View Poll Results: Does the partisanship on this board bother anybody but me?

Voters
36. You may not vote on this poll
  • No, too much bipartisanship would be far more destructive

    4 11.11%
  • Yes, the parties should work together instead against each other

    16 44.44%
  • You're new here, aren't you? Get used to it!!!

    16 44.44%
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 49
  1. #31
    Joined
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    2,720

    Re: Does the partisanship on this board bother anybody but me?

    Quote Originally Posted by jrhvball
    I have a question for you, Congress holds the purse strings when it comes to budgets, and then the Pentagon appropriates those funds. It seems to me that if it were a Republican dominated Congress during Clinton's term wouldn't it stand to reason that it was their fault for the cuts? Clinton could have made proposals, but it was up to the Republican Congress to approve them.
    Congress and the Pentagon no doubt share some of the blame for those years, but the Clinton administration made it a policy to cut defense spending. afalzone posted that he didn't think the military suffered under Clinton, I pointed it out that we did suffer.

  2. #32
    Joined
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    10,785

    Re: Does the partisanship on this board bother anybody but me?

    Quote Originally Posted by jrhvball
    I have a question for you, Congress holds the purse strings when it comes to budgets, and then the Pentagon appropriates those funds. It seems to me that if it were a Republican dominated Congress during Clinton's term wouldn't it stand to reason that it was their fault for the cuts? Clinton could have made proposals, but it was up to the Republican Congress to approve them.
    Let's not forget those were times coming out of the cold war and record, whoops- for the time deficits. Bush1 lost the election for unemployment, economic indicators, and deficit levels. Hmm. Deja vu...

    It is regretable politicians hurt the little guy and are not perfect when changing gears. And yes the economy was changing gears. Clinton resisted the changes for reduced government spending and congress held him to it. It was not one man going for that change. He had help and pop polls were on the side of doing it. Havta admit, 2 parties in power do mo better things than only one.

    Sorry to both parties, you guys scare me when say you want it all...

    Quote Originally Posted by Big Whip
    If you really believe the military didn't suffer under Clinton, then you obviously were not in the military under Clinton. Both my wife and myself were, and there is absolutely no doubt that the Clinton administration hurt the military. Every year under Clinton, I saw budget cuts and personnel cuts. When I left the military in 2000, the department I was in had less than half the manpower than it did when Clinton was first elected, but we were expected to do the same amount of work. The way we made up for it is by working overtime, but the problem with that is the military is a 24/7 job, so "overtime" doesn't earn you a single extra cent. Working 40 hours and working 80 hours per week nets you the exact same paycheck. During my last year, I figured out that if I were to turn my paycheck into an hourly wage, I was making less than minimum wage. This was as an E-5 with 7 years service. The new airmen were probably making around 3-5 dollars per hour. Clinton definitely hurt the military, even if you didn't see it.
    Sorry to hear you were in during that time of change. Look at it this way. IF Reagan's theories of fighting the cold war by over spending the USSR didn't work, you might be complaining about something other than pay systems.

    I guess Wet Willy might have gotten a hoover while in office but he didn't do it alone.

    That is also true about the defense spending. He couldn't go it alone. That's my take.

    What you said, though, reminds me of private sector. Overtime? Pay raise? At least you got health, dental, adjusted room and board and a PX. And BTW, the military cuts began with Bush1. He just wasn't getting the effect that people wanted at the time and the election showed it.

    Now, we get outsourcing and a fear of raising the minimum wage to non-poverty levels.

    And before anyone says it. We are talking about McD's and factory assembly jobs at the minimum wage level. After my last order, outsourcing to India might not be a bad idea. I'd be beside myself with happiness if I got a chicken sandwich with what I ordered on it. But those are not the jobs being outsourced. Outsourcing is not a minimum wage job issue. Ask programmers. Whoops now that wasn't partisan was it?

    Notice how I didn't mention Kerry or Bush2? Am I doing better at the non partisan stuff?

    If not, let me introduce you to a friend of mine. A word. A simple word. I'll use it alone as an end. Not towards anyone other than myself.
    click here if you are not easily offended and don't follow the directions(hint)

  3. #33
    Joined
    Apr 2001
    Location
    Right behind you
    Posts
    3,553

    Re: Does the partisanship on this board bother anybody but me?

    Anyone who votes for someone solely because of their politicla affiliation is a moron, IMO. I am a registered democrat, but I have NEVER voted a straight ticket. I know what my views and stances are and I vote accordingly. If there was republican who supported stem cell research running against soemone who didn't (with all other things being equal) I would not hesitate for one second to vote for the republican.

