked to was intended to show that the Democrat base is largely made up of demographic groups and economic classes of people who tend to be riding on the government wagon instead of pulling the wagon, people who tend to want more from government than they are willing to give back."

You may find it interesting to note that, in practice, the opposite of your assertion is true. Did you know that Blue States pay more in federal taxes than they actually receive back from the government? Red States, it turns out, get far more than their fair share of government largesse. So who, exactly, is pulling the wagon here?

Me, I'm a middle class taxpayer living in a Blue State. I pay what I consider to be my fair share in taxes (and then some) and the benefits I receive are, in my opinion, in line with what I pay. Good roads, good schools (though I pay really high taxes, in my area, to support said schools), museums, concert halls, parks, zoos, libraries...the list goes on and on. I would not ask for anything less and I, therefore, do not grouse about paying my fair share.

Who pulls the wagon? I do.

This, essentially, is why Democrats are so adamant about the wealthy paying the taxes that they do (or should). The genius of America is that you can, indeed, have the kinds of opportunities in this country that allow you to rise from nowhere and become a millionaire- even a billionaire. But should you be so fortunate- and enterprising- you must then give back to the country that afforded you these opportunities.

Some people get this- Bill Gates and Warren Buffett among them. Some don't. But when Republicans deride millionaire Democrats like Ted Kennedy and John Kerry for being rich, just remember- they're voting to increase THEIR taxes, too. And, by doing so, they help pull the wagon just like me.

Since has not veto'd anything, how can you call him non-bi-partisan purple? He OK'd the no-child-left-behing bill, sponsored by Kennedy. In fact, he OK'd everything.

LaMano:

You wrote: "Interesting how you pegged the Dems. You wrote,"If you hear about a worker claiming that he was unfairly dismissed ...... " with several other examples of Dem reactions."

Actually, I didn't. I wrote about the reactions of people who were NOT Democrats. Read it again.

"It's illustrative because the reaction, I use that word precisely, because it is based on an emotional reaction: no FACTS."

Um, no. For example, I wrote: "If you hear about an accusation of police brutality and assume that the victim probably asked for it, you’re not a Democrat." If you base your initial impression on a preconceived notion instead of the FACTS...you're not a Democrat. Get it now?

"If I heard those sound bites or read those ledes, I would look for the rest of the FACTS to make a conclusion. Guess THAT is what makes me a Republican."

You'd like to think so, wouldn't you? But look at what you did. You read something very simple, very straightfoward...and you completely and totally misunderstood it. So much for FACTS, eh?

Here's what comes up next week, and it's safe to say that all of them will pass. All of them are in America's best interests, and all will contribute to an enduring Democratic majority.

1 Enact 9/11 commission recommendations

2 Increase minimum wage

3 Expand stem cell research

4 Allow for negotiations to get lower prices on medication for Americans

5 Cut the student loan interest rate in half

6 Make oil companies pay adequate royalties on disputed leases

7 Roll back oil company corporate welfare

8 Create renewable energy reserve

9 Ban gifts and travel from lobbyists

This is only the tip of the iceberg, folks. No doubt many here will disagree with the stem cell stuff and increasing wages for the working poor. But aside from that, which of these things is bad for America? Now, we know that shills for the GOP like Mark and Matt will only celebrate good legislation that is authored by Repubs, but for the rest of you, tell me why these things are bad? Also, where is the House Resolution calling for surrender to Islamofascists? I thought that was what you all said Pelosi would do first?

I was just walking out the door when I heard the cute little female voice in my computer say "mail truck". Totally OT, but this link from a good friend of mine is just too funny to pass up.

Posted by: Retired Spook at January 3, 2007 01:12 PM

That would be funny if it were not for the fact that the U.S. of A is doing the invading and occupying, as Germany was doing in the 1930's. You've already done Iraq, want to do Iran next and who knows, perhaps Syria after that. Should we stand by and appease your intentions for Middle East domination?

