Reply #31: Let's see. [View All]

[Julien Sorel]

In the case of Iraq, they forced Bush to at least go through the motions of dealing with the UN before the war. So it wasn't a "giveaway."

Separation of church and state? You have moderate Democrats like the Lieberman crowd compromising the Consitution by joining with Bush* to push 'faith-based' initiatives and fund the church with taxpayer dollars. What did the Democrats get in return?

That's not compromising, but people doing what they believe is right. Notice the little word game: instead of "compromise" as give and take, suddenly it's "compromising the constitution." Again and again around here, I notice a rather casual approach to ethics by a certain faction.

Democrats on the right of the party compromised with Bush* in his quest to give tax cuts to the rich and crumbs to the rest. What did Democrats get in return?


The original Bush tax plan in 2001 called for 1.6 trillion in cuts over 10 years; that was whittled down to 1.2 trillion, and some of it was redistributed to child tax credits and so on at the insistence of congressional Democrats. Bush's 2003 tax cut proposal, at a time when he was riding high with 70 - 80% approval ratings, with Greenspan supporting the cuts, and the country mired in a near-recession, was knocked down from his proposed 700 billion to an actual figure of about 500 billion. That's compromise. I'm sure if the Democrats were real tough guys, there wouldn't have been any tax cuts at all, but what can one expect from this gang of pussies, heh?

Maybe they should have shut the government down, like the Republicans did in 1996. Clinton's approval ratings went through the roof and the Republicans were forced to cave in: but I must be making that up, because we all know only spineless Democrats compromise. The Democratic record is one of weakness, stupidity, and cowardice, while the Republicans are strong, clever, and ruthless. I know it's true, because brilliant, knowledgeable, and honest people like you say so every day.