Libs, Dems: What should we do about Miers?

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
Democrats do not "support" gay marriage either. You can't use different variables for the public and the Democratic party and make comparisons between the two.

The Democratic Party supports legal agreements that provide equal rights as married couples. So does the public by around 53-40 (as per the latest Pew poll).

[/ QUOTE ]

So you're saying that the support for gay marriage is not stronger among Democrates than Republicans? Tell me what the difference is between a civil union and a gay marriage? Seems like splitting hairs to me. BTW I have no problem with civil uninons, gay marriage or whatever you want to call it.

[ QUOTE ]
They support higher taxes for those making over 200,000.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yep and I believe all the political spin that is offered. FWIW this is losing issue for the Democrats but I hope they continue with this approach.

[ QUOTE ]
Are you even trying to say something here?Are you even trying to say something here?

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure read Shaun's post and the caustic reply I responded to.

[ QUOTE ]
The better question to fit your hypotheses is "which party best represents public opinion on abortion?"

[/ QUOTE ]

So? What does this have to do with the response to Shaun's post?


[ QUOTE ]
The answer is the Democratic Party. The reason abortion may even out or even possibly help Republicans more is that there are more fervent pro-life people than there are fervent pro-choice people.

[/ QUOTE ]

This has nothing to do with the reply to Shaun's post. A clear attempt to hijack the thread. If you want to start a separate thread on this I'll respond but this doesn't have anything to do with with Shaun's post or the caustic reply. Basically the reply to Shaun's post was stating that what Shaun said isn't true about the Democrats and I pointed out that it was true.

[zipo]

It is extremely enlightening that the dittohead hannity-limbaugh-coulter-gingrich-santorum-delay-bush crowd continually resort to the abortion/gay-marriage axis when cornered by logic and reason.

The Republican administration had royally screwed this nation in the last 5 years - by failing to prevent 9/11, embroiling us in an incompetently executed post-war Iraq quagmire, presiding over an exploding budget deficit, appointing incompetent cronies at the expense of the best interests of the American people (i.e. the FEMA chief, Miers, etc), grossly expanding corporate welfare, generating a worldwide wave of anti-American hatred, reversing the trend of declining poverty during the Clinton years, contributing to widespread political corruption (Frist, Delay, Rove, Scooter all under investigation/potential indictment), etc etc etc.

This gross record of corruption, mismanagement, incompetence, and failure - and what do these Repubs keep trotting out? Gay Marriage and abortion.

Idiots.

Um, Im an indeendant who is liberal, but even Im having trouble stomaching how Bush failed to prevent 9/11... he was barely into office... dont ruin the rest of your argument by putting that in there.

but oh yeah, despite the patriot act, and all the other "safeguards" that bush has put in... take it from a military intel guy... we're no safer now than we were then.

[zipo]

>>failed to prevent 9/11... he was barely into office... dont ruin the rest of your argument by putting that in there.<<

Bush was in office nearly a year. Bush was in charge. The Bush administration had warnings of exactly this type of attack - even though they denied that they had warning.

It's amazing to me how many people are willing to give this administration a pass on so many errors.

Im only willing to give him a pass on that one... but I will think about it more in the future.

I will say, however, that operation Noble Eagle is a complete joke, and is basically put there to look good for the administration.

[Shaun]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
WOW. I couldn't write a better scenario to win an argument than this! You are aware, that there was a year called "1992" and that in that year Ross Perot first ran for President of the United States, are you not? Care to quote me those numbers, or does the fact that they are actually releveant to my argument make their use inconvenient?

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe you said the Democrats would have lost EVERY election since Carter without Perot. 1992 is one election. Now, by 'every' election, I'll assume you meant 'every' election and not just the 1992 election (which I'll concede, but once again, we're talking about every election). Since 1992, as I'm sure you're aware, there have been a few more elections that are tossed into this 'every' category. Take 1996, for instance. By 'every' you mean 1996 as well. I already showed the numbers on that one. The Democrats still would have won if we gave all of Perot's votes to Dole. So that one election shows that you're wrong. Then I showed the numbers on 2000, which Perot wasn't even a part of. Actually, the democrat (Gore) had a liberal taking votes from him, and he STILL won the popular vote. And since you're talking about positions being out of touch with the populace, the popular vote is really the only one that matters.

Way to not respond to me totally proving you wrong and somehow claiming you won an argument. Your statement is completely false.

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess I didn't spell this out enough.