CO-

I will never leave my country of birth. I love America. But my wife is a dual citizen, and every summer we go to her family cottage on the Great Lakes. Every month I spend there, I'm overwhelemed by the spirit of Canadians. In all the years of going there, even when discussing the failed policies of this administration, people are kind and quick to point out that it isn't Americans they dislike, it's the warmongering Bush admin that makes them disgusted. The lack of racism, homophobia and xenophobia up there is always refreshing.

Of course, Canada has much in common with my homeland of the South in the US. But my Southern brothers and sisters have much to learn when it comes to race and other things. But Canadians can't make decent collard greens, although the gravy fries are something to behold...

Excellent points Cyber. I am glad and happy to pay my taxes for the benifits they provide. The money we put back into the country should drive the quality of life far better than any other country. Yet righty feels the need of greed, to rub out our investment in our country and blow it in Iraq and elswhere.

It really amazes me how much money we spend on Iraq rather than on America.

$355,369,099,934

http://nationalpriorities.org/index.php?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=182

yes folks your (well our tax dollars (those who pay their share)) hard at work to build a better Iraq and kill our soldiers while we are at it.

Cyber-

Nice try. You wrote, "Actually, I didn't. I wrote about the reactions of people who were NOT Democrats." in your response. Yet in the original writing, you wrote, "In conclusion, here is a good way to tell whether or not you’re a Democrat."

The FACT is YOU make assumptions about Democrats (or not Democrats) based on sound bites and headlines and ledes. YOU are a Democrat and represent them. You made that clear.

That's okay, you were right.

Mr. Stinson..

Yet again you have proven spooks other points..

It is impossible when confronted with facts for the enlightened such as yourself to stay on topic..

You ranted about rich and schools... I answered both with logic.. your reply was convoluted discourse of rants that went into national security and supposed domestic spying.. one is out of all of our hands the other is a canard..

CO, you aren't much of a student of history, are you? I discovered a few weeks ago that not all Canadians share your world view when I ran across the following in a comment thread on another blog:

