Plausable, I suppose, but a tad hypocritical. These rules didn't seem so bad to the Republicans when they were the minority. Also, the dems most likely at the time had the same power to change the rules and yet, they didn't. And for that reason, it isn't the democrats that seem arrogant to me at all.

Rather, it is the the republican party who feels that they should be able to appoint the most ultra right-wing people that they can find, people whose records are downright scary, without any opposition at all from the democratic party. They are actually offended that people would even question them. Surely they know what is best for this country and everyone should just trust them. Now that, my friend, is arrogance.

We can discuss all night the arrogance of politicians. They all are. I suppose it comes down to whose arrogance is more in line with what you hope to see happens.

Honestly, I'm not sure either party is in line with what I hope see happens. There are pros and cons to both sides and if you think I'm a democrat, you are mistaken. I know I come off that way by siding with them but then again, this isn't the same republican party from days past. I saw a lot more fiscal responsibility when the democrats were in power. I also didn't see them trying to shove religious beliefs down everyones throats. I see the pubs discarding states rights, increasing the size of government, and leading us to a place where we invade countries, hold detainees indefinately, and try to change the constitution to exclude a group of people. As long as the republicans continue down that path, I have no choice but to speak out against them. Still doesn't mean I think the dems are the answer to everything.

This country really needs a viable third party, if you ask me.

Sorry, Scaeagles. I'm always a little cranky in the A.M.:evil:

I hate santorum. Gets all over the sheets.

Oh, you are certainly correct that this is not the republican party of the past. I am not happy with the current direction the party is heading, and it is primarily because of spending. This is not the party of Reagan any longer, and that is distressing to me.

Fiscal responsibility.....while I think the President has a lot to do with this, and I think Bush has not led in this fashion as he should, fiscal responsibility was not something that I credit to Clinton, but I actually credit it to Newt Gingrich. When the republicans took the house in 1994, that was when it started. All spending and budget bills begin in the house. Sadly, we do not have any budget hawks in the house in ositions of leadership, and bush has not been willing to push in that direction.

I still don't understand the "shove religious beliefs down everyones throats" thing. If you are referring to ballot initiatives on gay marriage, those pass with typically 70%, so it isn't republicans alone. Clinton signed the "defense of marriage act".

States rights - somewhat. Interestingly, the push to abolish certain federal agencies - such as the department of education - and moving those responsibilities to the states is opposed by dems. I think this goes both ways.

The invade countries - we know where I stand on that. It was completely legal due to the violation of the gulf war I cease fire.

I realize that you don't think the dems are the answer to everything, and I don't think the reps are, either. Unfortunately, a third party is just not going to happen.

It's not just about gay marriage though. It's also the congress feeling they were above the law with Terry Shaivo. It's because of the abstinance-only approach. It's because of the faith-based initiatives. It's because of the attempts to limit stem-cell research. Religion is the reason for each of these policies, regardless of whether logic or law, or in the case of marriage, decency, gets in the way.

Interesting that this wasn't the justification given. Also interesting that the reasons given fell apart like a house of cards.

And putting aside the word "legal" for a moment, do you think it was the right thing to do? Do you think that the loss of 1600 American soldiers (and rising) and the tens of thousands of innocent civilian deaths were worth the capture of a dictator? Do you think it was worth the costs? I would sincerely like to hear your justifications, not for it being legal but for it being the right thing to do. Because, I am having a real hard time correlating this war with a "culture of life" that Bush says is so important to him.

Well, not for a long time at least. I never said that it would happen, only that it needs to happen.

I do.

While the spin has been to put the blame on the intelligence community of the USA, it is fact that the intelligence agencies of Egypt, Russia, and England (and others, I believe) all told us the same thing. It is a fact that Saddam had used them in the past. It is a fact that he had offered safe harbor to Osama. It is a fact that he had repeatedly violated cease fire agreements on unfettered inpections.

In the post 9/11 world, when you have someone who has used WMD, refuses to abide by a cease fire agreement, is making overtures to terrorists who attacked us, and many intelligence agencies confirmed what our intelligence agencies said with regard to WMD, it was the right thing to do.

I report my arguments of old not in the interest of rehashing debate on the point, but solely because I was asked. I realize many disagree. My opinion is based on the facts that I have listed.

Loss of our soldiers is a sad thing. Loss of innocent civilians is a sad thing. I again point out that only 20% or so of the population of our original 13 colonies wanted independence from England, but it was the right thing to do. Many died. Soldiers and innocent civilians. Doing what is right often has a high price associateds with it.

Edited to add: You point out that "this wasn't the reason given" as justification for the invasion. In fact, the violations of the cease fire were at the forefront. We continued to give Saddam opportunity after opportunity to abide by the agreement and give complete and unfettered access to inspect wherever we wanted without warning, as was stipulated in the cease fire. He would not. This is what 17 (or so) UN resolutions dealt with. Because of those violations, we could not verify or disprove what the intellegence reports of so many countries told us.

Fair enough, and I appreciate your answer. I don't agree with it but I do like hearing your opinion on it. I don't think we need to debate it further in this thread, as it was already enough of a hijack on my part.

My hope at this point is that the discontent among many republicans is growing to the point that they will eventually make their voice heard a bit louder. The war is becoming less popular, so is the administration and its policies. Maybe this will ultimately lead to less extremism and division. Until then, fights that occur in the senate like the current filibuster argument are just going to get worse as neither side wants to concede anything. I know you aren't a fan of moderation but I think a little cooperation by both sides (and in my humble opinion, more so on the other side) is sorely needed.

To quote the brilliant Lady Thatcher -

"Consensus is the absence of leadership."