The Democrat Dictatorship

I wonder if you were against one party rule when republicans had both houses and the wh in 2001. One thing IS clear. If democrats control congress and the wh in 2009, it's going to be a much friendlier environment for renewable energy in this country, making foreign entanglements much less likely. Sorry..., no rants or bashing here.

Does this concern you? Yes very much
Does it scare you? Of course! Most Democrats( politicans) scare me. Them having full control scaras the hell out of me.
Do you think it's a great idea? No way
If the Democrats do gain this much control do you think that they would be able to govern and give equal consideration to both sides.
LOL Now that is funny. Heck no they won't

Of course to be fair if the Republicans had full control I don't think they would be giving equal consideration to both sides either.

I think I said that I didn't like one party having total control Steve or did you skip that part?

But Steve is friendlier to the enviroment better than friendlier to the people? Cause I'm not convinced that the Dem way on the enviroment is the best for the people.

BRB gotta make supper.

The thing I worry most about is if the Dems get the White House they will retreat from Iraq which will effecting make everything done to date a complete waste of blood and money. We need to finish what we started and we are almost there.

And certainly, if they get a majority in the three branches, then we are screwed on all national issues: higher taxes, free healthcare (that means those who are currently insured will pay far more for far less), cap and trade programs that will further increase energy costs, and likely we will see an ebb in free trade which will have a negative impact on the economy.

Chris: "Of course to be fair if the Republicans had full control I don't think they would be giving equal consideration to both sides either."

Of course, there's a history of that from 2000 to late in 2006. Perhaps you forgot.

Chris: "...is friendlier to the enviroment better than friendlier to the people? Cause I'm not convinced that the Dem way on the enviroment is the best for the people."

False choice. If something isn't good for the environment, it is de facto not good for people - that is, if you consider biology important. Of course, you can put off the adversive consequences for many people for a while - but it eventually catches up.

Chris: "I think I said that I didn't like one party having total control Steve or did you skip that part?"

So you did. But I wonder if you were saying it back in 2001. Perhaps you had an article somewhere then?

I think that most all of this country's major issues stem from one thing - corporate control and corruption. Corporations are why we are in Iraq and why we have not left yet (and maybe never will). They are the major reason terrorism exists. Corporations are the reason that gas prices and health care costs are going through the roof. Not too long ago, a study came out that stated that the average CEO makes 400 times more than the average worker - in another words, they make more in one day than most of us make all year. Incidentally, about 20 years ago CEOs only made about 40 times that of an average worker. So the GAP between CEO pay and average worker pay has grown 1000% in 20 years. And these corporate execs are asking US to make sacrifices and be patient. The problem is that many of this country's leaders have been bought off by these corporate pigs. And they get away with it because most of us are ignorant and have our heads up our asses. Just like the GOP platform in 2004 was based on morals, yet how moral was it to lie to the nation and then kill off 3-4 thousand Americans in the process? All the while companies like Haliburton are racking in the dough at our expense. They should be hauled off in handcuffs ...

No one seemed to care when the Republicans had the White House and the Congress for six years this decade. They screwed the country up - let's see what the Democratic Party can do. They couldn't do much worse.

Don: "...if the Dems get the White House they will retreat from Iraq which will effecting make everything done to date a complete waste of blood and money."

Looks like your itching to blame democrats for w.'s failures over the past 7.5 years.

Don: "We need to finish what we started and we are almost there."

How have political tensions eased between Iraqi sects? You think the effective colonization of Iraq's oil fields will ease that tension?

Don: "...if they get a majority in the three branches, then we are screwed on all national issues: higher taxes..."

With w.'s deficits, someone's going to have to pay all that interest to the Chinese. You'd prefer to dump it on the next few generations.

Don: "...free healthcare (that means those who are currently insured will pay far more for far less)...

You think that's not happening now. Of course, it won't be "free", but you can spin it however you like. It's universal, which means everyone can buy it. There can and will be a greater emphasis on preventive healthcare, which is not the case today. Hey, Don, do you "believe" that smoking causes cancer and heart disease?

Don: "...cap and trade programs that will further increase energy costs..."

In case you haven't noticed, energy costs are through the roof already - without cap and trade programs. I'm no fan of cap and trade programs, but doing nothing, as you advocate, will "very likely" (to use IPCC terminology) cause events like we see in the midwest and California with increasing frequency. No economic consequences to that, now is there?

Don: "...an ebb in free trade which will have a negative impact on the economy."

Perhaps, if you consider environmental and labor issues addressed with trade. But you're more likely to see actually "free" trade, in which oil/coal/nuclear industries will have to compete without benefit of tax breaks, loopholes, and subsidies, which renewables do not enjoy. But that's probably not the "free trade" you were talking about, was it?

