Democrats versus Republicans

[PBzeer]

Meanwhile, back to Mr Obama, I'm curious sck5, since you are an admited liberal, how your life is worse under Mr Bush than it was under Mr Clinton? And if it isn't, why you feel the need for change. That's your life, not some amphorous enity.

[RAGNAR]

zzz

[sck5]

OK OK I confess.

I DO have a rich cousin with a very very nice Bermuda yawl who does the Bermuda race most years. He said he would invite me next time along with my son since the average age of his crew is getting to be somewhere around 65 or more. I bet they want my son more than me since he is 15, weighs a lot less, has infinite energy and has been sailing since he was 5 since he grew up on the shore of Cayuga Lake. (2-3 miles wide and 40 miles long, so big enough to actually have some pretty good sailing) He got to sailing young enough that it is sort of in his DNA.

But apart from that cousin, Republicans are pretty scarce at our Thanksgiving get together, so they havent disowned me yet. But you are absolutely right about free advice - Lots of that on this site - it is what first got me here. And as for converting you all, I am well on the way, but I promised the three new members of my liberal cell that I wouldnt reveal their names online since they are still undercover and posting as if they were still conservative.

[RAGNAR]

zzz

[sck5]

PB

How is my life worse under Bush? I really dont want to restart a lot of old discussions - I know people here will disagree with my reasons but that is because they are MINE - but the biggest reason is that I am very worried about a President and a party who seem to think that they are above the law. This is extremely corrosive to the way our system works and Repubs perhaps need to experience some time when THEY are the ones out of office and wanting the system to work for THEM to see this. On each individual case where Bush has issued a signing statement or refused a subpoena, or whatever else in defiance of Congress, there is an argument that can be made as to why he did it. But in general it ought to be the case that NO president is allowed to simply cherry pick among the bills passed to decide what he likes and what not. We elect Presidents to execute laws, not to be king. Once lost our democracy would be very difficult to get back and I fear that it is being chipped away.

Second is the Iraq war. Enough said on that, but I am on the side that thinks it was a strategic blunder of historic proportions. Even though I am one who thinks that getting out isnt as easy as saying "60 days and done!" I do think that any party guilty of a blunder as big as this should be punished by being voted out. Again, many here on this site would disagree with this, but PB asked for MY reasons, not reasons you all agree with.

Third is Bush and the republicans apparently limitless desire to cut taxes even while spending more and more. The deficits are huge and are a self inflicted wound. We are mortgaging ourselves to the Chinese and the Arabs and that is just plain crazy as a national policy. It is reasonable to wonder if the Dems would do better. All I can say is that even though their instincts are indeed to spend more, the last Dem administration ended with a SURPLUS. Bush certainly wont end that way.

Fourth is Bush and the republicans tilt toward rich people and corporations. I simply dont believe that everyone who is rich got that way purely through their own efforts. Some part of being rich is due to the good luck of being born American and I think it is only fair to ask that rich people give back a bit to keep the ladder up the scale available for those coming after. I also think that giving corporations too much power is not a good thing. I am actually one who thinks that we NEED a republican party - Liberal instincts need to be checked and balanced but so too do the republicans - and it is time to rein them in a bit.

Finally, I really dont like the pandering to the religious wing of the republican party. I am all for freedom of religion but I am also foursquare with the founding fathers in wanting separation of church and state. Among other things that means I am tired of politicians who obsess about other people's sex lives or marriages. It is none of their business. It actually kind of creeps me out. I keep my sex life and my fantasies to myself. I wish they would do the same.

Finally, I have a resentment against the Republican party for picking George Bush to be President. I know some people love him but I think the man is just plain not up to his job. There are many many very smart and very competent republicans they COULD have picked and they go with that guy? Please. We can do better and it is insulting to me that THEY didnt think they could do better. For better or worse, all of the major Dem candidates are smart, competent people. Actually, so is McCain, though I dont agree with many of his positions. Again, a party that makes an error this big ought to lose an election in my opinion.

So there you go. You may not agree with my reasons but I have reasons that I think are not loony or crazy.

[sck5]

"Sck can't even ascertain his own security interests, shotguns vs WMDs, for example, let alone help anyone."

Ragnar!! Thanks so much!! I need some WMD's of my own!! THAT will solve my problems. With any luck, it will also provide me with a reason to go get a bigger boat!!

[chucklesR]

Sck,
Wish I could truly appreciate that post - I've finally done what so many others have done and advised me to do via PM and expanded my ignore list by one.

[RAGNAR]

zzz

[RAGNAR]

zzz

[camaraderie]

Sck...re: signing statements. You act as if this is a Bush thing. Clinton did it 140 times too. The Administration of Ronald Reagan brought about a dramatic increase in the frequency of presidential signing statements. Reagan saw the statements as a strategic tool for molding and influencing the way legislation was interpreted by Executive agencies. In eight years as president, Reagan issued statements which objected to 72 congressional provisions, a record at the time. His successor, George Herbert Walker Bush, easily topped that mark in only four years in the White House. Bush objected to 232 provisions, with a third relating to foreign policy. President Bill Clinton followed with 140 objections in eight years, with over half relating to foreign affairs.^{[1]
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php...nts_in_history}

As the rest of your post covers old ground and many prior debates I will leave it at that for now.