March of the Democrats.

[Slevin57]

Well FOX said the democrats are going to take the Senate and House of Representatives.

Funny thing is that Bush has been acting against the will of the republican congress for a while too, so I don't see much of a change happening.

Since the Civil War there has been a switch about every 14 years between the parties in power. It seems as if the republicans are going back to the minority party after 12 years.

I don't really care either way, it seems like the only difference between democrats and republicans is the degree they don't like the President. The democrats dislike him enough to go out of there way to vote no on anything he even remotely wants, and the republicans just vote with him when there is something to gain for them.

The only thing I don't like is the prospect of Speaker Pelosi. I hate that women. They should be using her as a sea wall on the beach during hurricanes.

[System_Zero]

The democrats dislike him enough to go out of there way to vote no on anything he even remotely wants, and the republicans just vote with him when there is something to gain for them.

It works both ways with both parties. I also love how some Republicans use the "We freed the slaves and the Democrats wrote the Jim Crowe laws" in their ads to target Blacks without even taking into account that the Republicans Party during the Civil War era was more similar to today's Democratic Party and vis versa.

History FTW.

[FistFighter]

No kidding, things have changed a lot for both parties.

I'm still not sure what the Dems stand for these days besides "Bush SUCKS," I guess we'll find out if they actually have something substantial planned :P

[Slevin57]

I'm not sure they have anymore of a plan's than the republicans did.

They will (are) doing what politicians do after every election, they promise to cross bipartisian lines and work together. Bullshit.

The democratic minority leaders said the night they won the majority, a letter would go to the new republican minority that they are to hold all documents from the last 4 years and prepare for an in depth investigation. As it stands now the democrats haven't even officially taken hold, and they say no such letter will go.

That's my problem with the democrats, they talk a big talk, but when push comes to shove, they just don't get the job done anymore. If Democrats did everything they said they wanted to do in the way of improving intelligence, military mobility, social welfare, I'd gladly vote Democrat.

If Republicans say something, they do it, even if it is the wrong god damn choice. With Republicans, they just have a higher percentage of doing what they say there going to, until elections roll around and they all revert to god fearing, gay bashing idiots to get votes.

I hope, (and that's all I'm left with) that we either tripple troop numbers in Iraq, grab the country by its nuts, stop the violence, train a real police/military force, with the clear intention that if they don't try, were leaving them to Iran or whatever country will invade them. It's time for somebody to send them a message.

[Akuma Bajen]

I'd favor (as do democrats) a raise of the minimum wage; it hasn't changed for over ten years, the longest stretch in history.

[Slevin57]

*sighs* Most American's make more than minimum wage....even if they didn't....the minimum wage would need to be 10.25 to even make it near livable earning nowadays.

[elesde]

No kidding, things have changed a lot for both parties.

I'm still not sure what the Dems stand for these days besides "Bush SUCKS," I guess we'll find out if they actually have something substantial planned :P

You mean besides healthcare reform and withdrawal plans from iraq (hopefully) before we're bankrupted by a menaingless war?

[Slevin57]

How to destroy an empire, Social Welfare (See: Britain).

We don't have the money for healthcare. We are a superpower. We are a superpower because we have a super expensive military. Social Welfare has it's own problems. The care is minimal at best in some countries.

We are not going to leave Iraq. We didn't leave Japan, Bosnia, South Korea, Kosovo, Afghanistan. In fact every country we have ever been in, we have established a semi-permanent military presence. However, we have given more land back to its original owners than any country/empire in all of time.

The Iraq war has cost about 300 billion dollars. Our trade deficit, has narrowed the most this year since Bush became president. We have Gross Purchase Parity (in very vague terms the national credit limit) of $12.31 trillion dollars.

The government took in about $2.119 trillion dollars last year.

Bear in mind 300 billion is over 5 years, so chop that into fifths for each year.. and thats about 2.83%. Don't think were going bankrupt.

[elesde]

That was hyperbole but you might notice we're trillions of dollars in debt. Funny, when Clinton left office didn't we have 3 trillion in surplus? Bush has (almost) racked up more debt than I believe the last eight presidents combined (not adjusted for inflation). I have the graph somewhere.
Are you against pulling out of iraq? There's nothing more we can really do if we indeed did anything. Anyway I'm going off topic but I think the main use of having a democrat controlled senate and house is that Bush can no longer pass whatever legislation comes to mind. We have abit more of a say in what gets done.

[Slevin57]

Yes I'm against pulling out of Iraq and leaving a country that doesn't even have a stable government alone to fend for themselves.

I think people are putting too much faith in the democrats, we are not going to see any massive changes in the next 2 years. And in 2008 the presidency, house, and senate are up for grabs again. The democrats know this, they do NOT want to fuck up there chances of getting the presidency. Though that fate is already sealed if Hillary Clinton is the forerunner.

