What is Digg?Sponsored by newegg
Missed out on the best electronic deals last Black Friday? view!
newegg.com - Newegg.com's Cyber Monday Promotion has you covered. No Lines, No Crowds; Just Click and Save.
75 Comments
- gr8spAcstr, on 01/06/2009, -8/+58"A government big enough to give you everything you want,
is strong enough to take everything you have."
- Thomas Jefferson - michaelpinto, on 01/06/2009, -2/+46"I'm not a member of an organized political party — I'm a Democrat"
— Will Rogers - zacharytelschow, on 01/06/2009, -9/+18"It's the idea that government can play a role in engineering a socio-economic system that provides great security for everyday Americans."
Because who knows the needs of the people better than government? /s - kooredaan, on 01/07/2009, -0/+7Good. I want people to yell at one another when making policy choices.....And yes I voted for our President Elect. I don't want the job to be easy or hands off for anyone.
Get your hands dirty fellas.....
If the article is true that is....My respect for the WSJ has severely soured in the last few years. - Insightful, on 01/06/2009, -6/+13I am sad to admit that Democrats are only unified when capitulating to Bush's demands but suddenly grows a pair when confronting other Democrats.
Ditto with the press too. Years of deference to Bush and never question the Dear Leader on his illegal maneuvers and distortion of reality. However, when Blago tries to sell his seats and swears that all Obama (m*****f***** in actual words) were willing to offer was appreciation, the media now breathlessly reports "Scandal for Obama!." - roddack, on 01/07/2009, -0/+6But this theory of our government is wholly different from the practical fact. The fact is that the government, like a highwayman, says to a man: 'Your money, or your life.' And many, if not most, taxes are paid under the compulsion of that threat. The government does not, indeed, waylay a man in a lonely place, spring upon him from the roadside, and, holding a pistol to his head, proceed to rifle his pockets. But the robbery is none the less a robbery on that account; and it is far more dastardly and shameful. The highwayman takes solely upon himself the responsibility, danger, and crime of his own act. He does not pretend that he has any rightful claim to your money, or that he intends to use it for your own benefit. He does not pretend to be anything but a robber. He has not acquired impudence enough to profess to be merely a 'protector,' and that he takes men's money against their will, merely to enable him to 'protect' those infatuated travellers, who feel perfectly able to protect themselves, or do not appreciate his peculiar system of protection. He is too sensible a man to make such professions as these. Furthermore, having taken your money, he leaves you, as you wish him to do. He does not persist in following you on the road, against your will; assuming to be your rightful 'sovereign,' on account of the 'protection' he affords you. He does not keep 'protecting' you, by commanding you to bow down and serve him; by requiring you to do this, and forbidding you to do that; by robbing you of more money as often as he finds it for his interest or pleasure to do so; and by branding you as a rebel, a traitor, and an enemy to your country, and shooting you down without mercy, if you dispute his authority, or resist his demands. He is too much of a gentleman to be guilty of such impostures, and insults, and villanies as these. In short, he does not, in addition to robbing you, attempt to make you either his dupe or his slave.
-Lysander Spooner - btschul, on 01/07/2009, -2/+8"I asked Pelosi if Pence failed to get the required signatures on a discharge petition to get his anti-Fairness Doctrine bill out of committee, would she permit the Pence measure to get a floor vote this year.
"No," the Speaker replied, without hesitation. She added that "the interest in my caucus is the reverse" and that New York Democratic Rep. "Louise Slaughter has been active behind this [revival of the Fairness Doctrine] for a while now."
Pelosi pointed out that, after it returns from its Fourth of July recess, the House will only meet for another three weeks in July and three weeks in the fall. There are a lot of bills it has to deal with before adjournment, she said, such as FISA and an energy bill.
"So I don't see it [the Pence bill] coming to the floor," Pelosi said.
"Do you personally support revival of the ‘Fairness Doctrine?'" I asked.
"Yes," the speaker replied, without hesitation." - FreddieD, on 01/07/2009, -1/+7The Blue Dog Democrat caucus (moderate democrats who are typically from red districts, including mine in Kansas) will play a big role in keeping democrats honest over the next few years, and this is a good thing even if you are a more extreme liberal. The last twenty years has seen both democrats and republicans overreach when they had monopolies on the branches of government, and each time the voters came through in a vengeance and unseated everybody in their path.