NOTES FOR TERRORISTS - CANADIAN VIEW

I give you one piece of advice: Do not incite the American people to war. We in Canada know a lot about the US, and how they think, and how they live, much more than the average person in Bam, Iran, or Tyre, Lebanon, knows. You think that you can use hate as a weapon to build an attack against he US, but you know not what you do. The US has over 300 million people, and they are all soldiers. The US built its country by its own hands, and from the beginning, they all accepted that freedom, liberty, and democracy were not negotiable. If by some miracle, an invasion force of Iranians attempted a landing on US soil, every man, woman and child would be there to meet them. They would not relent until it was finished. On United Airlines Flight 93, a random assortment of 40 civilian Americans was suddenly called to arms in a miniature Middle Eastern war. The ex-policewoman airhostess, the environmentalist, the marketing executive, moved against the Islamists as one, and collectively said, "We are not afraid". Americans did not become timorous, or afraid after 9/11, instead they "got busy on yo’ ass". After 9/11, America did not back down, and they will not back down, because the attack incited individual Americans against every Islamist, and every person who supports Islamists, or gives comfort to them. Americans are not the same as the Russians in Afghanistan, or the French in Algeria. To defeat the US, you will have to kill every one of them, and you do not know how to do that.
You clearly do not understand how rich Americans are, how many resources they have at their disposal, how intelligent, perseverant, and creative they are. Their wealth is enormous, with massive amounts of built structure: large houses, soaring office towers, highways, schools, universities, hospitals, and military bases everywhere, spanning a continent. Honestly, if you had even an inkling of what you are up against, you would cease your pointless reverse crusade immediately.
Within the last century, Americans have become extremely interested in war. They think about it, talk about it, plan for, it and rehearse it constantly. They spend huge amounts on their military every year, building installations and weapons, many types of which you have never even heard about. Tens of millions of Americans have served, do serve, and will serve in their military. We Canadians sometimes stand back and look at the Americans bemused, because one seldom even sees any of the Canadian military presence in Canada, whereas the US National Guard units stationed near Buffalo, New York, alone, have sufficient resources at their disposal to kill every Muslim on earth. Of course the Americans are right to prepare for war, because there is always another one coming, and they know that they will probably be the main targets. The US even declared a "War on Poverty" in the 1960's, but thankfully they relented before they began bombing the slums.
People who do not understand democracies constantly underestimate them. Hitler and Stalin certainly underestimated democracies. Many of those living in non-democracies think that in the current situation in the US, with huge internal dissent, Democrats shouting misgivings about Iraq, and Republicans pontificating about treachery, and the enemy within, it may seem that the factions will cancel each other out, or with more Democrat influence, the whole tide of war will change. Instead, the US is exposing its power to the world, by thinking out loud, disagreeing publicly, and nit-picking endlessly over details in floods of political television programs. The election is over, and, the war on terror will go on, as all previous US wars have done, irrespective of the party in power. To understand US policy, look carefully at what is not said, because that is where they have reached implicit consensus. Neither side is talking about ending the war on terror -- instead they are bickering about the best way to kill Islamists.
For the Middle East, the scale of this war is enormous, which is clearly evident in the reportage of Al Jazeera, which mainly features events related to the war on terror. In contrast, this war has had no real effect on the US whatsoever. It is completely trivial. The US media talks about the war a lot, but Americans are always very interested in war in general, and there are no interesting sex scandals going on at the moment. If JonBenet Ramsay's murderer were to be found, CNN would focus completely on that, and behave for weeks as if the war on terror did not exist. So far, the war on terror has cost the US roughly 6,000 lives since 9/11, while over that same period, approximately 2,000,000 Americans have died from smoking. In the World War II epoch, spanning 1933-1945, about 70,000,000 people were killed, but only about 500,000 of them were Americans, and the US became stronger because of that war. Islamists hope to obtain nuclear weapons (in fact there really are no other weapons of mass destruction). With some luck, and perseverance, Islamists may be able to detonate a nuclear bomb in Times Square, New York, and kill 1,000,000 people, but that is 0.3% of the US population. The remaining 99.7% of the US population would then do to the Islamists what the US did to Japan. Later, in the years that followed such an event, some Americans would regret having turned several Middle Eastern countries into blowing ash, but there would be a reluctant final consensus that after the Times Square bombing, it had to be done, and they would be right.
In the meantime, the US grows stronger each day. Their economy is doing extremely well, providing levels of health and prosperity that even Ali Baba could not have dreamt about. Coca Cola is finally getting to challenge Pepsi in Afghanistan. As a bonus, the US military gets to interrupt its constant war games to practice and train in a real war in Iraq. These are almost perfect training circumstances, with lots of troop rotations, a very low casualty rate, a real but evanescent enemy, and a kill ratio of much higher than 10 to 1. It is a general's dream, and it's an excellent theatre to test, develop, and refine weapons and tactics, in preparation for Iran, when that battle becomes necessary.
The most powerful method the US has of defeating the Islamists is already in play, and it will ultimately succeed. We Canadians, as the constant neighbours and interlocutors of the Americans, know their secrets. Only 5% of Americans have passports, and their biggest single foreign travel destination is Canada. The Americans’ secret method is that they do not hate very well. They’re terrible at it. They don't teach their children to hate, they constantly forget who their enemies are, and they forgive adversaries, usually before the last bullet has landed. Islamists, and so many people in the Middle East, cling to hate as an addiction, passing it on to their children, cherishing it inside themselves, using it as the centerpiece of their lives. Hate, quite simply, like other addictions, is a waste of time and energy. Americans can't concentrate very long on hate. They lose interest, or forget what the fighting was all about, or follow up their wars with reconstruction plans for their vanquished enemies. From time to time, they get mad at "Krauts", or "Japs", or "Commies", but the next thing you know, the epithets are gone from the language, and things are back to normal, with Americans welcoming their former enemies into their country as immigrants, and marrying them, if possible.
Therefore, my advice to Islamists is to just give up fighting the US and forget about it. Your hate will not even be reciprocated, and you will probably still be welcomed as immigrants during the conflict. In the meantime, remember it's not the Americans fault that your son wants to play with X-Box, or your daughter wants to wear Prada. If you don’t like Coca-Cola, don’t buy it. By flaunting your hate, you expose your jealousy, and humiliate yourselves. At the end of the war on terror, those who hate will be no better off than they were, while the US, by not hating, will be ever brighter, as "the shining city on the hill".