My unspoken (and i thought, rather obvious) assertion is that had Clinton not been helped into office by Perot in 92 he would not have been elected in 96. I think that many objective observers would agree with this. He may not have even run for office in 96 without the win in 92.

By the way I'm a Libertarian not a dittohead.

[Matty]

[ QUOTE ]
You respond with a poll about Roe v. Wade.

[/ QUOTE ]No, I did not. Are you drunk?

I posted a link with research by pew about public opinion and abortion, and I posted a link which compiles numerous polls only some of which are about roe v. wade. The one I referred to though had nothing to do with roe v wade. Quit making [censored] up.

[Matty]

[ QUOTE ]
this doesn't have anything to do with with Shaun's post or the caustic reply. Basically the reply to Shaun's post was stating that what Shaun said isn't true about the Democrats and I pointed out that it was true.

[/ QUOTE ]Sure it does. Shaun has no data to support his argument. In fact I've shown data which disproves Shaun's claims. Actually I'm going to bump a thread which has a nice poll in it for you two.

I'd bet a good amount of money that both you and Shawn have primarily Republican families and you need to realize that neither those families nor foxnews are accurate representations of America.



Which party would you say has been hijacked by the fringe now?

[Shaun]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

WOW. I couldn't write a better scenario to win an argument than this!

[/ QUOTE ]

You must have an amazingly long losing streak when it comes to arguments.

[ QUOTE ]
You are aware, that there was a year called "1992" and that in that year Ross Perot first ran for President of the United States, are you not? Care to quote me those numbers, or does the fact that they are actually releveant to my argument make their use inconvenient?

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure, let's talk about 1992. So, what states do you think would have flipped in the absence of Perot? Let's start with a list of states that Clinton won by less than 5%:

Colorado
Georgia
Kentucky
Louisiana
Montana
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
Ohio
Tennessee
Wisconsin

Are you saying that all of these states would have switched? Note that, to switch, even if we assume that all Perot voters would have voted anyway, in many states those voters would have had to have broken overwhelmingly for Bush. E.g., Tennessee - Bush would need 73% of Perot voters; Louisiana 70%, Wisconsin 60%, New Jersey 58%. Note also that if even one of the states other than the three smallest (Nevada, New Hampshire, and Montana) does not switch, then Bush still loses.

I will eagerly await your no doubt detailed and well-supported response proving conclusively that Bush would have won.

[/ QUOTE ]

You can't prove a "would have" and I really I don't feel like devoting the time to this internet argument to go back and look at the popular vote results of each and every state in the union in 1992. I'll leave that to you enraged liberals.

My guess is that a sgnificantly greater portion of 18.8 percent of the vote was out of the mix for Bush in 92 because more Republicans broke away from their Party than did Democrats. I'm not going to bother trying to "prove" this. If you feel like digging than you "disprove" it. Would this percentage, spread throughout the country be enough to win the electoral college for Bush? I think so, you obviously think not.

[Shaun]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
this doesn't have anything to do with with Shaun's post or the caustic reply. Basically the reply to Shaun's post was stating that what Shaun said isn't true about the Democrats and I pointed out that it was true.

[/ QUOTE ]Sure it does. Shaun has no data to support his argument. In fact I've shown data which disproves Shaun's claims. Actually I'm going to bump a thread which has a nice poll in it for you two.

I'd bet a good amount of money that both you and Shawn have primarily Republican families and you need to realize that neither those families nor foxnews are accurate representations of America.



Which party would you say has been hijacked by the fringe now?

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you really trying to use this poll to say that the issues of gay marriage, a woman's "right" to kill her unborn child, higher taxes, and relinquishing our national authority to foreign bodies are supported by a majority of the population?

A poll? By the way I'm for legal abortion though I think it's an immoral act, and I'm for marriage rights for gays. Furthermore, my mother's family are largely Democrats. My father's family is about half and half. The numbers are such that your bet would be hugely -EV.

I don't think the way I think because of Fox News or because my parents told me to. I'm a libertarian. I have a pretty coherent philosophy that doesn't contradict itself. I am disgusted with the major political parties because they have no philosophy (even if they did I doubt I'd agree). They are sell-outs who pander to the lowest common denominator.

I am pointing out reasons why I think your party has failed with circumstances that would seem to favor them for the past 2 elections. This poll, like all of them, is flawed. It has nebulous categories like "Economy" and some data gathered from a small sample of who knows who from who knows where. You really shouldn't use polls to prove points. I talked about specific issues that I feel like hurt the Democrats. This poll is not really relevant to those issues.