19 of the 34 senate seats that are up in two years are being held by republicans, and are mostly in red states. If democrats want to reach the magic 60 mark, they had better not try to get away with too much, and the Blue Dogs will help ensure that.
Democrats are definitely *not* a party of unity, but unlike the campaign rhetoric we heard last year, this is very healthy for america and it will serve the party much better in the long term. It's alot tougher for a republican candidate to call someone a "liberal elitist" if the party can be so diverse, yet find a way to function well enough together. - AManWithNoName, on 01/07/2009, -0/+6As a registered democrat, I can honestly say I don't care. We may not be entirely unified, but neither are the republicans anymore. So many of them were turned away by Palin/McCain, and so many of them are sick of the neocons.
The fact of the matter is that our government is on the verge of a major change, and most likely, the two major parties will change the most. I'd be willing to bet every penny I own that within the next 20 years, one of the two major parties will be replaced with another one. Maybe even both. At the very least, the parties will change some sort of major stance. - woofers07, on 01/07/2009, -6/+11It's funny, the only way the repubs will only be truly happy is if the democrats completely screw up just so they can say their "I told you so's" I mean how many republicans are secretly hoping for the economy to completely crash out of pure stubbornness to admit to any wrong doing? I bet it's probably a lot.
- OriginalLucid1, on 01/07/2009, -0/+4Thinks he is in the wrong party? That doesn't even make any sense. Democrats control Chicago, and have forever. The whole lot of them are corrupt. And what about William Jefferson, Bill Richardson, Charlie Rangel etc etc. Are they closet republicans too?
- davidg11, on 01/07/2009, -2/+6I doubt it. Everyone wants prosperity. Especially republicans.
I wish them good luck. But you guys really need to rethink Pelosi and Reed. Surely there are more interesting and less divisive democrats out there.
Pick an Obama type to lead both the House and Senate and you might actually get things done without pissing off half the americans. - StepOne, on 01/07/2009, -3/+7Leave it to the democrats to screw everything up. . .
wait, I can't put that on digg - inactive, on 01/07/2009, -6/+10We're ***** like an autistic 8 year old at a NAMBLA meeting.
- redskyformiles, on 01/07/2009, -5/+8And the democrats finally have their chance only to ***** up again...
- eviltandem, on 01/07/2009, -0/+3Capitalism apparently.
All those people needed to be poor, they just didn't know it. - mdoverkill, on 01/07/2009, -12/+15"What the Democrats are looking to is really the spirit of the New Deal"
That scares the ***** out of me. - RogueGenius, on 01/07/2009, -0/+3Democrats aren't divided. They are just weak. I watched Reid on the sunday talk shows and wanted to puke. Now that we've won, suddenly this clown thinks the Rethugs were right all along.
It boggles the mind.
Then we have the Illinois governor, who suddenly thinks he's in the wrong party. (actually, he may be on to something. His style of corruption is far more republican than democrat.) - ZenMojo, on 01/07/2009, -0/+3"Our "poor" live better than 95% of the world. When you classify the bottom 10% of income earners as poor, there will always be poverty."
Yeah. It's called welfare and labor reform. Hurray government!
Why is it that conservatives keep pointing at liberal success to prove that their ideology isn't all that bad? - ZenMojo, on 01/07/2009, -0/+3Stockholm syndrome. We've sort of forgotten what our power was for in the first place and now we're bumping and jostling so we can all end up at the exact same ***** place anyway. We spent a decade convincing ourselves that winning by 50,000 votes meant the country didn't like us back in 2000. We are a skittish and superstitious bunch.
- OriginalLucid1, on 01/07/2009, -0/+3Well, good!
- SuperVepr308, on 01/07/2009, -0/+2They have held majorities for two years and have done nothing but ***** up. Are you saying they need bigger majorities to keep from ***** up more?
- ZenMojo, on 01/07/2009, -0/+2This is irony. At the top of the thread we have people blaming the Democrats for not accomplishing anything. At the bottom of the thread we have people praising Blue Dogs for stopping the Democrats from accomplishing anything.