Posted by: DemocracyRules | November 30, 2006 at 08:35 AM

There's at least one of our neighbors to the north who has his/her head screwed on straight.

In all the years of going there, even when discussing the failed policies of this administration, people are kind and quick to point out that it isn't Americans they dislike, it's the warmongering Bush admin that makes them disgusted.

Gavin

You speak the absolute truth. Most Americans are good, good people. Somehow though, perhaps it was the shock of 9/ll, they made a mistake in putting their trust and faith in a man & administration who did not have their best interests at heart. Hopefully, the time between now and his exit, there will be no more damage done in the name of the American people.

LaMano: "Nice try. You wrote, "Actually, I didn't. I wrote about the reactions of people who were NOT Democrats." in your response. Yet in the original writing, you wrote, "In conclusion, here is a good way to tell whether or not you’re a Democrat."

Look, LaMano, if you can't read, just let me know. I'll start typing slower. But by your own admission, I was stating whether OR NOT you are a Democrat. Then I laid out several examples of how to tell if you ARE NOT a Democrat.

And you either willfully or accidentally got the whole thing bass-ackwards in your response. You can hardly blame me for that.

And if anyone can translate this into English:

"The FACT is YOU make assumptions about Democrats (or not Democrats) based on sound bites and headlines and ledes. YOU are a Democrat and represent them. You made that clear. That's okay, you were right."

...I'd greatly appreciate it.

Cyber-

You wrote, "And if anyone can translate this into English ..I'd greatly appreciate it."

Gee, did I T-Y-P-E too fast for you? Is English not your native language?

Find a Republican to help you.

Sigh. Okay, LaMano, I'll take you through it step by step and once again show you how wrong you were. Really, though. Didn't anyone ever teach you that when you find yourself in a hole, the first thing you should do is stop digging? Perhaps not.

At any rate:

"The FACT is YOU make assumptions about Democrats (or not Democrats) based on sound bites and headlines and ledes."

No, you silly person, I did not. In fact, I made no assumptions about ANYONE. I gave you a choice. If you said to yourself, after reading my original post "Yeah, I am the kind of person who hears about a police brutality case and automatically assumes that the victim is at fault" then, I'm afraid to inform you, you are not a Democrat. If you DID NOT choose that path, guess what? You just might be!

LaMano again: "YOU are a Democrat and represent them. You made that clear."

I claimed to represent no one but myself. I was explaining, as civilly and plainly as I could, why I am a Democrat and what I believe my party represents. At no point did I say, infer or set myself up to be a representative of my party. I happily would, if asked, but sorry. Once again, you're dead wrong.

Then comes this: "That's okay, you were right."

Well, I knew THAT. Thanks for admitting it, though.

Pssst, CO, you dont know jack-shiite about the American people, time to park that horse. Stick to 'observing' and save the comments for the cocktail circuit.

Hey LaMano, what are "ledes"?

I have another query for you "strict constructionist" Repubbies...

If you believe that we should, as a nation, only abide by the original intent of the Constitution, then are you:

A) Opposed to the abolition of slavery

B) Opposed to women's suffrage

C) In support of new additions to the Constitution banning gay marriage and abortion

D) In support of adding to the Constitution a statement which declared Christianity the offical religion

I'd love itemized responses, but I'm sure all I'll get is yelled at, cursed at, and accused of hating America and loving terrorists. Or, in the case of Matt and Mark when asked for actual responses, they'll just ignore it.