[Evonus]

I personally would like to see us out of Iraq in the next 2 years. I'd also like to see a huge reduction in the U.S. military and an end to the military industrial complex, so that we don't have to trade lives for revenue. I'd rather see the money put into education or social programs so that the middle class can actually see a program for themselves, and therefore actually have a reason to pay taxes.

[elesde]

Yes I'm against pulling out of Iraq and leaving a country that doesn't even have a stable government alone to fend for themselves.

I think people are putting too much faith in the democrats, we are not going to see any massive changes in the next 2 years. And in 2008 the presidency, house, and senate are up for grabs again. The democrats know this, they do NOT want to fuck up there chances of getting the presidency. Though that fate is already sealed if Hillary Clinton is the forerunner.

Remind me why they don't have a stable government. Oh yeah, we're putting the one man who kept that entire area stable to death.

Hillary would not by my first choice for presidential candidate. Obama looks extremely promising to me.

[mwknowles92]

I don't believe in the party system. It leads to like what is described in this topic.
It just doesn't do what it's meant to do. If anything, it's hurting this country.
If it were up to me, the party system would not exist. Sadly, it's not up to me.


Oh, and I extremely dislike President Bush. We should kill him jk (now watch the Secret Service and FBI come knocking on my door). No, killing isn't cool, but still, I definitely don't agree with a lot of what he does. For example, he's not a Christian, he just said that to help himself into office. Also, he had no reason to go into Iraq, the reason that they said was proven to be false, and there are several people saying that Bush said to get a reason to go to Iraq. Though, now that we're there, we should finish the job.
I'll post more on this a little later maybe.

[elesde]

Though, now that we're there, we should finish the job.
I'll post more on this a little later maybe.

Why? So more people can die for no reason? What job?

[Slevin57]

Because when you make a mess you have a humanitarian responsibility to clean it up no matter how long it may take. For every one US Soldier that has died 75 Iraqi citizens have been killed by there own people.

Unfortunately, very few countries have the ability to transition between different "parties" being in control without bloodshed and violence.

In Iraq it seems as if there will be no separation between church and state. They are as one. When the Sunni's are in power the Shiites will be unhappy. Not necessarily because they lead different, but they have a fundamental different in their views on the domaniant religion, Islam. This is a recipe for malcontent, and ultimately violence.

I would not lightly call what Saddam had complete control. Like any dictator he used intimidation and fear to control his people. He elevated a minority power to control and abuse a majority. It amounts to at best, peace at the point of a sword.

I still hear alot of politicians complaining about why we went into Iraq. That is irrevelant at this point, we are there now and we need to put stability in the Iraqi government. I cannot personally think of a clear cut way to do this, obviously if we completely ditch them, either neighboring countries will take over, or there will be a very nasty Civil War in which one party will emerge victor.

Various sources already say there is a civil war of this type coming, and it may have already started. But the whole country is not unstable, northern and southern Iraq are reasonably stable at this moment, because Saddam never really had complete control over them, they each have there own militia's protecting those areas.

Which is another possibility, before Saddam, before the communist invasions, Iraqi's were split into tribes, the tribes were in a constant state of war, its very possible such a situation could come about again.

[TheDarkNight]

Because when you make a mess you have a humanitarian responsibility to clean it up no matter how long it may take. For every one US Soldier that has died 75 Iraqi citizens have been killed by there own people.

Unfortunately, very few countries have the ability to transition between different "parties" being in control without bloodshed and violence.

In Iraq it seems as if there will be no separation between church and state. They are as one. When the Sunni's are in power the Shiites will be unhappy. Not necessarily because they lead different, but they have a fundamental different in their views on the domaniant religion, Islam. This is a recipe for malcontent, and ultimately violence.

I would not lightly call what Saddam had complete control. Like any dictator he used intimidation and fear to control his people. He elevated a minority power to control and abuse a majority. It amounts to at best, peace at the point of a sword.

I still hear alot of politicians complaining about why we went into Iraq. That is irrevelant at this point, we are there now and we need to put stability in the Iraqi government. I cannot personally think of a clear cut way to do this, obviously if we completely ditch them, either neighboring countries will take over, or there will be a very nasty Civil War in which one party will emerge victor.

Various sources already say there is a civil war of this type coming, and it may have already started. But the whole country is not unstable, northern and southern Iraq are reasonably stable at this moment, because Saddam never really had complete control over them, they each have there own militia's protecting those areas.

Which is another possibility, before Saddam, before the communist invasions, Iraqi's were split into tribes, the tribes were in a constant state of war, its very possible such a situation could come about again.