    There are indeed quite a few people here who are blinded by their political affiliations.
    looking for a 5GB Athlon

  4. #34
    Joined
    Oct 2003
    Posts
    1,313

    Re: Does the partisanship on this board bother anybody but me?

    Quote Originally Posted by brewzer
    Anyone who votes for someone solely because of their politicla affiliation is a moron, IMO. I am a registered democrat, but I have NEVER voted a straight ticket. I know what my views and stances are and I vote accordingly. If there was republican who supported stem cell research running against soemone who didn't (with all other things being equal) I would not hesitate for one second to vote for the republican.

    There are indeed quite a few people here who are blinded by their political affiliations.
    I'm quite sure everyone here has done a good amount of research on their candidates. With that said; I would have never voted for any Republican running for Pres. in the last 50-60 years. Their basic core values are the same; if they differ on something relatively minor it doesn't matter to me at all. To me stem cell research is nothing compared to the death and destruction going on right now in Iraq. So keep the moron comments to yourself.

  5. #35
    Joined
    Dec 2001
    Location
    SoCal, Jersey
    Age
    62
    Posts
    5,587

    Re: Does the partisanship on this board bother anybody but me?

    It's a thrilla' in Manilla every day around here. Bi-partianship is for wimps. You must lose. Can't stand the heat, get off the stove. There is only one true path, my way!
    "I despise people who go to the gutter on either the right or the left and hurl rocks at those in the center." - Dwight D. Eisenhower



  6. #36
    Joined
    Oct 2003
    Posts
    1,313

    Re: Does the partisanship on this board bother anybody but me?

    Quote Originally Posted by Apogeal1
    It's a thrilla' in Manilla every day around here. Bi-partianship is for wimps. You must lose. Can't stand the heat, get off the stove. There is only one true path, my way!
    There is not only one true path, but right now I don't see how you can't take a stand. I have to also add that bi-partisanship is considered good only in America... I have not seen so many portray it in a positive light anywhere else.

    Bi-partisanship is good if it gets the right thing done. But if lives are on the line and both parties have very different views on things than why should they come together and hug? I don't see the solution to Iraq being bi-partisan. Republicans won't budge and Democrats won't stop saying its wrong.

  7. #37
    Joined
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Big Sky, U.S.A.
    Posts
    3,250

    Re: Does the partisanship on this board bother anybody but me?

    "It is an unfortunate human failing that a full pocketbook often groans more loudly than an empty stomach."
    Franklin D. Roosevelt
    heat


  8. #38
    Joined
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    10,785

    Re: Does the partisanship on this board bother anybody but me?

    Quote Originally Posted by Nikilo
    I don't see the solution to Iraq being bi-partisan. Republicans won't budge and Democrats won't stop saying its wrong.
    From my viewpoint the republicans have budged a lot. They went from a threat to a guy who was thinking about things.

    The democrats went from a threat to we didn't go there for the reasons said.

    I think it's a process difference. Everyone agrees the sad-ham was the village idiot of the world.

    There really isn't that much difference. The republicans budged again on UN involvement after telling them to pound sand. The democrats, well, it seems that the position is similar, for I don't see anyone calling for a withdrawal, just the same thing: a shift in roles and responsibilities by world involvement. Correct me if I'm wrong.

    There's nothing wrong with bi partisanship. You don't hear about more in other countries because US politics is pretty tame compared to other nations. Perhaps we had more of a reason to be able to work things out with all the nation building immigration of the voluntary and even involuntary nature.

    From what I see in the 2 parties for cooperation with each other, no way. No how. Parties that is, not individual people. People pick and choose the party lines they stand for "ala carte". Look around on this forum. Republicans for gay rights, democrats against. We really should give people more credit for being able to think for themselves. We can thank Gore (and others) and the internet for that. Better faster information.

    The difference now, compared to let's say the Watergate story coming out is pretty amazing. Just like we get a blow by blow with modern warfare we never saw during Viet Nam, we get a running blow by blow in politics. Just like in warfare, though, a battle can quickly turn. Same with politics. For they are wass-cully wabbits.

  9. #39
    Joined
    May 2002
    Location
    Twain Harte, CA
    Posts
    20,422

    Re: Does the partisanship on this board bother anybody but me?

    Quote Originally Posted by otoc
    UNinvolvement
    Yah, I know, I sliced and diced your post, even took a space out... but that's how I read it at first glance and it kinda fits... maybe 'cause I had just finished reading a blurb on Sudan.

    O.K., sorry for being everybody back to the feeding trough...

  10. #40
    Joined
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    10,785

    Re: Does the partisanship on this board bother anybody but me?