Truth hurts you people.

Are any of us allowed to support certain aspects and not others?

How about: no, no, yes, yes. Oh oh...I guess Im not a strict-constructionist. Damn, there goes the VRWC membership.

I wont call you a terrorist-loving, America-hater, we all know that about you already.

YOWCH! I think I just stepped on the truth! Or a caltrop.

Sorry Spook... it started out interesting... then the dummies came home to roost...

Game On!

Well it’s game on as the 110th Imperial Congress seeks to prove themselves worthy of the task of representing Americans. In order to prove themselves worth of this task, they better avoid using their first hundred hours to do such useless things as banning trans fats, saving polar bears, speculating about global warming and giving unwed teenage moms pay raises and promoting deviant forms of marriage. Here is what Americans would really appreciate out of this Congress:

National English Protection Act- English will be declared the official language of America, and all commerce within our nation will be conducted in English. There will be more multi-lingual ballots, street signs or driver license tests, no more options to select foreign languages by pressing #1, no more bi-lingual education. If you don’t like it, then go to a country that speaks the language you want to speak.

Employee Earnings Protection Act- Congress will allow workers to keep 100% of their earnings by immediately repealing the 16th Amendment and dissolving the Internal Revenue Service. As Americans, we are sick and tired of our money being stolen without our consent and demand that our elected leaders do something to protect our hard earned cash .

Corporate Earnings Protection Act- All corporate taxation on profits will be eliminated, resulting in an immediate savings of 25% in the cost of goods and services, as this tax has routinely been embedded in prices and passed along to consumers.

Retirement Freedom and Security Act- Starting February 1st, social security contributions will be optional. For those opting out, company matches will go directly into employee paychecks. Employees will have to still save a minimum 10% of their pre-tax income and will be able to withdraw benefits at 59 ½ or when their account balance reaches $5 million dollars.

Border Protection Act- If you are here illegally then you have 30 days to leave. If you don’t, we will put you in prison where you will be required to work on a chain gang doing chores to beautify our nation. You will be fed on a budget of $.20 cents per day, receiving nothing but bread and water. If you are an employer of illegals, you will have plenty of time to enjoy your compadres, serving side by side as you pick up litter alongside the freeways.

Employee Freedom of Choice in the Workplace Act- Unions must garner 2/3 approval from workers in any establishment seeking to organize labor for the purposes of collective bargaining. All votes will be subject to secret ballot and all employees will be required to attend training to understand the purpose and history of unions in both the United States, as well as Marxist/socialist nations abroad. Any union organizer who attempts to coerce employees, lie about union benefits or intimidate management will be subject to no less than 10 years in prison and a $1 million dollar fine.

Children’s Educational Protection Act- All children will be entitled to a taxpayer funded education in a competitive school environment. Parents will receive tuition tax vouchers equal to the amount spent by federal and state governments on education which will be used to select the school that is most competitive, either public or private; thus forcing accountability in government schools which will ensure future success.

Marriage Protection Act- Marriage will be between one man and one woman. States will be free to consider civil unions for other deviant forms of marriage, but approval will be subject to approval by ¾ of the state electorate.

Judicial Impropriety Act- Any judge who acts in any manner so as to subvert the literal and intent and strict interpretation of the Constitution will be subject to immediate impeachment hearings which will require simple majority to enforce.

Capital Crimes Accountability Act- If Iraq can execute killers in six weeks, so can we. There is no reason to have life’s losers living on the dole for two or three decades. If you are convicted of a capital crime, then you have one appeal. If you lose, then the state will have 30 days to carry out the execution.

Domestic Protection and Terrorist Profile Act- Any party meeting the criteria of a terrorist will be subject to random person and property searches. While the profile may change, for the past forty years it has been those who are male, Muslim and Middle Eastern. The government shall have the right to use warrantless wiretaps to listen to conversations and monitor internet and financial transactions of those meeting the most current profile. Any party meeting this profile who voices anti-American sentiment will be given a one way ticket to Club Gitmo where they will be held as an enemy combatant pending the end of the War on Terror.

