Will The Repulicans Hold Congressional Power?

Discussion in 'Politics & Religion' started by ktmexc20, Oct 4, 2006.

Will The Republicans Hold Congressional Power?

  1. Yes they maintain the status quo.

    3 vote(s)
    27.3%
  2. No, they're done in both the Senate and the House.

    2 vote(s)
    18.2%
  3. Democrats win the House only.

    6 vote(s)
    54.5%
  4. Democrats win the Senate only.

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  1. What's your opinion. This inquiring mind would like to know.

    I think the republicans will not maintain power. JMHO.

    And I don't believe they deserve to either.

    If only they actually represented the conservitive values they claim to propend, I would back them all the way...

    ...If they actually represented a voice of reason.

    Problem is.. I truely believe they hide behind this facade that only really wants to promote the wealthy and world economic dominance.

    Oh sure, there our some current republicans that do hold real values, but they surely aren't in charge of Congressional policy.

    This is simply my opinion.

    -kt
     
  2. if a ceo of a company is a failure and vows to not change course does he deserve to keep his job? if you cant fire him should you at least take away his power?


    "I will not withdraw, even if Laura and Barney are the only ones supporting me." -- President Bush, explaining to key Republicans that he will not withdraw ...


    ps. barney is his dog.
     
  3. By what measure is the "CEO" (a veiled reference to President Bush) a failure? If you are going to make any reference to the economy, please provide hard facts. The economy seems strong to me. If you are going to make any reference to Iraq or the war on terror, please provide facts. They both seem to be going well to me.

    -Raystonn
     
  4. What? Iraq going well? That's a stretch! I'm with ya' on the economy, although I think we're in a fools paradise right now. But hey, I've been wrong before about that.
    Iraq is a friggin mess man. You gotta' come clean about that if we're going to make any kind of real progress over there.
    War on terror in general. Hey! I like the idea of killing terrorists over there rather than here, but at some point we gotta' start killing them in larger numbers, or it's a stalemate. Border security is weak, but evidently good enough for now, or maybe we're just gettin' lucky, I don't really know, so I won't critque that.
     
  5. rather than go through the list of failures i will just point out that his approval rating is in the toilet and he is about to lose possibly both the house and senate.
    on the news just now i heard that we are having one of the bloodiest months in a long time. 21 killed already this month.
     
  6. Tell me, what is wrong with a stalemate? The whole point is to keep the fighting away from the United States. You will never, ever, eliminate all threats to the United States. You will never, ever, kill every enemy soldier. But if you can distract them with fighting in another country, you have succeeded in preventing further attacks where it counts. What you see as a mess I see as success.

    It seems we have different goals for the war. My goal is to keep the fighting elsewhere. Your goal is to "win" and eliminate the enemies. I don't believe the latter is truly possible when dealing with religious fanatics. The crusades are a good example here.

    -Raystonn
     
  7. These are not facts that show a real problem in Iraq or with the war on terror. You gave opinions derived from polls. Opinion polls are not indicators of what is the right thing to do, they are only indicators of what to do to ensure the best probability of releection.

    People die in wars. That does not mean there is a problem in the execution of the war. In fact, over 58 deaths per month are attributed to crashes in road work zones. It would seem it's safer to be a soldier in Iraq than to work on the side of a road.

    (source: http://www.dateline.ucdavis.edu/092801/DL_caltrans.html )

    -Raystonn
     
  8. in 5 weeks we will see if the people agree with you.
     
  9. It also just occurred to me that these Iraq death numbers are meaningless without knowing the numbers of enemies killed. You wouldn't look at your Gross Loss column and complain when it was greater than zero. You should also look at your Gross Profit column. How many enemies perished during the same time period?

    -Raystonn
     
  10. You weren't listening. What the people think isn't relevant when determining the right thing to do, unless your only concern is getting (your party) reelected. I actually respect a President who places moral obligations above politics.

    -Raystonn
     
    #10     Oct 4, 2006