Couldn't they just split Iraq up into different countries? I'm sure the Shiites would be happy with their own little country as would the Sunni's.

[Slevin57]

No, because the resources are not equally distributed around Iraq. There would be water wars, oil wars, all kinds of mess.

[Evonus]

Because when you make a mess you have a humanitarian responsibility to clean it up no matter how long it may take. For every one US Soldier that has died 75 Iraqi citizens have been killed by there own people.

Unfortunately, very few countries have the ability to transition between different "parties" being in control without bloodshed and violence.

In Iraq it seems as if there will be no separation between church and state. They are as one. When the Sunni's are in power the Shiites will be unhappy. Not necessarily because they lead different, but they have a fundamental different in their views on the domaniant religion, Islam. This is a recipe for malcontent, and ultimately violence.

I would not lightly call what Saddam had complete control. Like any dictator he used intimidation and fear to control his people. He elevated a minority power to control and abuse a majority. It amounts to at best, peace at the point of a sword.

I still hear alot of politicians complaining about why we went into Iraq. That is irrevelant at this point, we are there now and we need to put stability in the Iraqi government. I cannot personally think of a clear cut way to do this, obviously if we completely ditch them, either neighboring countries will take over, or there will be a very nasty Civil War in which one party will emerge victor.

Various sources already say there is a civil war of this type coming, and it may have already started. But the whole country is not unstable, northern and southern Iraq are reasonably stable at this moment, because Saddam never really had complete control over them, they each have there own militia's protecting those areas.

Which is another possibility, before Saddam, before the communist invasions, Iraqi's were split into tribes, the tribes were in a constant state of war, its very possible such a situation could come about again.

We did our best, we put a police force and an elected government into power. Now it's time to let them sort it out. You can't force democracy on people. We should pull out now and let the Iraqi's decide what they want, no matter what that desire is.

[Slevin57]

Okay lets go for a little analogy :P.

In a case of mistaken identity, I bulldoze your house. Now I have to rebuild your house.. Would you expect me to rebuild halfway and leave? Would you expect me to make it appear like it's a stable house?

No, you would expect me to build you a good house, like you had before, but it would be different.

--------

We have a responsibility to not leave Iraq until they can support themselves. The police force we helped trained has already lost 60% of its recruits to either being KIA or desertion. The only thing holding Iraq together is the US, British, Canadian, etc., troops holding it there.

If we leave, Iraq will be taken over by one of its neighbors, or again seized by the minority party, willing to terrorize the population into sumission. Again.

[speedster]

Y3p, 4nd I'm v3ry h4ppy 4b0u7 7h47!

[Shins]

Stop speaking in leet.

[Evonus]

Okay lets go for a little analogy :P.

In a case of mistaken identity, I bulldoze your house. Now I have to rebuild your house.. Would you expect me to rebuild halfway and leave? Would you expect me to make it appear like it's a stable house?

No, you would expect me to build you a good house, like you had before, but it would be different.

--------

We have a responsibility to not leave Iraq until they can support themselves. The police force we helped trained has already lost 60% of its recruits to either being KIA or desertion. The only thing holding Iraq together is the US, British, Canadian, etc., troops holding it there.

If we leave, Iraq will be taken over by one of its neighbors, or again seized by the minority party, willing to terrorize the population into sumission. Again.

That's not my problem. I say we make a deal with Al-Saudir and leave. Win for us, win for him. Sadam was only a problem for us because he no longer wanted to cooperate. There was no altruism in "Operation Iraqi freedom".

[Slevin57]

That's not my problem. I say we make a deal with Al-Saudir and leave. Win for us, win for him. Sadam was only a problem for us because he no longer wanted to cooperate. There was no altruism in "Operation Iraqi freedom".

*bulldozes Evonus' house and leaves*:salute:

[RoboCop]

WASSSUP, RBOCOP here

HEY wen do i get fkn upgraded HUH?!?!??!?!!?!?.


fkn retards

[Napalm]

OH MAN IM SO FRIGGIN HORNY

AND FUNNY

NOT REALLY I AMSUE MYSELF AND MYSELF ONYL

[RoboCop]

FUK U U CUNT_SHIT RTARD


lol i crak myself up

[Napalm]

LOOK I USE FUCK_SIHT RETARD IM FUNY NO1 LIKES ME WAH CUT CUT
WAH IM ROBOCOP

[mwknowles92]

Anyways...

[System_Zero]

He soiled the good name of RoboCop. ED-209 would be sad.

But oh well, back on topic.

[Evonus]

*bulldozes Evonus' house and leaves*:salute:

*Didn't own a house to begin with* :banana:

[Shins]

He killed your girlfriend (boyfriend?), and didn't stay on as wingman to help you pick up another one.

[Hacky]

I hate you all. ruining a perfectly good topic.