Considering it took me less than thirty minutes to come up with all of these relevant and important topics for our elected leadership to address, just imagine what they could do with the first hundred hours if they actually cared about hard working, freedom loving and family value oriented Americans half as much as they cared about getting votes from those who are too lazy to get a job. Let’s see if this newly elected Congress actually has the intellectual wherewithal to do what is right for our nation, as I have just barely touched the tip of the iceberg on what truly needs to be done to fix the mess created by big government bureaucrats over the past seventy five years.

Christopher Van
www.christophervan.com

Pssst, CO, you dont know jack-shiite about the American people.

Posted by: Bacon-I Will Miss Thee at January 3, 2007 04:17 PM

Bacon

What? Are you saying that you don't agree with me that Americans on the whole are good people?

C.O. hahaa LOL

I agree with you. matter of fact i like our frindly nehbors tothe North. I also like the givers of the Statue of Liberty. But hey- ho am I to say thanks to good folks?

I mean i could act like a self-indulgied concetied greedy right-winged Nazi- but why? i'd look like all the other morons sinking our "ship".

Actually a lot of republicans have abonded ship. some prior to 2004 elections, but too little too late i guess.

As a side note- I hated bush before it was "cool" to hate him. LOL

and i swear that is also a bumper sticker! Made my day.

Bill-

What we're seeing is a potential realignment. The GOP Revolution in 1994 was a major opportunity for them. They swept in on an anti-Clinton wave and promised reform. Instead, they became more corrupt in 12 years than the Dems had become after 40. Americans are not radical liberals, nor are the rabid racist extremist conservatives.

What happened in November, particularly in New England, is telling. Now, most people here don't think that New England is really part of America, but let's forget that that's where liberty was born on this soil for a moment. The "good" Republicans like Chafee were swept out by the Blue States. Coming up in 2008, there will be no galvanizing conservative wave that allows the House to switch back, unless the Democrats do something unpardonable, which is still a possibility. Power corrupts. Look at the GOP. But what is more likely is that the passing of populist legislation, along with the continued tide against this horrific war, the escalation of that war by the President, and the emergence of a populist Dem for President, be it Gore, Edwards or Obama, and the new prez will sweep into office with more than 300 electoral votes, and likely an expanded Senate majority (my bet is 53-47) and a House majority of at least 35 seats. The things on Pelosi's table are extremely populist, and America will reward the Dems for it.

The GOP will lose ground out West after the racist immigration schism divides the party. The South will continue to be a bastion of conservative GOP support, but they will never be in the majority again. I predict a third-party for the Lotts and the Tancredos, and a resurgence of the liberal Republicans. If they don't do that, the Dems will eventually get a filibuster proof Senate, maybe as early as 2010, and finally get Universal Health Care for every man, woman and child. If that happens, you're looking at a New New Deal for America and an enduring GOP minority. It won't last forever, nothing ever does. But it'll at least be enough to get the health care in place enough that they can't kill it like they tried to do with Social Security. Grover Norquist will die an old, bitter man when that all happens.

What? Are you saying that you don't agree with me that Americans on the whole are good people?

Not at all, I know that already, you saying it means nothing.

Sorry Spook... it started out interesting... then the dummies came home to roost...

Yeah, Frawg, I was thinking the same thing.

I liked Cyber's first response to my question except it sounded like something that someone who has been asleep for the last twenty years might say. He was largely describing the Democrat Party of JFK and Hubert Humphrey. Much of what he said bears no resemblance to the Democrat Party from about Jimmy Carter forward. My guess is Cyber just doesn't realize how the party of Jefferson, FDR and JFK has been hijacked by the far Left.

There are a couple things from one of Cyber's comments that I'd like to respond to:

Regarding the "Democratic" vs. "Democrat" discussion, I find it a bit amusing that you should at one point pose the wish that we begin the year without derogatory comments or namecalling and at the same time relish the idea that referring incorrectly to the name of our party is a fun way to needle Democrats. But I'll let that go...

Two things that readily identify someone as a Liberal Democrat -- a thin skin and no sense of humor.

You may find it interesting to note that, in practice, the opposite of your assertion is true. Did you know that Blue States pay more in federal taxes than they actually receive back from the government? Red States, it turns out, get far more than their fair share of government largesse. So who, exactly, is pulling the wagon here?

It is people who are making $75,000 or more a year who are pulling the wagon, and that demographic is comprised of both Republicans and Democrats. You assume (falsely, I believe) that because a Blue State is identified with Democrats, that Democrats pay more taxes than Republicans who reside primarily in Red States. If you'll look at the chart of voting patterns again, you'll see that people making less than $30,000 voted overwhelmingly for Kerry while people making $50,000 or more voted overwhelmingly for Bush. If you look at the electoal map by county, (the 4th map down), you will see that there are, in reality veeeeeeery few Blue states. With the exception of New England, the country is mostly Blue pockets in a sea of Red. those Blue pockets are populated disproportionately by people who pay NO taxes.

Or, in the case of Matt and Mark when asked for actual responses, they'll just ignore it.

Another lie by Meathead. Meathead, Matt and Mark respond to plenty of comments; however, they tend to avoid morons. You're just gonna have to accept your role, boy--you're a moron!

I'll bet your daddy, if you ever met him, wasn't too impressed with you. Lying racist...

Spook,

All too true about the taxes - liberals like to take the taxes of all of California and say that is liberal taxes, rather than realising that outside of SF and LA, liberals are few and far between. I'll bet if you take the top 100 GOP-voting zip codes and compare it with the top 100 Democratic-voting zip codes, you'll discover two things: the Democrat zip codes are richer, and they pay less taxes.

Cyber,

Nice bit of dodge and weave...but you still cannot ever get away from the fact that you live in a fantasy world...you think the people should have A, and thus the people must want A, and if they don't want A then it is because they've been bamboozled by Republicans into not understanding what they REALLY want, so off to court you go to try and force people to have A.

Bill,

It was an example for illustration purposes...that you are hung up on it is an issue you should work out with your priest/pastor/rabbi/psychologist.

c'mon Mark- thow that gay card when everyting else fails...c'mon throw it!

We all know the gay marriage card is a joke. I think even you guys know this- W may not though. LOL

"I agree with you. matter of fact i like our frindly nehbors tothe North"

How can anyone take this seriously! What an english scholar! Even if you were blind, you should be able to do better.

No one is going to criticize for a miss-spell or punctuation screw up now and then...but this is the sign of a person with less than a third grade education.

Spooky sez: “I liked Cyber's first response to my question except it sounded like something that someone who has been asleep for the last twenty years might say. He was largely describing the Democrat Party of JFK and Hubert Humphrey. Much of what he said bears no resemblance to the Democrat Party from about Jimmy Carter forward. My guess is Cyber just doesn't realize how the party of Jefferson, FDR and JFK has been hijacked by the far Left.”

Um, Spooky? Have you bothered to look at the priorities set by the leadership of the 110th Congress lately? Ethics reform, stem cell research, raising the minimum wage, banning gifts and junkets from lobbyists...on and on, these items reflect exactly what I described in my earlier post: concentrating on the needs of the little guy and rejecting the siren song of the monied special interests. Hardly a “far left” approach. To me, their priorities are right on the money.

And Spooky, when I responded to your admission that you were going to continue to misidentify the Democratic party as the “Democrat” party, it is important to note that I said “I find it a bit amusing....” and “But I'll let that go...” It kinda knocks down your accusation that I have “a thin skin and no sense of humor.” I find it both funny and can dismiss your behavior out of hand. Neat, huh?

When I brought up the fact that “Blue States” pay more to the government than they receive back in federal money, Spooky tries this approach:

“It is people who are making $75,000 or more a year who are pulling the wagon, and that demographic is comprised of both Republicans and Democrats.”