Hm. - MrFurious2k, on 01/07/2009, -0/+2Don't you think a key to limiting their power is reducing the amount of time they can stay in office? I'm all for limiting their power, but staying in office forever seems like part of the problem.
- SilverStandard, on 01/07/2009, -0/+2Yeah, it was all Bush... What about the submissive congress, both Republicans and Democrats?
I wasn't talking about the Republicans keeping Bush in line, reread what I said. It was Republicans who did nothing to stop Bush, just like it will be Democrats who will do nothing to stop Obama.
He can talk in a complete sentences, wow. That's a really good reason to vote for someone. Did you read what I said? I support Bush ONLY because he's so unpopular. - JenniferInMO, on 01/07/2009, -5/+7NO ONE (except on Congressman years ago) has promoted reinstituting the Fairness Doctrine. You people are buying the fear mongering of hate radio and Faux Noise. Show me ONE source (credible) which can back up your statement).
- gr8spAcstr, on 01/07/2009, -0/+2what is the "perk"?
- CaptainAmerica1, on 01/07/2009, -12/+14That's funny...the Dems promised a crapload of stuff back in 2006 and they haven't done squat. Don't give me the tired line that it was all Bush's fault they didn't get anything done...we both know that's not relevant at all.
Bottom line...Democrats remind me of that scene in Lawrence of Arabia when Lawrence leads the factions to conquer Aqaba. The English General knew that the factions could never be united once they gained power, and just sat back to let them squabble to their heart's content. Eventually, they all went their own individual ways and the power they gained was for naught.
The same will happen with Democrats -- they will probably do nothing, and at the most, very little. - NoxAeternus, on 01/07/2009, -1/+3Insert World of Warcraft Faction Joke
- angryfirelord, on 01/07/2009, -2/+4I think political parties should be banned. This partisan ***** has done nothing except divide the country into two halves. The government (in a republic at least) should be a direct representative sample of the population. Solutions to issues should be as realistic as possible rather than who can become the next big-government FDR or corporate Reagan. Turning the process into a popularity contest makes the whole thing fall apart. Then, the media simply agitates the process, forever ruining the chances of electing a Ron Paul or Dennis Kucinich.
What does it have to do with this article? Not much except for the usual media bias. - liquisoft, on 01/07/2009, -0/+2To be honest, I don't want any political party to be organized. That implies every member shares identical goals and has no personal difference of opinion. In an ideal world, political parties would be made up of people who have one, maybe two common goals and hundreds of differing ones.
- MrFurious2k, on 01/07/2009, -0/+2Frankly, the best thing we could do is fire *all* of them and put someone new in place. It wouldn't be together all a bad thing if every 8 years we got an entirely new set of politicians. This career politician thing has brought us nothing but pain and suffering.
It's too bad Congress is treated more like the lottery than like Jury Duty. - aletoledo, on 01/07/2009, -0/+2According to the article graphic, the blue dogs are the ones pushing for bailouts and stimulus packages. What help are they fiscally if they're pushing for more government spending?
- RogueGenius, on 01/07/2009, -0/+2Oh, I knew it then. I just don't see what else to do about it. Nader and Paul are jokes, and I don't think it's exaggerating to say after Bush the US is closer to destruction than it has ever been. Including the 1860's (the confederacy would have collapsed economically, but the industrial north would have survived). Obama was by far the best choice. We need better congressmen.
- falstaff, on 01/07/2009, -1/+3Any party in power becomes subject to fracture. It gives the fringe elements a louder voice. The Republicans were in power for 4 straight years, and look at the state of the party now. When a party is out of power, they find it easier to come together on the common issues (Republicans in 1994, Democrats in 2006, etc).
- aletoledo, on 01/07/2009, -0/+2This won't make a difference at all. After a few years the new politicians will be as corrupt as the old ones. I believe the real key is to limit the power that they wield. If all they can do is name streets and give out awards, then it wouldn't matter who was in power.
- heystoopid, on 01/07/2009, -1/+3But then again if you investigate the authors background and look behind the scenes , little wonder it is so fervently full of total propaganda BS A through Z "AIPAC" style .
