It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

How I Feel

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 27 2005 @ 02:53 AM
link   
I wrote this e-mail to a group of like-minded individuals in New York City today:



RANT: Party Change?

I can't describe how upset I am at the Republican Party's actions over the last few days. I and I'm sure many of you have waited for years to have a Republican majority in the House, Senate and a Republican President. What do they do with it? Bargain it away to the Dems, the lowest form of slime mold life that exists in the universe IMHO. Why? Who knows? Conspiracy theorists say both parties are in cahoots and orchestrate everything that happens politically in the United States. I'm starting to take that belief a bit less skeptically!

Three days after a great compromise that was supposed to bring the Senate back to peace and take our Republic back from the precipice of becoming an empire a la Star Wars, the Dems have imposed a filibuster on the President's nomination for UN ambassador.

What the hell is going on here? Why doesn't the Republican Party enforce its will like the Dems did over the years it was in control? I'm really considering turning my allegiance to the Libertarian Party because the Republicans seem to be totally ineffective in power.




posted on May, 27 2005 @ 02:57 AM
link   
Dj,

HA HA [snip]
Cheers

BHR

[edited large repetition - nygdan]

[edit on 13-6-2005 by Nygdan]



posted on May, 27 2005 @ 03:13 AM
link   

Bargain it away to the Dems, the lowest form of slime mold life that exists in the universe IMHO.


...and you seemed so nice in chat too LOL! You are aware that the government represents the people and democrats make up a large percentage of this country...right? Sometimes "compromises" are in order...or would you rather just butt heads and get nothing accomplished? Do you think it's in the country's best interest to ignore half of the population completely? I hope the senate is more worried about its people rather than "control", but who am I kidding right?

[edit on 5/27/2005 by Lecky]



posted on May, 27 2005 @ 03:25 AM
link   
Lecky, I don't mean voters but the politicians. Every time the Republicans have ever tried to negotiate with the Democrats in good faith they've always been betrayed and it's come back to bite them in the butt. Sorry if that offends you, but it's the truth.

[edit on 5/27/2005 by djohnsto77]



posted on May, 27 2005 @ 03:37 AM
link   
DJ,


Originally posted by djohnsto77
Lecky, I don't mean voters but the politicians. Every time the Republicans have ever tried to negotiate with the Democrats in good faith they've always been betrayed and it's come back to bite them in the butt. Sorry if that offends you, but it's the truth.

[edit on 5/27/2005 by djohnsto77]


Can we have some proof?

Cheers

BHR



posted on May, 27 2005 @ 08:27 AM
link   
Sure, we have DJ77 types like everybody else, but they're far from vocal or represented in the halls of power. ....they're the min-van owning 'burb commuters who think Bedford = NYC credentials!
Although, they have given so much fuel to water cooler SNAP fights that they are to be forever commended.

Thanks, DJ77!


All teasing aside, I really do not think Libertarians would have you - the "Conservatism" you endorse via this administration and GOP 2005 is in stark contrast to the social liberalism & fiscal clarity that is the cornerstone of that party.



posted on May, 27 2005 @ 11:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by djohnsto77
I wrote this e-mail to a group of like-minded individuals in New York City today:



RANT: Party Change?

I can't describe how upset I am at the Republican Party's actions over the last few days. I and I'm sure many of you have waited for years to have a Republican majority in the House, Senate and a Republican President. What do they do with it? Bargain it away to the Dems, the lowest form of slime mold life that exists in the universe IMHO. Why? Who knows? Conspiracy theorists say both parties are in cahoots and orchestrate everything that happens politically in the United States. I'm starting to take that belief a bit less skeptically!

Three days after a great compromise that was supposed to bring the Senate back to peace and take our Republic back from the precipice of becoming an empire a la Star Wars, the Dems have imposed a filibuster on the President's nomination for UN ambassador.

What the hell is going on here? Why doesn't the Republican Party enforce its will like the Dems did over the years it was in control? I'm really considering turning my allegiance to the Libertarian Party because the Republicans seem to be totally ineffective in power.


You should be angry with your Republican party--especially the leadership....but not for dealing with Dems (which--and I hate to point out the obvious, is part of their job...), but for blindly supporting policies and people that work to the detriment of individual Americans.

John Bolton is bad for America. He is bad for the U.N. He is just a bad man. Period.

Bullying this man through a nomination--which the Republicans could very well do, is just plain stupid. Going to the mattresses for someone who is clearly incompetant is a bad move, especially in the face of potential new evidence that is supposedly so damning that it will nail the coffin shut on this guy.

Even Frist knows that it is prudent to wait. Forcing a vote now only to have Bolton proved to be dirty later will make him look like more of a moron than usual. If it turns out to be a wild goose chase, then he's got more ammo to use against the Dems.

Even though there is an overwhelming amount of evidence to the contrary, I don't think that it is a Republican goal to deliberately nominate incompetants for public office. (Although it sure looks that way, especially to me and 81% of like-minded Manhattanites...)

It seems to me that the Republican's central goal is to establish a pro-corporate environment and return to "traditional" family values---or as we liberals like to say, screw the people and obliterate personal freedom...

How exactly are those endeavors thwarted by the "deal" that they made with the Dems? Prissy Owen was confirmed--as will Brown and Pryor and any other corporate-friendly radical that Bush puts forth.... the Dems have a ten vote deficit and the Republicans can't seem to break from voting party lines when it comes to judiciary nominees, regardless of how egregiously vile the candidate in question is.

Both the traditional corporate conservatives and the Christian fundamentalists in your party will succeed in packing the courts with radical pro-Republican judges who have lifetime appointments--what's with the complaining? You are having your cake and eating it too.



posted on May, 28 2005 @ 01:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by BillHicksRules
DJ,


Originally posted by djohnsto77
Lecky, I don't mean voters but the politicians. Every time the Republicans have ever tried to negotiate with the Democrats in good faith they've always been betrayed and it's come back to bite them in the butt. Sorry if that offends you, but it's the truth.

[edit on 5/27/2005 by djohnsto77]


Can we have some proof?

Cheers

BHR


How about George HW Bush and his "Read my lips, No new taxes"? Democrats pushed for him to break this pledge, and applauded him when he broke the pledge. But when election time came they crucified him with it. So much for compromise.



posted on May, 28 2005 @ 02:37 PM
link   
Carseller,

When I asked for proof I meant links etc.

Not simply you telling a story which may or may not be true.

Cheers

BHR



posted on May, 28 2005 @ 02:51 PM
link   
DJ77,

What is going on in our government is not new it happen before, you should not be angry, you are just a littler more aware this time around, politics is like a game of chess and we are the pieces.

Are you getting tired of it? well join the club, I am also.



posted on May, 28 2005 @ 10:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by BillHicksRules
Carseller,

When I asked for proof I meant links etc.

Not simply you telling a story which may or may not be true.

Cheers

BHR


Common knowledge does not need a link.

You don't remember the "Read my lips, no new taxes"? It WAS a compromise with Democrats.

Here is your proof...

www.answers.com...

In order to pass a fiscal year 1990 budget, Bush entered negotiations with the Democrats. After several weeks at the end of June Bush agreed that the next budget would include tax increases as one of the components of a deficit reduction program...

The issue quickly faded from prominence, however. The tax increase attracted little criticism from the Democrats, who supported the move itself and had lobbied Bush to agree to it...

Most enraged were other Republicans including Newt Gingrich, the Senate leadership, and Vice President Dan Quayle. They felt Bush had destroyed the Republican's most potent election plank for years to come. That the Republican leadership was not consulted before Bush made the deal also angered them. The Republicans kept their disapproval behind closed doors, however. The broken pledge was thus largely forgotten until two years later...

Early in the 1992 presidential campaign little note was made of the pledge, except as an occasional defence against the Republican attacks on Clinton for being a flip-flopper. The phrase was first widely used as attack on Bush by Pat Buchanan who used replays of the sound clip heavily in his suprisingly successful New Hampshire primary campaign. While Buchanan failed to win the Republican nomination he did cause some fiscal conservatives to abandon Bush for third party candidate Ross Perot. Democratic candidate Bill Clinton, who didn't object to tax hikes, also managed to use the broken pledge to great effect. A television commercial designed by campaign manager James Carville had Bush repeating the phrase to illustrate Bush's perfidious nature. It was regarded as the most effective of all of Clinton's campaign ads...



So you now have proof that compromising with Democrats is never a good thing!



posted on May, 29 2005 @ 03:55 AM
link   
First, i believe the deal with the Repulikkkans was to avoid "filibusterring judicial nominees except for the most extreme cases". How does this apply to U.N. ambassadors? There are no slippery tactics here, the deal was hammerred out very specifically and for specific reasons.

What's more, the Dems were only threatening to filibuster the same number of candidates that Republicans did during Clinton. So why all the whining? If such behaviour is good enough for that party, why not for the other?

Third, Bush didn't have to sign anything. If he wanted "no new taxes" so badly, he could have held out. Vetoes are there for a reason. but he did decide to strike a deal with the Dems, and so... who is to blame? the person claiming "no new taxes" or the people that never claimed it, and wanted to reduce the deficit?

And finally, the source that you linked us to mentioned many reasons why Bush and his advisors considerred FLIP-FLOPPING on the issue, even before the Democrats come into the picture. indeed, the paragraph outlining the reasons for failing to live up to his propaganda follows:

"When in office Bush found it very hard to keep his promise. By 1990 rising deficits, fueled by a growth in mandatory spending and a declining economy, increased pressure for new taxes. Bush's economic advisors worried that the high deficits would push up interest rates and cause a full-blown recession just in time for the 1992 election. Pressure from the Democrats also limited Bush's options."

the Faustian dealing with the Democrats comes up only at the end... there were other reasons that also persuaded Bush on this matter.

So... Where is this proof you're thinking of, Carseller? And DJ77; thanks for starting this thread. please, both of you, feel free to respond to all 4 points above. I'm sure the debate will be stimulating.



[edit on 29-5-2005 by TheeStateMachine]



posted on May, 29 2005 @ 07:52 AM
link   
So basically DJ77, you feel like Democrats felt for 40 years trying to figure out why we kept having to compromise with your certifiable lunatics like the one man filibuster machine Jesse Helms?

Trust me, if there had been C-Span and 24 hour news channels all that time, there wouldn't even be a Republican Party today.

Republicans were unapologetic, disgusting and openly vile pigs in the legislature right up through Gingrinch.

Not that they aren't pigs now (see DeLay/Frist), they're just perfumed with the holy oil annointments of neo-Jesus.



posted on May, 29 2005 @ 08:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by djohnsto77
Every time the Republicans have ever tried to negotiate with the Democrats in good faith................




There has not been 'good faith' negotiations by EITHER side in over 30 years DJ. I think you are being rather one sided on this little topic. Nice attempt to make the Republicans look like the good guys in starwars though. Oh, wait a minute. Wasnt it Anikin that said "You're either with us. or you are my enemy?" I dont think that came from a Democratic president now did it?



posted on May, 31 2005 @ 10:27 AM
link   
Carseller,


Originally posted by Carseller4
[Early in the 1992 presidential campaign little note was made of the pledge, except as an occasional defence against the Republican attacks on Clinton for being a flip-flopper. The phrase was first widely used as attack on Bush by Pat Buchanan who used replays of the sound clip heavily in his suprisingly successful New Hampshire primary campaign. While Buchanan failed to win the Republican nomination he did cause some fiscal conservatives to abandon Bush for third party candidate Ross Perot. Democratic candidate Bill Clinton, who didn't object to tax hikes, also managed to use the broken pledge to great effect. A television commercial designed by campaign manager James Carville had Bush repeating the phrase to illustrate Bush's perfidious nature. It was regarded as the most effective of all of Clinton's campaign ads...


I guess this quote and your interpretation of it proves that if one tries hard enough you can spin anything.

Who was first to use the quote, repeatedly?

Was Clinton in Congress?

Do you think Clinton should have ignored a topic which had been shown to be so divisive for Republicans?

