The Holy Republican Empire?

[BlueStreak]

Originally Posted by glen65

We both know that's not what you're really referring to here.
Its clear that you're talking about the prospects of the Republicans
regaining majority status in congress and presidency.
The Democrats are hardly in any danger of loosing "all" of their seats,
or becoming completely inviable. So again, if you truly believe
that one party shouldn't have all of the marbles,
then are you in opposition of the Democrats having
control of all branches of government?



No, but the fact is right now they're not the ones in power.

No, that isn't what I meant, genius.
Stop trying to tell me what I meant.
I think I would know what I meant better than you would.
I meant it just as I wrote it--"single party rule".

And I posed it as a hypothetical question. Not as a statement.

Are you in opposition of the Republicans "regaining power"?

My guess is, "No.". That's your perogative. Have at it.

I am. I oppose them regaining the majority. I am beyond tired of their (phony) flag waiving propaganda, their revisionist history, and their quasi-religious hullabaloo. With each passing day I find less and less reason to vote for them. They have become ALL bitch, whine and HOORAH with NO substance, IMO.

If you think you're going to drag me into a long, protracted and pointless argument over this, you're not. I couldn't care less what you think.

Have a nice life, girlfriend.

Dave

[glen65]

Originally Posted by BlueStreak

No, that isn't what I meant, genius.
Stop trying to tell me what I meant.
I think I would know what I meant better than you would.
I meant it just as I wrote it--"single party rule".

And I posed it as a hypothetical question. Not as a statement.

You posed it because you know there is good chance they will
regain power. You cant stand the prospect of this so now
you start questioning whether having one party
heading up all branches of government is a good thing. If all
things were reversed its highly unlikely you would be asking the question.

Are you in opposition of the Republicans "regaining power"?

My guess is, "No.". That's your perogative. Have at it.

I'll save you the guesswork, no I'm not.

I am. I oppose them regaining the majority.

Gee who would have ever guessed?

I am beyond tired of their (phony) flag waiving propaganda, their revisionist history, and their quasi-religious hullabaloo. With each passing day I find less and less reason to vote for them. They have become ALL bitch, whine and HOORAH with NO substance, IMO.

Lol...Who was the last republican you ever voted for?

If you think you're going to drag me into a long, protracted and pointless argument over this, you're not. I couldn't care less what you think.
Have a nice life, girlfriend.
Dave

And to think you call Republicans whiners.

[d-ray657]

Originally Posted by glen65

We both know that's not what you're really referring to here.
Its clear that you're talking about the prospects of the Republicans
regaining majority status in congress and presidency.
The Democrats are hardly in any danger of loosing "all" of their seats,
or becoming completely inviable. So again, if you truly believe
that one party shouldn't have all of the marbles,
then are you in opposition of the Democrats having
control of all branches of government?



No, but the fact is right now they're not the ones in power.

I didn't realize that we were in the presence of a mind reader. It's strange how these little bites of information in cyberspace can reveal one's innermost thoughts, even if they are contrary to what is actually said.

We have never had a one party system in America. Even when one party has majorities in both houses and the Presidency. The judiciary is a check on the power of the legislative and executive branches, and it is composed of appointees from both parties, serving lifetime terms on the bench. (Technically, Article III federal judges serve "during good behavior.")

Besides, even when Democrats have majorities in both houses, and the white house, it's not single party rule. Everyone knows that the Democrats are not an organized political party. Now if you want to talk about a party that wants to impose ideological purity, just take a look at what has been happening to the Republicans.

I believe that the Republicans do not deserve to return to majority status in any way. After having foisted Dub on us, and having the Republican legislative agenda be drafted by corporate lobbyists, they need to stay out of power until some semblance of economic democracy can be revived. You will see one party power if the GOP helps usher the corporatacracy back into unfettered control of government.

Regards,

D-Ray

[merrylander]

Originally Posted by piece-itpete

I would say, of course the poor have less choices than the rich. They might have to buy a beat up Chevy instead of a new Rolls, a window ac instead of whole house, etc.

That alone doesn't make up freedom. Consider, if you asked a poor former slave if he thought there was a difference.

Pete

Would that be a southern plantation physical slave or a nortern wollen mill economic slave?

[merrylander]

Originally Posted by glen65

And that all changes simply because the majority has an R in front
of their name?

You claimed a Democratic majority in the senate (no longer true) and I stated that the rules make anything less than 60 senators of one party a non majority, so what has that to do with R?

[d-ray657]

Originally Posted by piece-itpete

I would say, of course the poor have less choices than the rich.

Pete

Pete, I'm not picking on you - well yes I am, but you're used to it - but the above is one of my pet grammatical peeves. The poor might have less money, and IMHO less freedom but they don't have less choices. They have FEWER choices. They have less money, but fewer dollars.

At least you did not use the abomination "very unique" or you might have faced capital punishment.

Regards,

D-Ray

[BlueStreak]

Originally Posted by d-ray657

Pete, I'm not picking on you - well yes I am, but you're used to it - but the above is one of my pet grammatical peeves. The poor might have less money, and IMHO less freedom but they don't have less choices. They have FEWER choices. They have less money, but fewer dollars.

At least you did not use the abomination "very unique" or you might have faced capital punishment.

Regards,

D-Ray

One doesn't necessarily need to have lots of money, or fancy things to be fortunate, nor is one necessarily poor if he has little money, but does have good friends and a family who loves him.

I wish more people understood this.

Dave

[d-ray657]

Originally Posted by BlueStreak

One doesn't necessarily need to have lots of money, or fancy things to be fortunate, nor is one necessarily poor if he has little money, but does have good friends and a family who loves him.

I wish more people understood this.

Dave

Dadgummit. We try to get a good fight going, and you go and get all practical and making sense and all that. You sure know how to spoil our fun.

I invested a great deal of time (and money) raising the boys. From the results I've seen so far, it was the best investment I could have possibly made. So yes, no matter what Quicken says, I am a rich man.

Regards,

D-Ray

[glen65]

Originally Posted by merrylander

You claimed a Democratic majority in the senate (no longer true) and I stated that the rules make anything less than 60 senators of one party a non majority, so what has that to do with R?

Yes it is,
You're talking about a super majority, Just because they no
longer have the numbers to bypass a filibuster doesn't mean
they no longer have a majority and cant get anything they want.

[glen65]

Originally Posted by d-ray657

Pete, I'm not picking on you - well yes I am, but you're used to it - but the above is one of my pet grammatical peeves. The poor might have less money, and IMHO less freedom but they don't have less choices. They have FEWER choices. They have less money, but fewer dollars.

At least you did not use the abomination "very unique" or you might have faced capital punishment.

Regards,

D-Ray

Depends on the context, Pete was talking strictly in terms of monetary purchasing power
brought about by increased financial wealth. In that context the wealthy obviously have more
choices.