    Quote Originally Posted by Dutchcedar
    Yah, I know, I sliced and diced your post, even took a space out... but that's how I read it at first glance and it kinda fits... maybe 'cause I had just finished reading a blurb on Sudan.

    O.K., sorry for being everybody back to the feeding trough...
    Oh yeah , the dutch-o-matic. It slices, it dices, it gets your whites whiter.

    But that's another non-partisan topic. The UN. Everyone agrees it's an organization that needs fixing. And if everyone thought about it carefully and remembered why it was formed, they'd agree that it is needed. Where else can you have nations pontificate and posture off the fields of war? Better than watching wrestling or an old Arnold movie.

    The Sudan is today, Iran tomorrow, Iraq was yesterday. We do keep them busy...

  11. #41
    Joined
    Oct 2003
    Posts
    1,313

    Re: Does the partisanship on this board bother anybody but me?

    If you REALLY think for yourself and not just claim that you do, a claim thrown around a lot these days by middle of the road people, then you will realize that the best way to get your views represented in government is by supporting a party that agree's with your ideals and has the ability to gain a governmental position. Sure, I don't agree with everything the Democratic party says and does but on the whole I do agree with them and they most closely match my personal views. Much like many Republicans on the other side here. I will also side with those who follow my ideology, I really don't see anything wrong with that at all. Now if you are talking about constantly towing the party line, yes that is annoying, but I don't think all that many people do that here. There is the growing cult of Bush but that is something for another thread.

  12. #42
    Joined
    May 2002
    Location
    Twain Harte, CA
    Posts
    20,422

    Re: Does the partisanship on this board bother anybody but me?

    Quote Originally Posted by otoc
    Oh yeah , the dutch-o-matic. It slices, it dices, it gets your whites whiter.

  13. #43
    Joined
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    10,785

    Re: Does the partisanship on this board bother anybody but me?

    Quote Originally Posted by Nikilo
    If you REALLY think for yourself and not just claim that you do, a claim thrown around a lot these days by middle of the road people, then you will realize that the best way to get your views represented in government is by supporting a party that agree's with your ideals and has the ability to gain a governmental position. Sure, I don't agree with everything the Democratic party says and does but on the whole I do agree with them and they most closely match my personal views. Much like many Republicans on the other side here. I will also side with those who follow my ideology, I really don't see anything wrong with that at all. Now if you are talking about constantly towing the party line, yes that is annoying, but I don't think all that many people do that here. There is the growing cult of Bush but that is something for another thread.
    True, but who said middle of the road? And besides, why do I need to be part of a party to express my opinions to those in government?

    I support candidates through contributions. I write to my elected officials, call them on the phone, and try to make positive change through the process of public hearings. Most laws have hearings. Nothing stops me getting involved.

    The gay marriage decision in Massachusetts was not decided in the "radical courts" as Bush so wants people to fear, but the legislature. Do you think I was just posting here during that time? Ha. I was posting here to hone my position for comments to the legislature.

    No. A centrist view is not middle of the road "can't decide on something" platform. It's a starting place. One that allows free choice without the spin of the parties.

    Look at it this way. The Dems are by party platform a left leaning party. The Repubs for the most part are a right leaning. Yet the demos and repubs have people choosing views within their party that don't quite match up with their party lines. Left leaning rights and right leaning lefts. Do any of those people seem unsure of their platform? No. But I sometimes wonder why they choose loyalty to ideals they don't entirely share. That to me is like having a girlfriend or wife that cheats on you. While I'd never stay around, I know many who do, so go figure.

    So how about me (and others), starting in the middle when looking at a problem. I get to look at both sides. Think I don't get an opinion when I've followed the problem through? I've been called a left wing and I've been called a right wing, all on this forum. Think it's because I can't make up my mind? Those names were not called on the same topics.

    Do you think the DNC road show was meant for just for Dems? Naw, the centrists: indies and republicans that see non traditional conservatism coming out of Bush. That's the power of not belonging to a party. We don't belong, but at least we keep things honest. We are the wildcard.

    I've voted for the last 32 years. I've never been aligned with a party for more than 15 minutes at a time for reasons of a primary vote to clear the deadwood out. I've learned from the past that voting third party in the current climate is throwing a vote away. Think I can't decide which democrat or republican to vote for? Think my vote doesn't count because I don't belong to a party?

    Well, actually, due to the electoral system, it doesn't. Party politics comes in and we saw the result after the popular vote didn't match with the electoral. So life's not perfect. But that's not middle of the road either.

    When the parties get real with their platforms, cut the spin, the attacks, the pork barrel, learn the constitution, and maybe read the freaking laws as a party platform, I'll join a party.

