Please explain the difference between these two people

[Sam Odom]

Person one: I will vote for any repub over a dem

Person two: I will vote for any person with a "D" after their name

[POAS]

1. One of them has a brain!

[Sam Odom]

5. Hardly

Both are equally dangerous to a "democracy"

[blm]

15. Untrue. Democrats are not fascists. This new breed of Repubs ARE fascists.

Big effing difference.

[Sam Odom]

16. See post #11

Lincoln Chafee(R) or Joe Lieberman(D) for Prez

You would vote for Joe?

[blm]

18. Yes - Because JL's cabinet would be filled with more Ds than Chaffee's and

no way would Chaffee be allowed to take office without owing the GOP masters.


And why would YOU promote the party of fascism over any Dem anyway?

This no difference bullshit is exactly what the GOPs count on to hide the very real fascism they intend to foist upon this country. Keep helping them.

[Sam Odom]

19. DLC masters

Any you think Joe wouldnt "owe" the DLC masters?

[blm]

20. Clinton proved DLC in power isn't even HALF as bad as BushInc in power.

So - why are you working to make people believe otherwise?

DLC isn't for far right judges or complete corporate control. The fascist Repubs are.

[Sam Odom]

22. "make people believe "

I cannot make anyone believe anything.

[blm]

25. Didn't say you were succeeding, but you're making the effort.

So....why?

[Sam Odom]

27. Why?

Well shoot me for asking some on here to think outside of the talking points. ;-)

[blm]

29. The no difference meme is a Republican talking point you don't mind using.

while many of us prefer to "think" for ourselves based on actual history and the congressional records.

[The Magistrate]

38. What Talking Points Are Those, Mr. Odom?

Are you suggesting people should not vote for the Democratic Party candidate ina general election?

[serryjw]

28. Personally, Lincoln

religious zealots scare me regardless of what faith.

Flame away!

[Sam Odom]

30. Agree

Anyone afraid to work (do his job) after sundown on Friday because gawwwwd will get mad is a kook

[serryjw]

33. I agree with neither

100% but I like Chafee...I don't like Leiberman. There are many in the party that I am having a tough time with. What is the difference what party you got elected by if you don't (vote) represent their views. Chafee/Snowe/Voinovich vote many times how I like....wish they would switch parties or at least go IND.

[Orangepeel]

39. If it were remotely possible for Chafee to win the R nomination

it wouldn't be as important to vote for anyone with a D after their name.

[BlueCaliDem]

42. You're kidding, right? Those who can still vote for a Republican after...

...all the crap a republican controlled government has dumped on America in the past 6 years--the world even!---they should be committed to an insane asylum being the most dangerous to American democracy!

This is already proven fact.

Those who now profess they'll vote for any candidate with a "D" behind their name are trying to rescue this country before it goes over the cliff!

If you're worried that people who will vote for any candidate with a "D" behind their name are on equal level with the insane, delusional rightwing-nuts that would vote a melon into office just as long as they call themselves a "republican", then let me put your worries to rest.

Unlike the republicans, the Democrats, in comparison, don't have the SCOTUS, the appeals courts, any civil courts on their side, nor the airwaves, nor any broadcast media (save, maybe, C-Span), nor many pen and paper journalists, and don't forget! We don't have amazingly republican-friendly e-voting machines "glitching" in our favor to boot!

After nearly 6 years of war, fear, poverty, incredibly inept governing overall, to NOT vote for any candidate with a "D" behind their name is, aside from being really, really stupid (or they've been in a coma for the last six years), it would be the most gravest danger to democracy the likes we still haven't fully come to realize.

The key here, is to face the hard fact that we have a two-party government (whether we like it or not), and although some Democratic politicians haven't shown their Democratic stripes when, at times, it counted, they are pliable, and can be worked on through grassroots campaigns.

Not so with republican politicians.

[Reckon]

9. I agree with POAS.

Right now we know which one is a danger to a democracy. That's the anti-constitution republican sin police, science police and thought police.

[The Magistrate]

2. The Difference Is Obvious, Sir

One is right, and one is wrong.

You are free to decide for yourself which is which.

"What benefits my side is good and right; what benefits my enemy is damnable and wrong."

[Minnesota Libra]

3. The latter has a brain and actually uses it. nt

[kenny blankenship]

4. There may be other important differences

but only one of them is voting for a party with a rich gooey center of Fascism.

