The democrats once again have proven that being elected is far more important than fixing a crises. The democrat leadership refused to allow a vote on trying to fix the energy crises so that they could go home and tell the voters that they support fixing the crises. After the election, if they win the white house they will start the process of raising taxes on the rich(raising prices across the board.). Increasing taxes(cutting tax subsidies for the oil companies.(raising prices at the pump.) on the big oil companies because of their record profits(remember at 10 cents a gallon).


Everyone seems to forget that during the 80's the democrats wanted gas at 5 dollars a gallon. But they wanted it all in taxes that they could control not profit for an oil company or foreign country.


Champion Democrat products.


raise minimum wage=price increase

tax increase on rich=price increase

decrease tax subsidies=price increase

universal health care=tax increase

1000 dollar energy crises pay out=tax increase

500 dollar being born gift=tax increase

1000 dollar for going to college=tax increase



When do we cut spending to bring the budget into the black.


True the republicans don't want to cut spending either.

Wasn't your last democratic leader the one who had the best economy and kept the budget in the black, where as your current republican leader could figure out how tie his own shoes.
George Bush - Yay for stupidity.

No congress controls the purse strings. The republicans were in control of the congress. All the idiot in the white house can do is sign or veto.

It was also only in his last year that it went black, we also went into a recession that year.

Come on Daniel, work the angle - how can you relate this to spirit vs skep?!?

I messed up. But you could say that this is the spirit of good vs evil. The more control man has over man the more evil he seems to be or to become. If the government has all the money they control all the people.

That is not true at all.
Also the rest of the world thinks that the Republicans are bigoted idiots and they nothing for the international image of your country.
The worst - poor people voting republican, its like a black man joining the kkk.

It is true that congress contols the purse strings.

If the republicans or the bigots then how come a kkk grand wizard is a democrat and in control of the dnc right now.

Uh, you mean like the patriot act and unwarrented phone taps? Guantanamo bay? Yup. Republicans...

I never said congress didn't, but under Clinton your where doing very well.
Howard Dean is in KKK? Where did you here that.

How bizarre, because your country seems to be in rather a shocking state at the moment, in some part due to the current administration. And they are rather religious too, could there be a connection.....maybe that is the angle you were looking for

Democrats just in a energy crisis? More like we (society) in general is being drained oo no the government is really composed of vampires I knew it! hahahaha....and that's what I think of your discussion -.-

let's see. fact is republicans held congress from 2000 to 2006 with a republican president and never came close to balancing a dime. they actually increased the budget , debt and enlarged government.



so Bush and republicans are the anti christ of politics ? they have us in hock up to our rears.

Tell me which ones weren't religious, on either side, in the last fifty years. In England too for that matter.

What does this have to do with spirituality or skeptisicm, Did I miss something?

Love Omnaka

Sorry , Now I see THanks to Bell and Dani.

Love Omnaka

I'm moving this thread for now to the appropriate section. However, this comes very close to what you might call a "smear campaign" against Democrats (since there are no links of any kind to back up your information). As such, we'll be keeping a close eye on the thread.

you see that is what the problem is. We were doing well dispite clinton not because of clinton. He was doing what he could to stop it. No the recession wasn't his fault. It was actually reagons fault, he ended the cold war. Ie we won the cold war. And as with the great depression. There was 11 years of outrages growth in the usa economy. Both eras started with the end of a war. Great depression=world war 1. `1999 depression=end of the cold war. The good thing about this depression is that since we were already in it when the attack on 9/11 came. The economic hit that we were supposed to take never took place because we had already been hit.

I will go with vampires. Both sides of the isle on this one. They are sucking our money out from our pockets so that they can get reelected by giving it to someone else making them look like they care.

There are no links because I don't know how to look up congressional sessions to get the links. You have to follow national news to understand what I am talking about. Since you are not in the usa you may not get that news directly. I got this idea from a thread about how labour in england is downsizing their military during a war.

This topic is open to discussion of any and all parties in and out of the usa. As for bad guys in government. I always remember that hitler was conservitive and stalin was liberal and castro was/is in the middle.

Hitler/Nazis ? Well, what about the "gott mit uns" on SS belts ?

Gott mit uns => god is with us/or god is on our side

Nazism found a source of their racial laws from anti-jewish feelings in christianity (middle age crusades) where jewish people are described like scum because they don't choose to see Jesus as a messiah.

Why do you think they had the blessings of the christian churches in Germany ?

God is always on our side which ever side we are on.

As paranoid android said, I suggest you back up such specific claims with some links or other ways it can be looked up and verified. Since you say you dont have such links I'm sure you could find some if you googled what you are claiming, if it is true. In any case feel free to discuss and I'll consider this your personal unverified opinion for now. When making statements about something you can't provide the evidence for at least try keep it to "As far as I know.." or "From what I've heard..." or "My opinion is that..." etc. Or in your case it could been "From what I've gathered by following the news it seems that... " etc =)

-EA

Hitler was a fascist .Stalin was a communist and Castro was a revolutionist


fullywired

Well you'd have to have have wits to be a vampire, so lets go with leech afterall society in general becomes numb after some time ha-ha.

http://albuquerque.bizjournals.com/albany/.../31/story6.html


http://morningsentinel.mainetoday.com/view...ns/5289302.html


http://thehill.com/op-eds/an-energy-bill-w...2007-10-26.html

The Liberals of the world does not represent the rest of the world, and the image they think of the United States has really is irrelevant.

but the liberals of the world represent the majority. and very relevant.

Click to view attachment

As relevant as non-voters can be, I guess. Now, if only they were the deceased Chicago area Dems that voted oh so many times from the grave............