    So, I'm never "middle of the road" other than the starting point, and hardly ever undecided. I just have a centrist balance. This starting point allows flexibility. New info will and can change me. That is something hard to do with when aligned with a party.

  14. #44
    Joined
    Jul 2001
    Location
    United States
    Age
    33
    Posts
    1,164

    Re: Does the partisanship on this board bother anybody but me?

    I don't talk much here because there doesnt seem to be much of a place for a centrist here...
    I am:
    anti-abortion (unless will cause harm to mother or in case of rape/etc)
    anti-gay marriage
    pro-union (must be a check and balance to corporations, and viceversa)
    pro-afghan war
    semi-anti iraq war (shoulda let a few more inspections go through to try to build world support)
    This Signature has been depreciated by VBB 3.0. Thank you and good day.

  15. #45
    Joined
    Dec 2002
    Age
    43
    Posts
    3,362

    Re: Does the partisanship on this board bother anybody but me?

    Quote Originally Posted by otoc
    Let's not forget those were times coming out of the cold war and record, whoops- for the time deficits. Bush1 lost the election for unemployment, economic indicators, and deficit levels. Hmm. Deja vu...
    Unemployment is quite low, and can easily been shown to be - compare the US to the rest of the G8 and you'll see that, oil has a big bite on the economy right now, and practically all the issues are quite different than when Bush Sr. was up for re-election.

    It is regretable politicians hurt the little guy and are not perfect when changing gears. And yes the economy was changing gears. Clinton resisted the changes for reduced government spending and congress held him to it. It was not one man going for that change. He had help and pop polls were on the side of doing it. Havta admit, 2 parties in power do mo better things than only one.
    Yes Clinton was held in check, pop polls eventually forced him into compromise, but for much of '96 he wanted to spend big.

    Sorry to both parties, you guys scare me when say you want it all...
    I agree (believe it or not), it's good to have some check and balances in the checks and balances.


    Sorry to hear you were in during that time of change. Look at it this way. IF Reagan's theories of fighting the cold war by over spending the USSR didn't work, you might be complaining about something other than pay systems.
    "Almost" never wins, cuts it, doesn't count, etc... It's silly to debate over "almosts", because what "did" happen is the one that matters.

    I guess Wet Willy might have gotten a hoover while in office but he didn't do it alone.
    He did, and surely the help he recieved was from the business community - they were the ones driving the economy - not politicians in DC.

    That is also true about the defense spending. He couldn't go it alone. That's my take.
    Bush started the cuts for the most part on the nukes, and their delivery systems, and even some force reduction, Clinton took that to a level that was too high IMO, and that was during his first term when he had Dems in control of the House and Senate. He also raised taxes in a record hike during that time as well.

    What you said, though, reminds me of private sector. Overtime? Pay raise? At least you got health, dental, adjusted room and board and a PX. And BTW, the military cuts began with Bush1. He just wasn't getting the effect that people wanted at the time and the election showed it.
    Military cuts wasn't the issue then, what lost it for Bush back then was a tax hike hike forced by the Dem House and Senate (re: read my lips), and an economic turndown, which BTW, was recovering at the time.

    Now, we get outsourcing and a fear of raising the minimum wage to non-poverty levels.
    Outsourcing was as bad during Clinton's stay at the WH as it has been under Bush, it became an issue when the economy went into recession 3 months into Bush's Presidency, which for all those who believe the President is responsible for the economy, that was under Clinton's final fiscal year, Bush's first fiscal year didn't start until Oct '01.

    And before anyone says it. We are talking about McD's and factory assembly jobs at the minimum wage level. After my last order, outsourcing to India might not be a bad idea. I'd be beside myself with happiness if I got a chicken sandwich with what I ordered on it. But those are not the jobs being outsourced. Outsourcing is not a minimum wage job issue. Ask programmers. Whoops now that wasn't partisan was it?
    It happens now, and has happened with a Dem (Clinton) in office, the fact that companies can find cheap labor elsewhere has nothing to do with what party sits in power, if one believes a party - any party can force companies to do otherwise is dillusional - we just cannot find anyone here willing to work for a few dollars a day with no benefits, and there is no corperate welfare package out there or thought of by either party to date that can compete with that - now that doesn't sound partisan does it.

    Notice how I didn't mention Kerry or Bush2? Am I doing better at the non partisan stuff?
    Not mentioning either candidate doesn't mean one cannot see where another has preference.

    If not, let me introduce you to a friend of mine. A word. A simple word. I'll use it alone as an end. Not towards anyone other than myself.
    click here if you are not easily offended and don't follow the directions(hint)
    lol, saw that clip a few years ago.
    Last edited by Nobody1; 08-10-2004 at 01:10 AM.




Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •