[bestcigsnick]

Thats just it. There's not a lot of difference between them today.

Actually there still is. Though the Republicans have been sliding to the left for the last few decades, the Democrats (who started on the left) have been stampeding in that direction. So they are still far more left-leaning than the Republicans. And this can be seen in their sizable policy differences.

One "party" doesn't even try to hide its socialist veiws, the other party pays lipservice to conservative veiws yet drags us more and more towards socialist policy(ies). Fortunately, Republicans still do more than "pay lipservice". Cutting income taxes runs directly contrary to the most fundamental mission of modern liberalism: making people depend on Big Government. And strong defense, rather than appeasement while cutting the military in the face of direct threats, is another huge, concrete difference between the parties. Finally, appointing judges and justices who strongly support the original small-government intent of the Constitution, is something the Democrats would avoid as a vampire avoids sunlight. And for the same reason.

But Republicans need to do far more: cutting spending rather than increasing it for liberal-style social programs, getting new entitlements OUT of their platform, and starting to reduce our currently-massive government. Appointing originalist judges might take care of some of that, a long way down the road, but Repubs need to be up front about it rather than making it look like an accident.

Can Democrats, who also want more votes, do all of the things I described?

Can a zebra change its stripes?

[RicyReetred]

In Real Estate, it is location, location, location.
In Politics, it is message, message, message.

Actually, that's not all you need in politics, as I have pointed out.

You have to have a message that people:

(a) believe, and
(b) like.

The Dems have often had a message: We bring a liberal agenda, tax increases, bigger government, weak defense.

When they did, they got stomped, as I mentioned.

Recently, they have had a message: We're just as conservative as the Republicans, we'll only raise SOME taxes, we'll have strong defense, Bush is baaaaaaaad.

Even in the face of semi-conservative, semi-liberal Republicans, they still lost. Partly because people didn't believe them, and partly because people didn't like what they thought the Dems would actually DO when in office.

"Having a message" is not enough. You must have a message people believe, and like better than the other party's message. Usually the Democrats fail on both counts.

[Pataacculakp]

Actually, that's not all you need in politics, as I have pointed out.

You have to have a message that people:

(a) believe, and
(b) like.

The Dems have often had a message: We bring a liberal agenda, tax increases, bigger government, weak defense.

When they did, they got stomped, as I mentioned.

Recently, they have had a message: We're just as conservative as the Republicans, we'll only raise SOME taxes, we'll have strong defense, Bush is baaaaaaaad.

Even in the face of semi-conservative, semi-liberal Republicans, they still lost. Partly because people didn't believe them, and partly because people didn't like what they thought the Dems would actually DO when in office.

"Having a message" is not enough. You must have a message people believe, and like better than the other party's message. Usually the Democrats fail on both counts.

not to agrue - but the saying "location, location..." means GOOD location.
I meant the same - the message has to be a GOOD message, or at least not as bad as the other side.

Kerry's message was basic - "Bush is bad"..when asked what he would do different.."I wouldn't do what Bush does" - that was pretty much it, in a nutshell.
And now you have the "ranting-trio" - Al Gore, Dean and Hildebeast.

To mainstream America Al Gore is the party clown, he has produced more gaffe's than Dan Quayle. The same goes for Dean, only add the fact most people see him as a loose cannon.
And Hildebeast? - untrustworthy, mean, self-centered and cold.

....we will most definetely have another Republican president.

[DF9sLGSU]

The fact that you believe that is what will keep Congress in the hands of the Republicans.

Corny. Stupid, but mostly corny.

You and your ilk Stupid phrase.

think that this mere scandal is all it's going to take to shift people from voting one way to another. Hey, it's nothing close to a mere scandal. This is going to be the biggest scandal in American history. Mere scandal my ass! Go buy a clue and find out how big this scandal is.

You can't win based simply on your foes' follies. Follies? They're friggin' crooks breaking laws specifically designed to keep politicians in check. Follies you say? Oh no no no, crooked Republicans, it's a world of difference.

The Democrats need to present a platform to the American people that will be palatable to the voters and convince them that they are the better party for America. This is politics 101 that every party (well, actually only two) can benefit from. But again, it's commentary that does nothing to address the large scale corruption within the Republicans party. Sorry, not being partisan, just pointing out that Republicans are going down for breaking the law and not partisan tricks.

The Democrats aren't doing that. They're pouting like little kids and not putting forth any ideas that people like. I'd agree to that. Instead of crying I'd like to see an impeachment trial and a revamp on laws regarding politicians and lobbyists. Enough is enough.

[strongjannabiz]

Actually there still is. Though the Republicans have been sliding to the left for the last few decades, the Democrats (who started on the left) have been stampeding in that direction. So they are still far more left-leaning than the Republicans. And this can be seen in their sizable policy differences.

Well, who knows. Maybe they'll eventually both replace one anothers idealogies. Way politics are, nothing would surprise me

Fortunately, Republicans still do more than "pay lipservice". Cutting income taxes runs directly contrary to the most fundamental mission of modern liberalism: making people depend on Big Government. And strong defense, rather than appeasement while cutting the military in the face of direct threats, is another huge, concrete difference between the parties. Finally, appointing judges and justices who strongly support the original small-government intent of the Constitution, is something the Democrats would avoid as a vampire avoids sunlight. And for the same reason.

Very well stated

But Republicans need to do far more: cutting spending rather than increasing it for liberal-style social programs, getting new entitlements OUT of their platform, and starting to reduce our currently-massive government. Appointing originalist judges might take care of some of that, a long way down the road, but Repubs need to be up front about it rather than making it look like an accident.

Can Democrats, who also want more votes, do all of the things I described?

Can a zebra change its stripes?

Is all we can do is watch, vote and hope I guess. Who knows.

[N9NACzws]

Corny. Stupid, but mostly corny.

Stupid phrase.



Hey, it's nothing close to a mere scandal. This is going to be the biggest scandal in American history. Mere scandal my ass! Go buy a clue and find out how big this scandal is.

Follies? They're friggin' crooks breaking laws specifically designed to keep politicians in check. Follies you say? Oh no no no, crooked Republicans, it's a world of difference.



This is politics 101 that every party (well, actually only two) can benefit from. But again, it's commentary that does nothing to address the large scale corruption within the Republicans party. Sorry, not being partisan, just pointing out that Republicans are going down for breaking the law and not partisan tricks.



I'd agree to that. Instead of crying I'd like to see an impeachment trial and a revamp on laws regarding politicians and lobbyists. Enough is enough.

Corny? Stupid? friggin crook??

Wow, you sure put me in my place, Jose.

[womberte]

BREAKING GARBAGE.

Just now, on CNN, there is a report that three TOP Democrats are now united against Bush, Guess who::

Senators Clinton, and Kerry, and Al Gore These are "TOP" Democrats????? Maybe well known, but certainly not "TOP"

[esanamaserrn]

BREAKING GARBAGE.

Just now, on CNN, there is a report that three TOP Democrats are now united against Bush, Guess who::

Senators Clinton, and Kerry, and Al Gore These are "TOP" Democrats????? Maybe well known, but certainly not "TOP"

Yes. These are the top.

The top DUMMYCATS.

easy to miss that

It's pretty amazing that these...........

......... ah shit, I give up.

These people ARE the best comedians I've ever seen

My God.

Can they possibly think they're helping the democrat party

I have to question that. Are there really people this stupid


Lordy, I guess so

[Unonounaple]

BREAKING GARBAGE.

Just now, on CNN, there is a report that three TOP Democrats are now united against Bush, Guess who::

Senators Clinton, and Kerry, and Al Gore These are "TOP" Democrats????? Maybe well known, but certainly not "TOP"

Define and illustrate credible opposition since a democrat doesn't fall into that list for you. I honestly don't know the crimes Kerry and Al Gore have committed besides ending up getting smeared for running against the Rove machine.

Clinton is all about censorship, I don't like her. I like her politics on foreign policy but in domestic issues, every DVD, video game, and music will end up illegal like drugs and murder. She's bad for American freedoms.

Gore and Kerry - I honestly don't know what gripes anyone would have against them. Although Tipper Gore does make me cringe..

[expomeHattePe]

Define and illustrate credible opposition OKsince a democrat doesn't fall into that list for you. Sorry, I don't understand your statement here. Are you saying that these npeople are not democrats???? I honestly don't know the crimes Kerry and Al Gore have committed besides ending up getting smeared for running against the Rove machine.See below

Clinton is all about censorship, I don't like her. I like her politics on foreign policy but in domestic issues, every DVD, video game, and music will end up illegal like drugs and murder. She's bad for American freedoms.

Gore and Kerry - I honestly don't know what gripes anyone would have against them. Although Tipper Gore does make me cringe..

1. First of all:
Al WHO???? In 2000 I voted for Bush instead of voting for "Nothing". Bush only won because he had no opposition, and Surprisingly, even then, "nothing" won the popular vote. Al "Who" was VEP, but was just as ineffectual, and nothing but a "yes" man. I owe him no respect. then, or now. He was a "nothing then, and still is.

2. I don't think Kerry is much better, but I did vote for him in 04. The Dems have to come up with better choices.

I expect to vote for another republican, because with one single exception, ( which I am not sure of) no one has come out ot the Democratic Woodwork ------YET.
__________________

[ZESINTERS]

1. First of all:
Al WHO???? In 2000 I voted for Bush instead of voting for "Nothing". Bush only won because he had no opposition, and Surprisingly, even then, "nothing" won the popular vote. Al "Who" was VEP, but was just as ineffectual, and nothing but a "yes" man. I owe him no respect. then, or now. He was a "nothing then, and still is.

2. I don't think Kerry is much better, but I did vote for him in 04. The Dems have to come up with better choices.

I expect to vote for another republican, because with one single exception, ( which I am not sure of) no one has come out ot the Democratic Woodwork ------YET.
__________________

Well said.
Just like I said before - Bush didn't win, Kerry lost
He won because of a lack of competition.
If Hildebeast runs, she will have an all-forgiving and sizable following, just like she has now. Outside of that core group - she is hated, loathed at best.

[Seerseraxlils]

hilarious hilary has about as much chance of becoming the president as I do.

Zero chance.

Besides the fact that she gives me the major creeps, I don't think she has the sense to pull it off.

I suppose anythings possible but, well, that'd be one for a "believe it or not" story.

[addyta.org]

I don't know how to do the quote things, but little-acorn, your statement of repubs. moving to the left over the years is hysterical. You must be very young.

I like Gore. How 'bout Gore/Obama.

Gore's speech immediately following 9/11 proved to be right, and his subsequent speeches have been awe-inspiring, incredibly intelligent, with blatant reminders of what real American values are. He said he was going to let it rip, and he has. From what I've seen and heard so far from the dem. frontrunners, he is the one I trust the most to clean up the shitpile of failures and inextricable messes that Bush and the neocons have unloaded on our country.

[Ephejvll]

Al gores speeches inspire "awe" do they ?

They're "incredibly intelligent, with blatant reminders of what real American values are." are they ?

You trust Al Gore to "clean up the shitpile of failures and inextricable messes that Bush and the neocons have unloaded on our country." ?

Do you ?

Well hey, different opinions ARE certainly interesting.

[himecthekWiff]

I don't know how to do the quote things, but little-acorn, your statement of repubs. moving to the left over the years is hysterical.

I would have to respond, in this case, that the hysteria is in the eye of the beholder.

You must be very young. Kind thanks. Few people have called me that since about the time I held my nose and voted for Nixon.

I like Gore. How 'bout Gore/Obama. An excellent choice, which will do much for the good of the country. Condoleeza will win in a landslide over Owlgore. Not only will this result in Republicans holding the Presidency for the next four or eight years, with the likelyhood of replacing Stevens and Ginsburg with originalist judges, but it will also deep-six any chance for a socialist such as Hillary to get elected. A two-fer!

his subsequent speeches have been awe-inspiring, incredibly intelligent My first response appears correct.

Keep up the good work, Demmies!

.

[Nikitka]

I don't know how to do the quote things, but little-acorn, your statement of repubs. moving to the left over the years is hysterical. You must be very young.

I like Gore. How 'bout Gore/Obama.

Gore's speech immediately following 9/11 proved to be right, and his subsequent speeches have been awe-inspiring, incredibly intelligent, with blatant reminders of what real American values are. He said he was going to let it rip, and he has. From what I've seen and heard so far from the dem. frontrunners, he is the one I trust the most to clean up the shitpile of failures and inextricable messes that Bush and the neocons have unloaded on our country.

Here's intructions I threw together quickly. They should help. I know there are others that could use 'em so I'll save 'em:

When you hit the "quote" button, and get into the "reply" format box the text you're responding to will be contained within these [ quote soandso ] ~~~~Text you're responding too ~~~~~~~ [/quote]

What you can do is copy and paste the [ quote soandso ] and [/quote] to surround peices of text you want to specifically address.

One tip on this, is that when these [ quote soandso ] [/quote] are right next to text, you'll need to put your cursor there and separate them by a few spaces so you can just copy the [ quote soandso ] or the [/quote] without picking up peices of unwanted text.

This will allow you to respond to specific areas or even sentences. Before you hit "reply" it will look something like this"

[ quote soandso ] ~~~~Text you're responding too ~~~~~~~ [/quote]

bla blah blah --what you're saying --blahblah blah


[ quote soandso ] ~~~~Text you're responding too ~~~~~~~ [/quote]


bla blah blah --what you're saying --blahblah blah


[ quote soandso ] ~~~~Text you're responding too ~~~~~~~ [/quote]


bla blah blah --more of what you're saying --blahblah blah

[Moupponge]

I don't know how to do the quote things...

Look at any post, look at the bottom right of their post - see the "quote" button - yeah that one.

[Teareerah]

Here's intructions I threw together quickly. They should help. I know there are others that could use 'em so I'll save 'em:

Thanks, that was easy. Get back to you later on your political philosophy.

[viawbambutt]

hilarious hilary has about as much chance of becoming the president as I do.

Zero chance.

Besides the fact that she gives me the major creeps, I don't think she has the sense to pull it off.

I suppose anythings possible but, well, that'd be one for a "believe it or not" story.

I would love to vote for a democrat in 2008 but I couldn't vote for Hillary.
As far as I'm concerned every democratic member of congress who voted for the war should be disqualified from running for president.

As far as I'm concerned they sacrificed lives, abandoned their constituents, and destroyed the credibility of their own party. They did so as part of a cowardly, shortsighted, and self-serving strategy to re-elect themselves and avoid republican charges of anti-americanism and being "weak on terrorism".

[MexicoCity]

I would love to vote for a democrat in 2008 but I couldn't vote for Hillary.
As far as I'm concerned every democratic member of congress who voted for the war should be disqualified from running for president.

As far as I'm concerned they sacrificed lives, abandoned their constituents, and destroyed the credibility of their own party. They did so as part of a cowardly, shortsighted, and self-serving strategy to re-elect themselves and avoid republican charges of anti-americanism and being "weak on terrorism".

I love the smell of splintering Democrats in the morning.



.