Thanks Charles

Stephen: "I think that most all of this country's major issues stem from one thing - corporate control and corruption."

Not all corporations are equally corrupt. Some are actually leaders in environmental and social responsibility. It may surprise you that companies like Wal-Mart, BP, DuPont, Alcoa, and many others have been actually leading reform, especially re: environmental responsibility. For example, Wal-Mart has a corporate commitment to 100% sustainability, which according to Treehugger, makes it "more difficult to hate Wal-Mart". I can tell you, based on very good sources, that this is not a case of "greenwashing".

But this is not on-topic. Lee Scott has also, along with the Service Employees International Union, is pushing for healthcare reform, which is more likely with a "democratic dictatorship" than a republican one - or even republican ability to obstruct any meaningful legislation on the issue.

I'm just going to keep my mouth shut and my opinion to myself ... Haha. 10 for you nonetheless though.

Aww Katie Come on don't be shy. LOL

Steve prior to 9/11 I didn't pay alot of attention to the political scene. But sense then I've felt like too many people dropped the ball in this country and I have started to question the issues. Plus I was more intrested in being a dad than worrying politics. As to the 2001 Republican majority all I can attest to is hind sight on that.

Joe "let's see what the Democratic Party can do. They couldn't do much worse. "

I think they can do alot worse Joe and they can do it in the name of "whats best for us". I sometimes think of the phrase "the road to hell is paved with good intensions". I think the government is making people more dependent on them than making people more responsible for themselves.

And it bothers me when a candidate isn't upset about gas prices but is upset that they got that high so quickly. It bothers me that they seem to want us to pay more for the basic items that we use on a daily basis.

"False choice. If something isn't good for the environment, it is de facto not good for people - that is, if you consider biology important. Of course, you can put off the adversive consequences for many people for a while - but it eventually catches up."

But what about the people that are here now? Why are they less important than someone who isn't here now? And what kind of future is it when you can't save for the future here and now because in the name of the enviroment we are told to go without now. What about the quality of life for those living in the present?
When I hear the lines "we need to consume less" "what about your grandkids world". It makes me think about the joke of the old man going to the doctor and "he asks the doctor will I live to be 100? The doctor asks do you drink? No. Do you smoke? No. Do you have sex? No. Why would you want to live to 100."
Why shouldn't we be allowed to enjoy the quality of life we want without being told that we are bad people because we're selfish and only think of ourselves. Why is it a bad thing if we want a boat,or a RV or some other items that bring us joy?

I want a good clean planet for my future grand kids but I don't want to make my kids go without because someone thinks it makes us greedy. I just don't think that the government should be forcing us to go without.

We had a mid-summer parade a week or so back and as I'm watching the car's with King and Queen, the fire trucks, the motorcycles, the military vehicles, the trucks pulling floats with candy being thrown going by and planes flying overhead. We had rides in the park with flashing lights kids screaming and having fun and all I could think of was. There are some who whould want to shut down this parade and rides because they think it's being wasteful and harming the environment. It makes me depressed that the parades and carnivals and the fun could be gone in the name of global warming. And it's this kind of things that make me nuts.

"Some may think I'm being paranoid but, the idea of a single group in essentially total control is a scary senario to me."

You mean like when Bush was elected through the 2006 elections?

I won't bother commenting on the rest because it would be a waste of time.

Charles. I might agree with you if these were normal times. Usually, split government is a good idea, because neither party can become extreme as the republicans had from 2001 to 2007. However, I disagree now. There are important decisions that we have to make, and gridlock is presently a recipe for failure. Energy is the core issue. It affects nearly everything else - jobs and the economy, foreign policy and mideast resource wars, etc. Republicans want to expand coal and nuclear use and democrats want to deploy renewables as quickly as possible. It is a clear choice, and we really need to move in one direction or the other. I think democrats are right. Republican "solutions" will just compound problems - and even most of them admit that renewables are the right energy source in the long term.

Also, Charles, if you know anything about the history of terrorism, you will know that it is almost always used against a more powerful, occupying force. If you want to defeat "terrorism", you should look at ending our dependence on foreign oil, deploying existing renewable energy on a large scale with existing technology, and ending all involvement in the mideast. If you had paid attention to politics earlier, you would have known that we have been hamstrung by mideast oil since Iran booted the Shah and took Americans hostage. OPEC decreased production and forced the energy crises of the 1970s. Energy is at the core of all of this - and renewables are the solution.

Steve I have a good grasp on history and sadly it does repeat itself often because some think they can get a different result by doing the same things again and again.

But renewables aren't the only solution Steve and that where the impass is for many that it's become my way or no way. And even the recent polls that are showing more and more people are saying drilling and other recoverable energy sources are being ignored as part of the answer. And there are no renewables that are cost effective without the tax payers footing a large part of the cost. Wind and solar are way outside the normal persons wallet. Even the much touted mass transit can't even break even without public assistance from many who don't even using it.

