Elections of 2002, and the single party government they resulted in

[Bucc without a password]

Taxcodes are complicated because its a complicated system. You think its the lawyers but it is infact the law makers.

Zaitsev, those lawmakers are the lawyers I was talking about.  Thanks for showing my point for me.

[PsYcO aSsAsSiN]

Cossack, I see you have posted in this thread so I will make some points to you why a Republican rise to power is a GOOD thing for you, especially since you are a Russian planning to go home soon.

I literally just came out of a lecture/seminar (3 hours long) for my Globalization class 30 minutes ago and we had a Russian economics professor and a Russian poly-sci professor argue why a Republican rise to power was good for Russia.

For sometime now, the Democrat Senate has blocked moves made by Republicans attempting to help and assist Russia by admitting them to the WTO and increasing trade with them. By having a Republican Congress and Presidency, such proposals and offers can be passed and authorized immediately thus providing an almost immediate life to the Russian populous and the economy. I am sure you of all people would enjoy seeing a greater relationship between Russia and the United States, with prosperity following in its path.

As for you thinking that Ashcroft would go on some Nazi purge type thing, if he wanted to expand it more, he probably would have already done it since he had the authority under the Patriot Act. It is also very unlikely that they would be targeting Russian's in Texas...now if you were of Middle Eastern decent and acted suspiciously, that would be a different story.

I see some other stuff posted here by others that I could rip on, and be assured, I will tear you a new asshole (meaning I will refute your arguments with proven facts) if I feel you are posting recklessly...but I am tired after listening to two Russian guys talk for hours so I will get around to you people tomorrow or after the weekend.

[tasty]

bucc, i am not going to respond to any posts now bc i am really drunk, i am just going to say that i hope you dont leave too because of some people's RETARDED comments and that i enjoy arguing with you. thx bucc.

[EUR_Zaitsev]

Cool if I proved your point on that, Im glad we agree but they dont make it complicated so they can get more money (Politicans have a set salery) they make it complicated so that extreme rigght wing people cant extort it.

[Buccaneer hosed his pw]

Tasty,

I enjoy our arguments too.  It's always good debating with someone that puts some honest thought and effort into it.  It provides another perspective.

Zaitsev, Politicans have a set salery, while they are in office.  But the law firms that they work for, and will return to, that their friends and associates work for, they do.  The consultant deals that they get after office, etc etc etc.

And don't blame it on the right wing, or the Republicans.  You can't tell me that Clinton (either one of them) is any less currupt then any far right Republican.  Hell, the far right and far left are actually likely to be less corrupt, since they would have a harder time selling out thier ideals.  

Anyway, it's not about conservative or liberal, Democrat or Republican.  It's about the best person for the job.  I don't think that you can discount someone just based upon the fact that they have been an actor.  Being an actor doesn't automatically put you out of touch with reality like Tasty said (and that is an awefully conservative, Republican statement Tasty).  Being a career politician doesn't automatically make you corrupt (but if it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck).  

[Cossack]

Ass, I should restate what I meant. I worry as a citizen (american) that rights will be taken away. It is true I in favor a better relationship between to America and Russia. Its crucial for the whole world. What I am more concerned about is the disruption of many of FDR's reforms. I think the republicans will take out money from Social Security, welfare, ect for their war machine. I also think that the Patriot Act is a sin against democracy. It baisicly says they can hold you on cause of suspicion, you can see how this authority given to someone has mentaly unstable as Ashcroft is not a good thing.
On another note, ass you know of John Dorschner? I know the guy though my father. I am sure you know him or of him, here is a little essay he has written:

P.S. Cant post the essay now, something is fucked up with earthlink email.
P.S.S Looks like its fixed, here you go:

[Cossack]

We are using the attached article in class.  It articulates that the bushies have been closet 19th century realists all along and that with the outcome of this week's election, will now come out of the closet and abandon any lip-service to the liberal world order that previously both republicans and democrats embraced (including g.w.'s father), and that the united states worked so hard to establish after winning WWII.  If this article is correct, the bush administration could cause the united states to abandon its cherished principles and return to a 19th century world.  In such a world the united states would no longer feel that it had to justify the use of military power by citing higher moral ends - the exercise of power for national greatness would be sufficient.  It would abandon the pretense of furthering democratization and would openly ally itself with any autocratic regime that supported u.s. interests.  It would no longer respect international law or the sovereignty of other nations, but would openly propound a doctrine of "naked imperialism", in which military power could be applied to provide resources for the state, and assure the status quo.  In such a world the united states could attack any nation it wanted without reference to the united nations.  If this article and its assertions are correct, the bush administration could be a turning point in world history.  In the post bush world, the united states would no longer cast itself as the "liberal hegemon" bent on establishing and maintaining the liberal economic order, meant to benefit all countries of the world (as clinton asserted), but rather would be a 19th century "great power" bent solely on pursuing american national interests, regardless of the impact on the rest of the world.