True so far. But then:

“You assume (falsely, I believe) that because a Blue State is identified with Democrats, that Democrats pay more taxes than Republicans who reside primarily in Red States.”

Bzzzt! Sorry, Spooky. I made no such assumption at all. I merely pointed out, correctly, that the states who got the LEAST amount of money in return for their federal contributions were primarily Blue States and the states who got the most bang for their federal dollar were primarily Red States. (For more info, Google “Blue States” and “Federal taxes” or visit a site like this: http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2004/09/red_states_feed.html)

Ironically, the electoral map that Spooky linked to (rather than supporting his argument) actually showed how evenly divided the country is. In fact, Spooky’s site makes it clear that looking at an electoral map by county is a MISLEADING way of seeing the actual makeup of the country, to support their assertion, offers some hilariously pumped up and distorted maps of the country that shows how America REALLY looks and votes. Don’t believe me? Here’s a quote from Spooky’s site: “The cartogram reveals what we know already from the news: that the country was actually very evenly divided by the vote, rather than being dominated by one side or the other.”

When you look at the veeeeeeeeery misleading “by county” map, it does, indeed, appear that there are very small pockets of blue in a sea of red. Why is this so misleading? Because of the way that the country is laid out, silly. Big, urban areas (where most of the people are) look like tiny blue dots. States with small populations (say, Wyoming or North Dakota) boast large rural areas who vote Republican skew the map because it appears that the amount of LAND represents the number of PEOPLE. Which, of course, is wrong. I’d provide a link to prove my point, but...Spooky already did it!

Finally, Spooky’s link ALSO proves another point: because two senators come from each state, it appears that, in an evenly divided Senate, that each Senator represents the same amount of people. This, of course, is not the case. Democratic Senators represent FAR more of the population of the United States than their Republican counterparts. But this is supposedly corrected by the layout of the House of Representatives, which more accurately represents the population. In other words, if the House is Blue, so is the nation.

And guess what? It is!

Noonan’s hit and run: “Nice bit of dodge and weave...but you still cannot ever get away from the fact that you live in a fantasy world...”

The fantasy world is the one in which we are winning the war in Iraq. That’s where YOU live, Noonan. The rest of us live in the real world. Tell me...what color is the SKY in your universe?

Then he says: “[Y]ou think the people should have A, and thus the people must want A, and if they don't want A then it is because they've been bamboozled by Republicans into not understanding what they REALLY want, so off to court you go to try and force people to have A.”

Actually, I’d prefer that people have a choice between A and B, but that both A and B should be available. You, Mr. Noonan, and your ilk are the ones who push for fewer choices, not more.

Who wants there to be available health care to all Americans? We do.
Who wants responsible stewardship of the environment? We do.
Who wants to slow the rising inequality of wages in America? We do.
Who wants real lobbyist reform? We do.
Who wants to fund stem cell research? We do.

Who wants to force the Arizona Park Service into telling tourists that the Grand Canyon was formed in Noah’s Great Flood? You do.

That, folks, is living in a fantasy world.

Cyber- HS! i never heard that one about the grand canyon! LOL are u serious? Man that is some funny shi%.

scary actually.

But your point echoes exactly why people think the reps are like Nazi's. Something that they don't understand. Limited choices, limited options, limited freedoms, it all equates to the word "conservative"

hellooooo? any reps in there????

And that's not even adding in all the spying and tapping and vote rigging and that ability for Bush to claim anyone a terrorist...to conrtol the people.

gee do you guys think there is any resemblance to good ol' Adolph?

Jenn:
The only people who think the Republican Party are like Nazis and Bush like Hitler is you and about 10 morons who read the Daily Kos.

And FYI: YOU MOST DEFINITELY DO NOT REPRESENT THE MAINSTREAM AMERICAN.... nor will you ever.

That fact, you'll have to get used to. It'd work better than getting loud and calling others racists.