The author of this confused propaganda garbage out pooring has merely ignored the basic 6 tenets of correct journalism to spread his own brand of baseless rumour , smear , innuendo and an additional home no name brand of elephant throwing dung inclusive for a good measure to confuse the unwary .
Previous to his job before jumping from a sunken bankrupt media ship to work in the "Wowser gang" on the new " WSJ Elephant Dung Throwing Team" that Murdoch has hired , the wanker worked for the last bastion of extreme right wing nut trash can news media called the "Chicago Tribune" which made Joseph Farah's over the hill yesterdays hero mob at WND look like a bunch of dead saints in comparison.
Poor little "David Bin Fatal" has made a bad mistake and now can't see past the rim of his big rut of denial hole in the ground he has dug all by himself . - eviltandem, on 01/07/2009, -0/+2As opposed to when Republicans controlled everything?
If they weren't careful warrant-less wiretapping, suspension of due process, and other affronts to the constitution could happen!
oh wait... - zacharytelschow, on 01/07/2009, -1/+3Our "poor" live better than 95% of the world. When you classify the bottom 10% of income earners as poor, there will always be poverty.
- eviltandem, on 01/07/2009, -0/+2Yeah. Bush only managed to start the never-ending war, suspend due process, and introduce torture as American. Thankfully the Repubs kept him in line! *rolls eyes*
About the only difference I see between this and Bush is that Obama has 2 neurons to rub together. I don't agree with Obama on many different things, but at least the man can talk in complete sentences. That's a step in the right direction.
Who knows? Maybe next time the Repubs will put up someone less than 70 years old, with a Vice President with 2 neurons to rub together, and agree to stop legislating their morality on me!
Imagine! Choosing to vote for people not based on which one would take less rights away from me, but based on their platform! I can dream anyway... - SilverStandard, on 01/07/2009, -0/+2Good. The only reason I like Bush that he is so unpopular, he can't get as much done politically. However, with Obama's popularity and both chambers of Congress, a lot can be accomplished with no grid lock. In that sense, Obama is more dangerous than Bush ever was. I suspect the first year to be the most active.
- eviltandem, on 01/07/2009, -0/+2er, did they seat the new Congress and I missed it?
Nothing has happened yet, so how did anything get ***** up?
Sheesh, let the people actually take the offices before passing judgement, shall we? - eviltandem, on 01/07/2009, -0/+2In their defence Bush didn't grow a pair and veto a single thing until the Democrats got there. The Democrats had a majority, but barely, and not anything like they needed to combat a president's veto.
Nothing has happened, but it absolutely was the fault of the guy with the veto pen. - ZenMojo, on 01/07/2009, -0/+2I know. The Democrats might actually fix ***** and control government for another 30 years. After all that time of Republicans breaking ***** and convincing everyone it was the Democrats' fault for giving the Negroes the vote.
Frightening. - mnocket, on 01/07/2009, -0/+2@woofers07
I bet you're wrong. Republicans may want Democrats to fail in elections, but once the elections are over most Republicans want to see their government succeed. Having said that, if the Democrats fulfill Republican's worst fears and the country suffers, I suspect the Republicans will if fact say "I told you so". - aletoledo, on 01/07/2009, -0/+2So you're starting to see that the "rethugs" and the "demagogues" are really one in the same. Welcome to the party, too bad you didn't realize this a year ago, we could have used your support back then.
- aletoledo, on 01/07/2009, -0/+2The thing I don't understand about the associated interactive chart is the "blue dogs". It says that the blue dogs are pushing for increased spending and bailouts. I thought Blue Dog democrats were fiscal conservatives? It seems like they're fiscally progressive according to their agendas.
- SilverStandard, on 01/07/2009, -0/+2Financial Times for the win.
- debauch, on 01/07/2009, -0/+2concern troll is concerned. buried.
- OriginalLucid1, on 01/08/2009, -0/+1Did you not read what I wrote. Chicago politicians are the ORIGINAL thugs. Maybe you are suggesting that republicans are corrupt and democrats not so much? Thats silly. Its pretty clear both parties have corrupt elements. Seems like republicans go to jail if they are caught (see Cunningham, Ryan, Stevens) wheras democrats mostly skate. (see Clinton, Studds, Jefferson)
-
Show 51 - 75 of 75 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is