Such a radical backward shift in international relations would
fundamentally change the world and leave it unrecognizable.  The implications for members of the armed forces would be enormous. American military personnel would no longer be able to justify military action in terms of higher moral principles or defending the united states against aggression, rather military personnel would be expected to fight in pursuit of power only.  The liberal economic order would be vastly undermined, the world would revert back to amerchantalist
system that we have not seen since before world war II, and the United States and its professional armed forces could be involved in a series of wars that could be open-ended.  In such a world the united states
army's role would then more closely resemble that of the british army's
during the height of the british empire, when it routinely fought wars around the world to subjugate peoples in what we now call the "developing world" and bring them under british control.  In the extreme instance, the resulting "pax americana" would come to resemble the "pax romana," when the roman legions became killing machines that
could defeat any opponent and were no longer defending the roman republic but rather extending the roman empire.

[Cossack]

While I would have dismissed such ideas as wild rhetoric by leftist extremists just months ago, the bush administration's purported plan for an open-ended occupation of a post-saddam iraq by the american military caught me completely by surprise and caused me to engage in extensive rethinking.  The american army has not been asked to play such a role since world war ii, and in that instance it did so to establish democracy in states which were previously totalitarian and integrate those states into the democratic mainstream.  It is not clear whether the bush occupation plan has the same high ends.  Left-wing critics of the bush administration routinely state that the proposed invasion of iraq is not meant to establish democracy in the middle east and the arab world, but rather to open the iraqi oilfields to american dominance and exploitation, a classic case of 19th century merchantalist policy.  I previously would have dismissed such views as the rantings of left-wing lunatics, but sometimes I can't help thinking that the world is changing beneath our feet and what seemed lunacy just months ago may not be so anymore.  Merely suggesting that the american army would occupy iraq for five years or more, opens the united states to criticism that it has ulterior motives.

I have grown quite close to my military colleagues in the 18 months that I have worked side by side with them here at west point.  I have also grown close to my students, the cadets.  I think that these policy shifts are a disservice to the military and to the cadets, who will have to lay their lives on the line in support of these aspirations.  If things do not go according to plan in iraq, thousands of professional soldiers could be killed, while the civilians who
propounded these policies remain comfortably out of the line of fire. Such a development could profoundly demoralize the american military and undermine hundreds of years of tradition and pride.  Professional soldiers deserve better treatment.  It often appears that this administration does not have the best interests of the military at heart, and is callously willing to risk their lives and honor in
pursuit of policies that are not well thought-out.

I only regret that the democratic party did not wish to entertain these theoretical ideas and submit them to public debate before the election, but rather chose to remain passive in the face of what they perceived as a republican juggernaut.  I can't believe that the american people have fundamentally changed and really wish for the united states to fundamentally change its international behavior in such a drastic fashion, especially if there is a potential for the united states to be drastically harmed in the process.

[cookie]

as for the outcome of the GOP elections:
if the American public really thinks they have been misrepresented, they have only themselves to blame. It is for this reason i regard the midterms as legit.
And regarding Democracy, America never was a democracy, i dont give a damn how much people claim it is. From the beginning we have always had people twisting and bending the true will of the people in numerous ways ranging from the electoral college institution to the media, and until we have one big ass 3 billion person convention hall in D.C., Athens-style, you're never going to witness a true democratic government in America. Democracy worked in Greece because of the small population and the fact only males, for the most part, could vote. Democracy is dead, welcome to the US.

and some misc. points to note:
a prevalent notion in this thread is that some of you are scared that Bush will get whatever he wants, and the republicans will run amok. Have you ever heard of a filibuster? Well, to be simple, it's a thingie which checks back absolute majority power in congress. If the Democrats really don't want something to pass, it won't.  This is mostly applicable to high profile issues, such as social security privatization and ANWR. However it is likely that because of the GOP that the conservatives will be able to pass Homeland Security and Terrorism Insurance bills in the lame duck session. This isn't entirely bad but still an example of what conservatives CAN now do. Analogously a good/bad outcome of the GOP is also that Bush can probably make his 10 year taxcut plan permanent, which could both stimulate our declining economy and improve the standard of living or explode the budget deficit. Which is more likely i dont yet know. Anyway, i think from all this you can conclude there is still going to be a relatively strong balance of power, and there really isn't much to fear. The only thing I worry about is going to war but it's simply because im a pacifist in general and I dont approve of unilateral action. However, an interesting update from 2 days ago: An Iraq proposal has been approved by the UN. Who knows what doors this will open? It could change the whole face of the issue.

[tasty]

im ending my argument with buccaneer - its just turning into nitpicky rhetorical stuff. cookie, as far as the usage of filibuster as a means of stopping legislation??honestly, how often is this used and to what extent has it been successful. The Democrats have been too timid to use the filibuster even in situations where many liberals considered it essential. Remember the nomination of John Ashcroft as attorney general? The Democrats could have ridden that one out, but instead gave up. I have sincere doubts in both the legitimacy of the system and in the Democrats ability to actually do anything.


BTW the NY & LA Times are rags!!!!

[cookie]

if you read the NY times or LA times they specifically say a filibuster is very likely in the case of ANWR or SSP.

[EUR_Zaitsev]

CHANGING TOPIC:
   What will war in Iraq accomplish? This somewhat ties in because it is more likely now with the current Government Officials that war occurs. I doubt the people will all raise up against Saddam, Bush Sr. wanted them to do that and they got slaughtered, watch the movie THREE KINGS which is mainly fiction but still the only way to get the refugees free was to do it illegally. I think that we will have a hold up in a few years in our glorious war on terror and just then, I will be draft age. And hurray I am a newbie but thats post 100 for me