Being the noisiest does not translate to being the majority.

I guess that's why so many cons lost in 2006 ?

could it be because so many were kept from voting in 2004 that Bush won ?

Democrat leader Nancy Pelosi gave her word to voters if they control congress we will leave Iraq.
And now it's Obama's turn.......



Over 3 million then had to been kept from voting if that was the case.

By DIRK JOHNSON
Published: January 10, 1996

In the days of the fabled Democratic Machine here, it was hardly a secret that some votes were being cast by the dead. The typical Chicagoan did not lose sleep over this subtle election irregularity. Indeed, to plenty of loyal Democrats, it made more sense than someone who was alive voting for a Republican.

Plenty has changed. Several wards in Chicago now routinely vote for a Republican candidate in Presidential races. The dead, meanwhile, have not made a respectable showing on Election Day for many years.

Chicago's got a reputation that's hard to live down, admittedly," said Tom Leach, a spokesman for the city's Board of Election.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It's easy to discern you're very young. Maybe you were unaware of the phenomenon?

There is the case of the democrats feeding the homeless to get them to vote democrat.

try facts fella's

Florida ballot terminals favor Republicans
Even when voters don't
By Thomas C Greene in Dublin → More by this author
Published Tuesday 31st October 2006 13:15 GMT
How IT Management Can "Green" the Data Center - Free Download

Florida voters using electronic ballot machines are having persistent problems choosing Democrats in early elections, the Miami Herald reports.

The touch-screen gizmos seem strangely attracted to Republican candidates. One voter needed assistance from an election official, and even then, needed three tries to convince the machine that he wanted to vote for Democrat Jim Davis in the gubernatorial race, not his Republican opponent Charlie Crist.

Another voter who went Democrat across the board kept finding Republicans listed in the summary screen. He made repeated attempts until, finally, the machine registered his votes correctly, and he cast his ballot.

Yet another frustrated voter who complained of difficulties selecting a Democrat was told that the machine she was using had been troublesome. Poll workers fiddled with it for a bit, and then it seemed to work properly.

Apparently, this happens all the time. According to the Herald, "Broward County Supervisor of Elections spokeswoman Mary Cooney said it's not uncommon for screens on heavily used machines to slip out of sync, making votes register incorrectly. Poll workers are trained to recalibrate them on the spot - essentially, to realign the video screen with the electronics inside. The 15-step process is outlined in the poll-worker's manual."

Well that's a relief. Only we have to wonder, if the screens "slip out of sync," might other components do so as well? And why are poll workers permitted to fiddle with the machines?

Unfortunately, the article tells us little. It sounds as if the machines are of poor quality, but the paper neglects to mention the manufacturer(s) responsible for them. The elections supervisor's spokesperson seems altogether too comfortable with the notion that the machines are unreliable. 'They do that all the time?'

With early elections already underway, it looks as if Florida will again be in the headlines for the wrong reasons, as it so often is. ®

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/10/31/fl...dont_cooperate/


Was the 2004 Election Stolen?
Republicans prevented more than 350,000 voters in Ohio from casting ballots or having their votes counted -- enough to have put John Kerry in the White House.

ROBERT F. KENNEDY JR.Posted Jun 01, 2006 5:02 PM

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/104...election_stolen

These crap accusations got nowhere, so your next strategy is to call them facts?

and of course you being the king of crap would know right ?

These machines and the ballots in 2000 where democratic insisted voting apparatus's.

daniel you would be better to learn the wisdom of an old saying about foolishness and reserve , but I don't think you'd get it. how about instead you actually read something on the matter?

Those are blue states, so who decides the election process?

not the people obviously.

Then who? Aliens?

lol I think he's referring to the Electorial ........... surely it isn't the popular vote that decides or Bush would have lost.

Alright, so the question goes to the electorates or those who actually designed and decided on the election process.
I mean they are the ones who decided on how the vote process goes, and that includes the use of whatever machines.
And accuracy of the vote results is part of the job, right?

Damn! That pesky Constitution gets ya every time, eh?

yes ...... so much for every vote counting. seems most still don't want bush. or a MC3

How is it possible for the electoral vote to produce a different result than the nation-wide popular vote?

It is important to remember that the President is not chosen by a nation-wide popular vote. The electoral vote totals determine the winner, not the statistical plurality or majority a candidate may have in the nation-wide vote totals. Electoral votes are awarded on the basis of the popular vote in each State.

Note that 48 out of the 50 States award electoral votes on a winner-takes-all basis (as does DC). For example, all 55 of California's electoral votes go to the winner of that State election, even if the margin of victory is only 50.1 percent to 49.9 percent.

In a multi-candidate race where candidates have strong regional appeal, as in 1824, it is quite possible that a candidate who collects the most votes on a nation-wide basis will not win the electoral vote. In a two-candidate race, that is less likely to occur. But it did occur in the Hayes/Tilden election of 1876 and the Harrison/Cleveland election of 1888 due to the statistical disparity between vote totals in individual State elections and the national vote totals. This also occured in the 2000 presidential election, where George W. Bush received fewer popular votes than Albert Gore Jr., but received a majority of electoral votes.

This also occured in the 2000 presidential election, where George W. Bush received fewer popular votes than Albert Gore Jr., but received a majority of electoral votes.

Coming from one of the two states that splits its electoral votes, I'm fully aware of that fact.

The reason for electoral vote is the founding fathers don't want the most populous state to always deterimine who the President will be.
Remember how thw Democrats was crying about the voice of the minority when the GOP was the majority in congress?