Lucky...

I read that too and the worst was a Repub/Repub. But the best was a Repub congress/Dem pres.

"I am a conservative because I believe in the power of each individual. My philosophy trusts individuals to make the right decisions for their families and communities [instead of] from distant bureaucracies. I am a conservative because I believe government should be limited and efficient. I am a conservative because I believe in a strong national defense [and] I support free markets and free trade. I am a conservative because I believe government closest to the people governs best." Source: “A Charge to Keep”, George W. Bush p.235 Are you suggesting G.W. Bush LIED? Let's see here, Bush: - Claims he's a conservative and a Republican - Ran as a Republican all of his life, governor, president - The Republican electorate elected him twice, or so the records show - He didn't veto 1 bill in 5.5 years from a Republican congress ......... but some contend he's not a Republican

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>I think that anyone that considers W to be to the right is mistaken. I don't know how we classify them then. I do understand that people in the Republican Party want to distance themselves, but they voted him, he is a product of them; we can't divorce ourselves from our actions just because they didn't work well. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>Also iirc during the 70's I think all 3 were under the same party but I may be wrong so feel free to correct me. All 3 of what? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.While i personally won't be voting for sen Obama I have am quite interested as to how this will play out. Will this be the answer to the woes of the country or after 4 yrs will it be "we're just getting started and need more time." It took until the 4th or 5th year of Clinton to unfuck 12 years of Reagan/Bush and they weren't nearly as bad in 12 as GWB was in 8, so it may well take into his second term if there is one to unfuck GWB;s goodies. >>>>>>>>>>>>>My hope is that something good comes out of this and I will reserve judgement until I see results. My worry is that we get more of the same but with a left spin on it. People who find themselves blaming the left or on the ready to do so crack me up. We had the worst fiscal disater with Reagan/Bush in teh 80's leading to a deep recession in the early 90's, Clinton led to a very proserous time, the answer from the right was to impeach him for a BJ and lie, then the right made fascist Ronnies/GHWB's deeds look small in 2 terms, now the RW wants to doubt Obama? That's a good one.

And yet the King George, Dick and Rice show made it, but the actors kept dropping out, out of embarassment.

Right, 115 people die on the roads every day, yet it's commonplace and no news much of the time. It is way out there that damage of that kind yields no fatalities.

That was rhetorical. I think we lose that checks and balances thing when are 1-sided. With that said, I want us to be full-on Dem for at least 4 years so we can come closer to center, even tho it may be harmful in ways. I think the gross-conservatism we now enjoy needs to be undone and with balance we won't get there. What do you think?

Altho with Clinton that's where he laid the foundation for his tax increases with helped him with his fiscal success. I just think people were so shocked and dismayed that Clinton was elected that it was a whiplash with the 94 election cycle going huge R in congress.

I like cupcakes.

Nah, it may be closer than the 10 point spread some polls have it at now, bit it's not gonna be down to the wire IMO. McCain pretty much needs to win all the swing states from what I understand, so I hope and think it will be a very boring and predictable election.

Well, 1 has for most of 8 years and you tell me how it's working out.

This is worthless, a plane crash where all 6 live? Just quit the PA's and move along, unless you're pissed cause your guy is losing . Your threads, OTOH, are gems. >>>>>>>>>scaredy-cat liberals Yea, that's substantiated with nothing. >>>>>>>>>>>Were there Democrats on one plane, and Republicans in the other? On plane was carrying 2 criminals in transport, so we have at least 2 Republicans.

Perhaps at one point, but if you think about it realistically, that could never happen today. As armed as the US populace is (and it is clearly the most well armed populace on the planet), as long as the government has the military on its side, the populace could never successfully rise up against it through use of force. I don't know about that quade. Looking back at 9/11, the terrorists didn't need bombs or guns to cause massive destruction. They used ou ignorance and arrogance as their best weapon. As for a modern-day internal uprising, it could happen successfully, but you could never organize it, therefore it wouldn't happen / won't happen. If you get 2 guys together with slingshots and a plan to overthrow, the FBI is there so quickly and they will fabricate what they need to / if they need to. If that ever happened, Kent state would like like a picnic.

>>>>>>>>>>>The phones go for about $400 each. Or 5 nights with the bitch of your choice. I didn't say it was funny -ha,ha, It's just inane that they would turn this into punishment when you really can't do much to DR prisoners.

Yep, all others I've met cheerlead for their position and build arguments around them rather than to clean the slate and use objective data. Esp with guns, I'm more pro than most of these pseudo Republicans that are really confused Libertarians many of them, but I can understand that the 2nd is really unclear at best. As for the 4th, what is unreasonable? What did they mean and how do we interpret it today? Understanding that the US Const is meaningless other than a document to usually misconstrue in order to win a debate or in the case of justices, to justify a decision via their law clerk. Point is, I can look outside of my wishes and create arguments, even if I don't like the result. This is why I have been able to adjust my politics and many things that are opinion-based, unlike most ideologues and others drivien by family rule or other rigid fallacy.