David: Bush and the Republicans have not had everything they wanted passed without serious opposition from the Democrats.

Charles: "...renewables aren't the only solution...."

No, they're just the best solution. I'm not talking about the immediate future, but the long term - 20, 30, 40 years from now. Much better, much less expensive than the "traditional" energy sources.

Charles: "...more and more people are saying drilling and other recoverable energy sources are being ignored as part of the answer."

Drilling will do nothing in the short term either. By the time oil from the coasts or Alaska actually hit the pipelines (yet to be built), we could be using biofuel from algae.

Charles: "...there are no renewables that are cost effective without the tax payers footing a large part of the cost."

The way taxpayers have been footing a large part of the cost for oil/coal/nuclear industries for decades?

Charles: "Wind and solar are way outside the normal persons wallet."


That is forcasted to change within the next few years - that is if the government and real "enviro-wackos" stop getting in the way.

Also, Nanosolar Is Gunning For Coal

Charles. I forgot to mention re: biofuel from algae above that that is a very good process for sequestering carbon as well as being an excellent medium for solar energy. As for the short term, we could have avoided the current crisis if we had learned anything from previous crises. Instead, we listened to energy experts from the oil, coal and nuclear industries. I hope we don't make the same mistake again. If we do, we'll be having the same conversation/debate again in 10, 20, 30 years.

Charles. I forgot to mention re: biofuel from algae above that that is a very good process for sequestering carbon as well as being an excellent medium for solar energy.

Charles: "I have a good grasp on history and sadly it does repeat itself often because some think they can get a different result by doing the same things again and again."

Yes. We could have avoided the current energy crisis if we had learned anything from previous crises. Instead, we listened to energy experts from the oil, coal and nuclear industries. I hope we don't make the same mistake again. If we do, we'll be having the same conversation/debate again in 10, 20, 30 years.

James: "Why shouldn't we be allowed to enjoy the quality of life we want without being told that we are bad people because we're selfish and only think of ourselves."

If you want the same quality of life, instead of going without, then get the hell off oil once and for all. The issue isn't poverty vs. oil. It's increasing economic difficulty by remaining dependent on oil. Surely you have noticed that. Watch this interview with Amory Lovins. to understand that the usual assumptions about energy, environment, economy are exactly backwards.

When the Dems took control of Congress, they promised several things.. one being that gas prices would be lowered... Hmmmmm,,, I am still waiting..... these prices have soared much worse since they took control..This was only one promise that they made and did not fulfill. So if this is what they are all about.... why, would anyone consider believing in them now??

vickey: "...one being that gas prices would be lowered... "

You're going to have to source that. I don't remember democrats promising that. Also, the efforts democrats have made to promote renewables have been hamstrung by republican filibusters.

Stephan your icon is scaring me, whatever are you doing to those dogs?

Don H, you are so sexy when you don't know what you're talking about will you make love me naked under the moon and we can be as only we are; free naked and moon bats?

The Republicans have no one to blame but themselves for voting in a President who has taken us down the path to destruction.

He didn't do it alone.

He had a lot of help.

Donald Rumsfeld, for example.

Alberto Gonzales and Scooter Libby are other examples.

Paul Wolfowitz

Rupert Murdoch and Fox News.

This is the backlash for the complete stranglehold the Republicans have had over this country, it's radio, TV and newspaper media.

You can't turn to any talk radio station without hearing a constant stream of right-wing conservative propaganda.

I'm not scared of one party having control, I'm simply scared of our government having as much control as it does. The purpose of our governmnet as set out by the founding fathers was to have a government that does not have as much control as this one does now. Look around, there are conversations about light bulbs being made illegal. How is it that the government has come to have so much power that they can tell us how we can and cannot light our house. Perhaps we should read more thomas jefferson books and listen to him and have a revolution!

Andy Brady
Kabliga

The Repubs set themselves up for this failure. That the country will suffer is not the point, if you can't abide by the principles you set yourself, then how are you any different than another party? The country itself is not progressive by any means no matter the wishful thinking of the left, but it knows BS when it has its face rubbed in it. And that is what the Repubs did, repeatedly for years.

That the Dems have done the same thing is just not sinking in and won't for another year or so. There is nothing one can do but vote. The Repubs could have at least united this last year and fought the Dems on all the budget issues but too many of them just went right along with the mess. The cycle sadly will turn in another couple of years but the damage will already be done. Its like erosion on a dam, a little bit at a time....

"I wonder if you were against one party rule when republicans had both houses and the wh in 2001."

I wasn't against it, but look how it turned out. Republican congress screwed up big time and they know it.