Should we let Bill Frist & Co. change the rules of the senate ?

quote:

---

Basically, if the filibuster had been lost, then Jim Dobson of the Family Research Council would have chosen the next supreme Court justice.

​

Does anyone see cracks appearing in the great Republican stronghold that is Congress?

---

That's better than Teddy Kennedy choosing the next Supreme Court justice. And it's not cracks in the Republican stronghold. It's called compromise, ever hear of that?That means putting ideology aside to further the people's business eventhough republicans have the power to move forward anyway. Democrats won't remember this compromise when they are in power.

quote:

---

Really? At least Ted Kennedy wouldn't pick someone who'd deny rights to minorities, allow Alzheimer's patients to waste away unnecessarily, deny abortions to little girls who've been raped by their fathers and turn America into a fundamentalist theocracy.

---

Ok, you want to play that game. Ted Kennedy would allow killing babies as they are being born, stuff more billion dollar pork barrel projects down his Massachusetts gullet, eliminate religious freedoms, destroy corporate America and turn the US into a communist dictatorship.

quote:

---

The compromise was between moderate republicans and moderate democrats.

---

Glad we agree that there was a compromise.

quote:

---

Where the hell are all these women who are having late-term abortions for convenience reasons? Do you honestly believe it ever really happens? Give a bit of thought to the matter...

---

They are everywhere. Women having late term abortions on a whim, doctors eager to kill babies, it’s all chaos and mayhem.I’m giving as much thought to these statements as you are. This is your game remember.

quote:

---

But aside from that, how many senators are there that don't do pork? (Apologies to Lieberman, of course)

---

Many do fight for constituent pork. But Teddy is the pork grand daddy, the walking talking rotund representative of largess, he is stuffed pork du jour.

quote:

---

My, my. Kennedy is a communist? I didn't realize.

---

Now you know. Glad I could educate you. BTW, I’ll start posting links when you begin to substantiate your claims.

quote:

---

Secondly, CORPORATE AMERICA IS THE ENEMY. They are NOT your friends. They are manipulating and using all the phony Republican 'values' issues to try and secure an eternal flow of unending wealth at the expense of the common people in this country.

---

More extreme liberal blather. You don’t know me. How do you know corporate America isn’t my friend? In fact, they are the friend of most Americans whether you like it or not.They provide jobs, security, health insurance, pensions, 401k’s, among others. But we don’t recognize any of those benefits do we. No, in your mind they are big bad capitalist who only want slave labor.Is there corruption in corporate America? Sure, as is the case in every enterprise involving humans. But if you hate America so much, move to Cuba.

quote:

---

He said words to the effect that corporate interests now dominate the entire democratic system in this country, determining both policy and candidacy.

---

The sky is falling chicken little and the end of civilization has arrived!

quote:

---

Thirdly, ' a communist dictatorship '? It always amazes me that Republicans have the unmitigated gall to call any one else 'dictatorial' while we have a little pea-brain in the White House...blah...blah..blah

---

No, what amazes me is how idealistic political hacks such as yourself choose to dream about a fantasy world where all resources are equally distributed to everyone who wants something and in proportion to their need.There's a name for that, it’s called communism. Don’t like Cuba?...move to China.

But do your really HATE corporate America and consider it an ENEMY as does EZScience? That was the comment I was responding to. Yes, it is beyond me why the two are linked. So why do liberals provide the link?Why do liberals sterotype by saying corporations always use phony Republican values issues to try and secure an eternal flow of unending wealth at the expense of the common people in this country. This is doom and gloom speak and is the real misrepresentation.BTW, the term corporate America does not denote size.

It’s good to know there are a few people here that do not view corporate America as the enemy. I agree that Gov’ts should be above large corps and not the other way around.OTOH, many corps, both large and small, do a significant amount of business with the government such that removing the connection is not feasible. I suppose your point hinges on your definition of connection. Sure you’ve heard that statement before if you’ve been reading this thread. I quoted EZscience at Message 57.But in answer to your comment, SOME corporations do try to secure wealth at the expense of taxpayers and their employees, but MANY, dare I say most, do not. But frankly, the main point I object to is the generalized statements painted with a broad brush that puts ALL corporations in the same bucket.BTW, many corporations consisting of fewer than 30 employees have benefit packages similar to those I previously mentioned. I wouldn’t call those companies mega or large per se. Perhaps some people refer to corporate America has being large monoliths, but I don’t.

quote:

---

you have tossed out a bunch of completely fabricated, vitriolic personal characterizations of what I must believe and where I should go to believe it, all of which are without any foundation and based solely on your completely polarized conservative outlook.