He can't annunciate his words, like, "president" which comes out as, "presssint." And, "senator" which comes out as, "sentor." Is it just a Republican thing or what? OK, so nuclear has been butchered forever, but what is it with these neo-con politicians? Ole Troopsssshhhh McCain is slipping off.

I don't think anyone including the op would want the above but I'm curious, how would you punish the offender who is on death row? Add 15 months to their sentence. put them in the express lane. move the execution up 30 days and cancel their appeal. And then keep denying we execute innocent people.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081022/ap_on_re_us/planes_collide_6 Isn't that a trip, no injuries. A waste of at least 1 nice acft tho

That Napalitano guy is a woman .... of course you couldn't tell by looking at her. She's gov of Az

Yea, the good old days tehy would conspire, now it's just prtocol..... I liked it better when they had to at least lie and cover it up.

Please explain what you mean by this because it sounds like you disagree with the Heller decision and that would be crazy in light of a very recent thread I sponsored. I have an answer in my WORD, I am gonn ago back and post that there. Let's not beat it to death here. I will say that I am the only objective person I know, most cheerlead for their personal position and skew the facts to render the same. I am huge pro-gun, I don;t know what I would do if the gov demanded registration or criminalization. I am a law abider, but really pro-gun ownership. I just think the original writing of the 2nd and first ever interpretation of the same by the Heller decision are a HUUUUUUUUUUUUGE stretch. Intelectually = Heller dec is wrong Personally = Heller dec is perfect

I was talking Obama in this thread and on that post, just quit jumping in the end of a thread.

Concur. Concentration of power in any branch (executive has been the current trend over the last 30 or so years) is of concern to me. VR/Marg And I agree, but since the people decided to go so far right, we need to go as long left to regain balance, then go for balance in positions. It's really boom-n-bust, but it's what we have.

Bill Clinton managed to skirt around those lack of executive powers to inflict a great number of serious restrictions on gun rights, through threat of lawsuits, trade agreements, and other means. Give the liberals control of both the House and Senate, and there is no anti-gun Bill that Barack Hussein Obama won't eagerly sign. He won't do that for the same reason the LW House won't impeach Bush, which they easily could, they don;t want to seem as petty and wasteful as the RW has, and they plan to stay a while. Again, the SCOTUS decision which I think is a stretch, but I love, is real hard to overturn; it would take another SCOTUS decision to do it. Even if congress passed laws, you could flash you Heller card in court and they would be bound to follow it.

That would be the 'confused Palin' that *STILL* has more executive experience than the person you are advocating for President, yes? Executive over a town of 7k (rolls eyes). Executive over a state of the smallest population or damn near... for 20 months.... has demonstrated continual corruption.... yea, what a gal She couldn't even do better than 3rd in a state beauty contest and took her what 5 or more schools to get a simple BA in Journalism .... what a gal

>>>>>>>>>>>>In practice the president has the most legislative power when his desires aren't too numerous or fall into a number of big spaces where congress has ceded authority. I'll concede that the pres has a lot of temporary power, esp on issues that congress hasn't addressed. But on a SCOTUS issue that has been addressed a bunch of times, and recent decision (Heller) handed down that supports private gun ownership and really leaglizes it, I don't see how a president could override that. As well, even if he did have his sights set on the 2nd, he would have to go after it like Bush did the Overtime Bill set to law at the end of his first term. The 1938 Fair Labor Standards Act is much easier to change than an amendment from the BOR's, that has been recently decided, so this is not a hole in the law where congress and the SCOTUS have shrugged and walked away. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Clinton got his 1994 ban passed this way, with HR3355 growing to 19,000 lines of text before enough Congress critters would vote "Yea" on it with the ban intact. I think the anti-assault rifle ban was ripe for signing as well, and don't forget, GHWB had his NRA card pulled for some of that same shit and GWB said he would have signed the AR Ban if it came to him, so gun banning is somewhat bipartisan, the Dems lean a little more. With the R's fucking away the total US economy over the last 28 years, I think Obama has a lot more to contend with than banning guns, even if that is his pet. If he wants to ensure he's a 1-term president, he should ignore the horrific economy and go after guns, that way he'll be done in all of politics. Let's be real, this is more fear mongering from the RW trying to find an angle to get pro-gun Dems away from voting for Obama. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Bush 41 and Clinton both demonstrated this isn't the case. Killing the 2nd and barely limiting it are different animals. And don't forget, the marriage between fascist America and it's girlfriend the US corporation was exhibited when Colt agreed to quit making some guns forever. In the end, it's all hype. Do I like the Dems stance on gun ownership? No. Do gund make the US more deadly? OF course. Do I think we should have the right to own them anyway? Yes. Even if we knew Obama would go after them, should we elect the fascist Bush clone so as not to take a chance on the 2nd? Hell no.