[Catherine Vincent]

6. Person one is an idiot. Person two is a yellow dog Democrat.

:-)

[RagingInMiami]

7. Generally speaking

The second person is looking out for his or her own self-interests.

And the first person is looking out for the self-interests of some corporate CEO

[uppityperson]

8. 1 can understand cause & effect.

[proud2BlibKansan]

10. Person two recognizes the status quo needs to change

Person one is a koolaid drinker

[Sam Odom]

11. Lincoln Chafee(R) or Joe Lieberman(D)

Ok, here are your two choices for Prez of the USA in '08

???

[tinfoil tiaras]

12. There's really no difference

And that's what's sad. So many people are like that. I'll give y'all an example where the line between Dem and Repub is non-existent:

-A certain Mississippi statewide elected official (I'm not gonna say because it could start up alot of shit) is a democrat. But he is a batshit insane fundementalist Southern Baptist. My mom used to work for him and he complained about her work attire, saying that she needed to wear longer skirts and turtlenecks more. My mom doesn't own an ounce of too revealing clothing, just cute clothing. He does all sorts of shit like that. If he was running against a Repub, I would vote for the Repub, simply because he's so obnoxious and crazy. Or maybe I wouldn't vote at all.

[liberal N proud]

13. Person two has at least thought about who he is voting

He has realized that anyone with an "R" is dangerous.
Although, I would suggest to him he needs to dig deeper to make sure the "D" is a "D" and not just a DINO

[Sam Odom]

14. Ok, see post #11

Lincoln Chafee(R) or Joe Lieberman(D) for Prez

You would vote for Joe?

[emulatorloo]

17. Forget the hypotheticals - the reality is that if there is a Dem Majority

in congress, Bushco's toady committee chairs, like Senator Pat "Cover-Up" Roberts go away.

You remember Pat Roberts, don't you? The chair of the senate intelligence committee who refuses to go ahead with phase II of the Iraq intel investigation, the one where we find out who forged the niger docs, and where we find out that bush fixed the intelligence, etc etc.

So I will vote for a DINO if need be to get a DEM MAJORITY in the House and Senate.

http://www.vanityfair.com/commentary/content/articles/060619roco02

The War They Wanted, The Lies They Needed
By CRAIG UNGER

<snip>
On March 14, Senator Jay Rockefeller IV, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, wrote a letter to F.B.I. chief Robert Mueller asking for an investigation because "the fabrication of these documents may be part of a larger deception campaign aimed at manipulating public opinion and foreign policy regarding Iraq." But Senator Pat Roberts, of Kansas, the Republican chair of the committee, declined to co-sign the letter.

Then, on March 19, 2003, the war in Iraq began.

On July 11, 2003, faced with public pressure to investigate the forgeries, Roberts issued a statement blaming the C.I.A. and defending the White House. "So far, I am very disturbed by what appears to be extremely sloppy handling of the issue from the outset by the C.I.A.," he said.

Under Roberts's aegis, the Senate Intelligence Committee investigated the Niger affair and came to some extraordinary conclusions. "At the time the President delivered the State of the Union address, no one in the IC had asked anyone in the White House to remove the sentence from the speech," read the report. It added that "CIA Iraq nuclear analysts … told Committee staff that at the time of the State of the Union, they still believed that Iraq was probably seeking uranium from Africa."

In November 2005, Rockefeller and Democratic senator Harry Reid staged a dramatic shutdown of the Senate and challenged Roberts to get to the bottom of the forgeries. "The fact is that at any time the Senate Intelligence Committee pursued a line of questioning that brought us close to the White House, our efforts were thwarted," Rockefeller said.

So far, the Republican-controlled Senate committee has failed to produce a more extensive report.

<snip>

[Sam Odom]

21. Sure, this is an hypothetical

Nothing is wrong with speculating and 'thinking' a bit...

[blm]

24. You're wrong as can be - only someone who HASN'T thought it all out

and observed what's gone on the last 30 yrs could make such a claim. Why don't you "think" that through.

[liberal N proud]

23. Let's hope that never happens

I am sure I would fight for some other Dem during the primary season

[Sam Odom]

26. The real chances of either of them

being their party nominee is ZERO :hi:

I bet Joe would carry the South tho!

[Sherman A1]

31. I will wade in

with this. I have, will and plan to continue to vote straight Democratic. Yes, the party and it's people have many, many warts, but given the alternative (the neocons) I will take my chances with them. So if the Democrats put up a trained monkey vs. a Nobel Prize winning, Rhodes Scholar, Environmentalist Saint, that is offered by the Republicans, the monkey gets my vote.

[NoPasaran]

32. The first one is a republican, the second is a Democrat

As a Democrat, I would prefer that there be more of the latter and fewer of the former.

[POAS]

34. See post number 1 n/t

[NoPasaran]

40. The brain thing

Reminds me of the time a supporter told Adlai Stevenson that he had the support of every thinking person. He replied "That's not enough, madam, we need a majority!"

[POAS]

41. Which explains allot! n/t

[Emit]

35. In another time in history, your question would elicit

a much different response from me. Today, this year, and for a few years to come, likely, I will be voting Dem in order to attempt restore balance, break the majority Repug rule and offer a chance at some oversight of these totalitarians who have stolen our Republic. It's the ultimate form of patriotism, IMHO, right now.

[Nikki Stone 1]

36. Person three: I will vote for a banana slug

but against the Geiko gecko. :)

[ProSense]

37. Failed ideology vs. economic prosperity

1. Conservatism has failed. The overwhelming majority of the American public now sees the Bush administration as a failure. They failed in Iraq, they failed after Hurricane Katrina, they failed on health care, they failed to deliver rising wages, they failed on the deficit, they failed, they failed, they failed. Why? Liberals need to argue that it wasn’t a product of incompetence, it was a failure of conservative governance. As Alan Wolfe put it in a recent Washington Monthly article, “Conservatives cannot govern well for the same reason that vegetarians cannot prepare a world-class boeuf bourguignon: If you believe that what you are called upon to do is wrong, you are not likely to do it very well.”

Snip...

2. Conservatism is the ideology of the past—a past we don’t want to return to. Liberals need to embrace the culture war, because we’re winning. The story of American history is that of conservative ideas and prejudices falling away as our society grows more progressive and thus more true to our nation’s founding ideals. Conservatives supported slavery, conservatives opposed women’s suffrage, conservatives supported Jim Crow, conservatives opposed the 40-hour work week and the abolishment of child labor, and conservatives supported McCarthyism. In short, all the major advancements of freedom and justice in our history were pushed by liberals and opposed by conservatives, no matter the party they inhabited at the time.

Snip...

3. Conservatives are cowards, and they hope you are, too. We’re afraid, they shout. We’re so afraid of terrorists, we have to become more like the things we hate. We’re so afraid, we have to let our government sanction torture. We’re so afraid, we have to let the government spy on us. We’re so afraid, we have to give the president dictatorial powers. We’re so afraid, we just want to rush to the arms of politicians who say they’ll protect us. ...

more...

http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2006/07/12/its_the_conservatism_stupid.php

Democrats Show They're Better at Hitting GOP Economic Goals

By Michael Kinsley
The Los Angeles Times

Tuesday 05 April 2005

The numbers in the Economic Report undermine both theories. Spending goes up faster under Republican presidents than under Democratic ones. And the economy grows faster under Democrats than Republicans. What grows faster under Republicans is debt.

The national debt has gone up more than $200 billion a year under Republican presidents and less than $100 billion a year under Democrats.

As for measures of general prosperity, each president inherits the economy. What counts is what happens next. Let's take just two measures, although they all show the same thing: Democrats do better under every variation.

From 1960 to 2005, the gross domestic product measured in year-2000 dollars (in other words, taking inflation into account) rose an average of $165 billion a year under Republican presidents and $212 billon a year under Democrats. And how about this one? The average annual rise in real per capita income (that's the statistic that puts money in your pocket): Democrats score about 30 percent higher.

Democratic presidents have a better record on inflation (averaging 3.13 percent vs. 3.89 percent for Republicans) and on unemployment (5.33 percent vs. 6.38 percent). Unemployment went down in the average Democratic year, up in the average Republican one.

Oh yes, almost forgot: If you start in 1981 and if you factor in a year's delay, inflation under Republican presidents averages 4.36 percent, while under Democrats it's 4.57 percent. Congratulations.

http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/38/10161

JMO!