---

Oh really, you think my conservatism is waaay out there eh? You think I’m being vitriolic?That's funny, you should examine your own quotes up thread because it is you who have a completely polarized view of the world. These are your words not mine: By even liberal standards, you are waaay out there.

quote:

---

All that I know is that corporations seek cheap labor and we middle or lower middle class Americans do not deserve to be left out. We cannot survive on a 40 hour $8.00 an hour job when we used to make $15.00+ an hour for all of our years of experience. Capitalism has an ugly side. It seeks only to be efficient and the CEO leaders of the company can always justify their inflated salaries by how they keep the rest of the labor costs low.

---

It is true that capitalism has an ugly side. It is also true that corporations will seek cheap labor or more precisely they will seek to minimize operating costs as much as possible. There are obvious limits to cost cutting and at some point it becomes counter productive. But some employees will always be left out and to those individuals it will be bitter and unfair. It was bitterly unfair that most steel workers have lost their jobs due to either overseas competition, technology improvements or obsolescence. It’s not a matter of who deserves something, it’s just the way it is.I have spent most of my adult life in corporate America at both large and small companies and IMO the more ruthless corps are the publicly traded ones who must cater to their board of directors who in turn cater to their stock holders and the stock valuation. Smaller private corporations seem to be less monolithic, place a greater emphasis on the quality and experience level of the labor force and are more flexible to employee needs.

Yes, I actually agree with your post:

quote:

---

What I am opposed to is a system that seems to allow huge monetary entities to control the political machine by manipulating the selection of candidates, buying advertising campaigns to (in many cases) distort the truth about real issues, and engaging powerful lobbyists to represent their interests - things neither you nor I can afford to do.

---

I readily admit that some Republicans engage in these practices. The difference I find on this forum is that liberals have a hard time acknowledging that the same is true for Democrats.

quote:

---

I'm sorry, I seem to have missed the message where EZScience called himself a Marxist. Can you point me to that message?

---

You seem to be having difficulty because you are confusing Marxist with being "waay out there".

quote:

---

Can you please explain how this is "waaaay out there

---

His post is self evident, no further explanation is needed. Here it is in case you didn't read it. Message 57

quote:

---

Because last time I checked, Kennedy is supportive more freedoms for individual Americans, in contrast to Dobson, who wants everyone in the US to be forced to adhere to his extremist Christian morality.

---

Do you want to know the difference?Dobson is a preacher. Ok? Do you understand that?He can discuss his views with Bill Frist or anyone else in government who chooses to listen to him. It seems that every time there is meeting with Dobson or any religous leader and a politician, it is publicized as proof of the formation of the "new fundamentalist theocracy" emerging in the US. That's ridiculous. There is no conspiracy when preachers meets with members of the government.Dobson has a right to put his view forward and to express his opposition to those issues that he finds objectionable. You would claim it as your right to do the same.He also has a right to express his opinions and his faith to his elected official as any citizen can.BUT HE CAN ONLY EXPRESS AN OPINION. Got it?Now look at Ted Kennedy. Ted has all of the freedoms of expression that Dobson does, he can put forward his agenda for a liberal society much to the angst of conservatives and he can be just as vociferous in defending his ideology as Dobson.But Ted has the power to vote in Congress, Dobson doesn't. Kennedy has been a senator for years, chairman of commitees, inside the beltway. He wields much more power in the government than Dobson ever could. It's a silly comparison. Kennedy has a much better chance of acting to further his agenda than Dobson ever could short of running for political office.

quote:

---

I'm a liberal and I'll acknowledge it. Some of us feel that the two parties aren't enough. Some of us feel that either of the two major parties is just as corrupt as the other. Some of us feel that America would be much better served with a multi-party system.

---

Well all right. That's being honest and I appreciate that. I agree that it would be interesting to see a strong third party and maybe one day we will.I'm not so sure there would be any difference because three parties can be as corrupt as two. But I wouldn't expect that any time soon.The development of political parties, like the evolution of species, changes over time but often settles into long periods where the status quo remains unchanged. We seem to be in one of those periods.There were several political parties during the first 100 years of our nation. Eventually, for a variety of reasons, the system settled down to the two party system which has been refined and entrenched as the status quo.Although populist parties emerge on occasion to put forward credible candidates like Ralph Nader, there just isn't enough support to make a third party candidate viable.But even if it were possible to put a third party candidate in the white house, I suspect s/he would end up as a lame duck for most of the presidency due to the lack of party support in congress.Regarding domination by one political party, well, historically the Democrats have certainly had their share of strong majority control and they will just have to bear with it while Republicans are in control.