As an aside it was interesting to see the use of "flip-flopper". Looks like the GOP boys do not know that many words.

Cheers

BHR



posted on Jun, 13 2005 @ 05:12 AM
link   
Carseller,

You seem to have gone quiet on this one?

No answers to my questions?

Cheers

BHR



posted on Jun, 13 2005 @ 06:15 AM
link   
Like most people, I rarely bother to read what Carseller posts; this proves he doesn't either.


Democrats crucified Bush for the compromise huh?


Originally posted by Carseller4
Here is your proof...

www.answers.com...

The issue quickly faded from prominence, however. The tax increase attracted little criticism from the Democrats, who supported the move itself and had lobbied Bush to agree to it...

Most enraged were other Republicans including Newt Gingrich, the Senate leadership, and Vice President Dan Quayle...

Early in the 1992 presidential campaign little note was made of the pledge, except as an occasional defence against the Republican attacks on Clinton for being a flip-flopper. The phrase was first widely used as attack on Bush by Pat Buchanan who used replays of the sound clip heavily in his suprisingly successful New Hampshire primary campaign...

So you now have proof that compromising with Democrats is never a good thing!


Because Conservatives eat their own!
[Reread DJ's main post for PROOF!]

Maybe instead of "never compromise with Democrats" your motto should be "Never trust another conservative not to stab you in the back", huh?

There was no compromise with the Governor of Arkansas Carseller. He just answered the already present concerns of Republicans and they voted for him... twice!.

[edit on 13-6-2005 by RANT]



posted on Jun, 13 2005 @ 07:20 AM
link   
Republicans were right to be upset when HW Bush went back on his No New Taxes pledge. I am not upset with them.

I pointed out why Republicans should never compromise with Democrats.

If Bush doesn't go back on his word, he is reelected. Clinton goes back to Arkansas and we never hear from him again.

Clinton didn't win, Bush lost. All because of his No Tax compromise with democrats.



posted on Jun, 13 2005 @ 08:38 AM
link   
Carseller,


Originally posted by Carseller4
Clinton didn't win, Bush lost.


You really make me chuckle.

So I guess we can now say that GWB did not win, Gore and Kerry lost?



Well we know Bush did not win in 2000 and the jury is still out on 2004.



Cheers

BHR



posted on Jun, 13 2005 @ 05:46 PM
link   
Why shouldn't the Senate filibuster on nominees to the UN??? I mean, have the republicans never done this? And if not, why not? Its perfectly acceptable. The Senate is not supposed to be an organ of 'majoritarian' politics, its supposed to be one in which consensus, widespanning consensus, can be reached on issues. As such, as its very rules state, the minority party has every right to block nominees via a filibuster. Why change the rules simply because they are being used in a way that you don't like? The republicans are fully entitled to do the same thing, and if they have had the opp, put passed it up, well, thats their own dumb fault.

Also, who says that the president should get every nominee that he wants? That basic idea is usually presented to support the nominations of these contentious people; that the president has a vision and he should be able to express it and not be blocked by a minority in the senate. But the problem is, thats precisely how the system is set up. If the president can't pick someone that can get approved by congress, then he should pick someone else. I kind of like the idea of Bolton being there, but if that many people in the senate are opposed to it, well, then they can block it with a filibuster. Besides, the president got the judges that he wanted, and he'll probably get the Supreme Court Judge that he wants, why throw a fit over this Bolton guy? He's not speacial , he's just a hard ass, he's not going to be able to work with the people in the UN to get any reform thru anway. And besides, the Ambassador to the UN is going to implement the policy of the president and congress anyway, bolton or not. So its not like some sort of major policy issue is whats a hand, there's nothing that bolton can do that someone else can't, and there's a lot that he simply can not accomplish, because apparently he's a bit of a hot head and a jackass, that other's could.
I mean, you're going to bolt from the party because some republicans made a deal with some democrats to end a judicial nominee filibuster?

And, what, you are just realizing that the republicans pander to a rightist base and then go mainstream when in power, just like the democrats pander to a leftist base and go mainstream when in power?




top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join