"I agree that the dems are not making good on their ethics and transparency promises.." Yeah, we agree on this. Pointing at a wrong to justify another wrong doesn't work. They made a promise and they are breaking it.
Again, they are breaking their promise and you are justifying it by saying look at the other guys. What is wrong is wrong.
The third point again, you point to the last group while trying to avoid the broken promise of this group. Clinton also had the highest retroactive tax hike in history, though this congress is trying to beat it.
You have a point here, it doesn't effect you so its ok for you not to care about it. This isn't sarcastic.
On point #2 - I think that earmarks are wrong period, no matter what party is doing it. I just think they're being less hush hush and under the table about it. It's less brazen, but it's still not okay.
On point #3 - The economy didn't seem to mind the tax hike and the US got it's financial house in order. Right now we're borrowing to pay for a war we can't afford. At some point, the bill will come due. If the Dems are going to raise taxes in order to balance the budget, I fully support that because it'd be cheaper to pay as we go than continue to finance it. Economics 101.
On point #4 - I think gas should be more expensive anyway. I realize I'm in the minority here, but damn, I wish both parties wouldn't pander to the gas price debate.
Everyone of those is a valid opinion. They have nothing to do with the disscussion at hand, but from some of your answers it seems that you have acknowledged that the dems have broken promises they made to get into congress.
I disagree that it doesn't have anything to do with the discussion at hand, but to your original point, yes, I think the democrats are not following all the platform pieces they used to get elected. With that said, they're a magnitude better than the opposition in this regard. Not saying it's good, just better than the alternative. This turns it from a black and white argument to one of greyscale and nuance.
I'm being a realist. The alternative is worse. I can support candidates who are ethical and don't believe in pork, but unless you're advocating for the overthrow of the US gov't, that's the only way one can impact change.
The reality is that instead of saying...well, I'm still being punched but not as hard as that guy punched me so its ok, you say, hey, I'm being punched and I need to stop it.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png)
bluetooth16.livejournal.com) wrote in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png)
politicartoons2007-06-19 11:28 pm
no subject
Yeah, we agree on this. Pointing at a wrong to justify another wrong doesn't work. They made a promise and they are breaking it.
Again, they are breaking their promise and you are justifying it by saying look at the other guys. What is wrong is wrong.
The third point again, you point to the last group while trying to avoid the broken promise of this group. Clinton also had the highest retroactive tax hike in history, though this congress is trying to beat it.
You have a point here, it doesn't effect you so its ok for you not to care about it. This isn't sarcastic.
Thanks for being reasonable.
no subject
On point #3 - The economy didn't seem to mind the tax hike and the US got it's financial house in order. Right now we're borrowing to pay for a war we can't afford. At some point, the bill will come due. If the Dems are going to raise taxes in order to balance the budget, I fully support that because it'd be cheaper to pay as we go than continue to finance it. Economics 101.
On point #4 - I think gas should be more expensive anyway. I realize I'm in the minority here, but damn, I wish both parties wouldn't pander to the gas price debate.
no subject
no subject
no subject
You are still staying its ok and we should tolerate the broken promises because they are better than the others.
This is pointing at bad behavior to justify bad behavior, not good.
no subject
no subject