Green: Both Senators voted FOR amnesty
Grey: Split vote, one Senator for amnesty, one against
Red: Both Senators voted AGAINST amnesty
Compare to the presidential election map:
The blue states voted amnesty, the red states voted against amnesty with at least one Senator. (a few exceptions) Way to be on the wrong side President Bush!
14 comments:
Denver CO here I come!
If Bush's "good hearted folks" are such great guys then why did both Senators from his home state (and border state) of Texas vote to keep these criminals from getting amnesty?
Why do you think this map helps you? Point to a single battleground state that is all red? And then look at FL, OH, and WIS?
This of course begs the reminder, regardless of the context, that the President is in fact supposed to be the President of the United States, rather than the President of the Citizens of the United States Who Vote Republican.
kaelri, you once more show your laziness by ignoring the FACT that more than 80% of the American people demand secure borders. Governing against the will of the people is what tinpot dictators do. If you are unable to connect the dots on so simple an issue, why do you waste more air?......sheesh.
"kaelri, you once more show your laziness by ignoring the FACT that more than 80% of the American people demand secure borders."
That fact is irrelevant to Daniel's assertion that President Bush has failed to cater to his constituency, which is what I was commenting on.
"Governing against the will of the people is what tinpot dictators do."
It's also occasionally what responsible progressive governments do. It's important to learn the differences. I think we've been over this pretty thoroughly.
kaelri, you cheap, lefty hack, there is no such thing as a "responsible progressive government." The AMERICAN President's constituency is the AMERICAN people! And reiterating lefty gibberish is like the old "lipstick on a pig" ploy. You are still lazy, and you don't understand representative government....sheesh.
" kaelri, you cheap, lefty hack, there is no such thing as a 'responsible progressive government.'"
I'm sorry to hear that. I thought ours was pretty good for a while. I suppose we can toss the 13th Amendment, then... and the 14th... and 15th. And the 19th.
"The AMERICAN President's constituency is the AMERICAN people!"
I agree. Daniel doesn't. Please read his post above.
"And reiterating lefty gibberish is like the old "lipstick on a pig" ploy."
The only points I've asserted in this post are 1) that the President is President of the whole country, which you've agreed with, and 2) that governing against the will of the people isn't always bad, which you disagree with, but of which I would be happy to convince you. If you see it to be "gibberish" then I'm sorry to have failed in my task.
"You are still lazy, and you don't understand representative government....sheesh."
I don't usually like to respond to this element of your comments. But I would like to assure you of something: you will not distract me by calling me lazy or stupid, nor will you provoke me by signing off each reply with "sheesh." I come here to challenge ideas, not people. So if you are more interested in the means than the end, I will simply be disappointed.
It's also occasionally what responsible progressive governments do.
So the government knows what's best for us? I call BS on you.
The people who want secure borders aren't all Republican or conservative. They do, however, represent the great majority of the US people. Daniel would probably agree that the American people are the President's constituency. Saying otherwise doesn't make it so.
Time for liberals to wake up. You can't be anti-establishment and have everything provided for you by the government at the same time. You want free stuff from the government or for it to be a nanny? It means you give up freedom.
"So the government knows what's best for us? I call BS on you.
That's the whole idea of a republican democracy. We're supposed to pick the smart people to be the leaders. And if we don't like their decisions we can elect someone else. And throughout the process we get to debate stuff, thanks to the First Amendment, the likes of which totalitarians and fascists tend to avoid. This is pretty elementary, I think.
"Daniel would probably agree that the American people are the President's constituency. Saying otherwise doesn't make it so."
I wouldn't be surprised if Daniel clarified that now, yes. Once again, I was commenting on his post. He said Bush was on the wrong side for agreeing with blue states. That's tough to misinterpret.
"Time for liberals to wake up. You can't be anti-establishment and have everything provided for you by the government at the same time. You want free stuff from the government or for it to be a nanny? It means you give up freedom."
I'm not really sure what the prompt for this lil' closer was. Even if it's something you actually believe, I guarantee it won't change a single mind. If you're trying to help things, I would recommend getting your label definitions in line. Liberalism, as Wikipedia aptly defines it, "holds liberty as the primary political value." Not all liberals think alike. Not all people who are called or call themselves "liberal" actually are. It's not an organization, it's not an institution, it's a bloody adjective. Do not continue to try and paint it as a matter of black-and-white. I've tried it. It doesn't work.
wikipedia...hahahaha
Why define anything? Not all government officals are intelligent, looking out for the people's best interest, etc. It's easy for you to define something when it benefits you. Maybe you should test your own arguments using your logic before you say something. Your answer might be a little different. Maybe even less liberal.
"Why define anything?"
Because when everyone assumes that everyone else interprets a word with the same meaning, and they don't, Bad Things Happen. Political rhetoric in this country right now is a gigantic mess that has to be cleaned up. When the word "liberal" conjures the image of a gay HIV-positive dope-smoker on welfare? And Cindy Sheehan is called an "extremist" for camping out on a road in Texas? Yeah, we've got problems, people.
Hey what a great site keep up the work its excellent.
»
Post a Comment