I agree with everything in your post, but I'm curious. Why do you believe the third parties in Britain have a greater influence on the two main parties there compared to third party influence here? Maybe our British members can contribute to the discussion. I know I'm off topic

Sure, everyone wants to get a benefit if it can be had but I don’t believe that most corporations do so at the expense of their employees. I would also say that most corporations get by without gov’t subsidies and freebie handouts. I disagree. Your argument rests on age old, generalized, stereotypical descriptions of Republicans. Your term most actually refers to the extreme fringe group within the party. Your characterizations may be correct for that group but they are the minority.Most Republicans do NOT want to undercut assistance to individuals and are NOT always in full support of corporations. Most do NOT oppose new growth and ARE concerned about citizens not aided by corps.Why do I believe this? Why is my definition of most different than yours? Because demographic studies say so. These studies show a distinct comparative difference between various voting blocs within the major political parties.This is true for both Democrats and Republicans. The PEW Research Center is a non partisan group that surveys the political landscape and defines political factions within each major party. Here is how they break down the electorate:For Republicans, the following groups represent 29% of the public: For Democrats, the following groups represent 41% of the public: Swing Voters, the following groups represent 30% of the public: So the group you are referring to, Enterprisers, is the closest match to your conception of Republicans yet this group consist of only 9% of the general public.The remaining 20% of Republicans have a very different value base than the narrow group you refer to. Indeed, a significant portion of swing voters representing 30% of the public voted for Bush in 2004.This was a primary reason for his victory, yet I would not classify that group as having the characteristics you describe.You speak of the trend and give that as the reason why Democrats view Republicans with disdain and why they adhere to the stereotypes you describe. But these Democrats should take a closer look at exactly what type of people they are speaking of and the values that these people hold.Once that is done, it can be seen that the majority of voters that elected Bush are significantly different than your so called Republicans.Pew goes on to describe this value gap within the Republican party:

quote:

---

The value gaps for the GOP are, perhaps surprisingly, greatest with respect to the role of government. The Republicans' bigger tent now includes more lower-income voters than it once did, and many of these voters favor an activist government to help working class people.

​

Government regulation to protect the environment is an issue with particular potential to divide Republicans. On this issue, wide divisions exist both within the GOP and among right-of-center voters more generally.

---

So when you make statements like:

quote:

---

I watch conservatives, and especially the Republicans, betray everything they have stated they hold dear, that America has stood for, and act out in the way they claim Democrats do... when actually Democrats don't.

---

It simply doesn’t carry any weight. You are basing your assertions upon faulty, obsolete stereotypes.This seems to be a lengthy post based initially on your use of the word "most" to describe Republicans. It may on the surface seem to be just a somewhat random choice of words on your part, but I believe it goes to the root of much of the hysteria I've seen exhibited by Democrats against Republicans.

I hear this quite often, that Bush is only concerned with breaks and giveways for big business, but it just isn’t so. He has done a number of things to help small businesses and these policies are more than lip service.Bush is undeniably a friend to big business but not to the exclusion of, or in opposition to, small business. Since the recent rash of corporate scandals, Bush has put forward a number of reforms to protect workers caught in these big business scandals.He has pushed pension reforms through Congress to protect workers retirement funds and has put forward initiatives that were adopted by the SEC regarding corporate information accuracy, management accountability and auditor independence.But the main point I wanted to make is that there have been tangible benefits for small businesses under Bush:

• The 2004 Jobs and Growth package reduced the marginal income tax rates across the board. These reductions had a direct benefit on more than 90% of small businesses that pay taxes at the individual income tax rate, not the corporate tax rate.
  ​
• The package raised the amounts small businesses can expense for new capital investments from $25,000 to $100,000 thus reducing their costs of purchased machinery and other equipment.
  ​
• The phase out of the Federal death tax will ensure that family business owners are able to leave their businesses to their families or key employees
  ​
• There is the Association Health Plan (AHP) which allows small businesses to band together and negotiate on behalf of their employees and families greater access to affordable health insurance.
  ​
• 97% of all exporters are small and medium sized companies representing 12 million jobs. There are several pending free trade agreements with 11 countries and expected negotiations with another 10 that will have a significant positive impact on these small businesses.
  ​
• Bush has developed a strategy to reverse the trend toward the bundling of government contracts, a practice that denied small businesses the opportunity to win billions of procurement dollars.
  ​
• Government contracts to small firms that are socially and economically disadvantaged increased in 2004 by 80%, from 249,000 to 449,000.
  ​
• Small businesses won more than 23% of all contract dollars in 2004, reaching a historical high and exceeding the statutory goal for the first time by any Administration.
  ​
• The Business Matchmaking Initiative, launched in 2004, advances the goal of giving small businesses a fair chance to bid on Federal contracts by connecting businesses directly with Federal, state, and local government agencies.
  ​
• Between 2001 and 2003, the Bush Administration has increased the number of loans to small businesses by more than 50%, a 50-year record. This record level was surpassed in 2004.
  ​
• Bush has urged Congress to amend the Fair Labor Standards Act to provide private-sector workers the same voluntary, flexible scheduling options that government employees already enjoy, including Comp-Time and Flex-Time.

These are a few of the programs that I am aware of and there are probably more. One could argue whether these programs are sufficient or whether we can afford to pay for them, but to say that Bush is not friendly to small business simply doesn’t wash.