NationStates Jolt Archive

looks like self-preservation won out. arlen specter has switched parties, giving the dems 60 votes in the senate as soon as al franken gets his seat.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/04/28/specter.party.switch/

looks like self-preservation won out. arlen specter has switched parties, giving the dems 60 votes in the senate as soon as al franken gets his seat.


That's so Italian-style.

haha, according to someone on cnn the republicans are 'just shell shocked'. dude, what did they expect?

Yay!

Holy balls. Now Democrats will have no excuse if they fuck up.

*winces for two years*

Please don't fuck this up.

Holy balls. Now Democrats will have no excuse if they fuck up.

*winces for two years*

Please don't fuck this up.

haha, yeah. gonna have to actually try doing some shit for once instead of just playing duck and cover. though they've been being better about it recently already.

on the plus side, as long as the fuckups aren't too bad, they'll still pickup even more seats in the senate in 2010, just because of the set of seats up for election.

KYAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

It's over for the GOP now! Let them suffer as that horrid party is ground to dust!

It would've been better if he went Libertarian.

This is garbage. If the Dems get a filibuster-proof majority they are going to try and pass every load of liberal BS they can think of while the country is distracted on the real issues. Once the mess sorts itself out they will just take credit for it (and no nothing about our debt). Plus they are already on the path to screwing over our military again.

Dems were said to be dead in times past. GOP isn't dead now.

This is garbage. If the Dems get a filibuster-proof majority they are going to try and pass every load of liberal BS they can think of while the country is distracted on the real issues. Once the mess sorts itself out they will just take credit for it (and no nothing about our debt). Plus they are already on the path to screwing over our military again.

Dems were said to be dead in times past. GOP isn't dead now.

1- Conservative crap got America in the shoddy position it's in.

2- The GOP IS dying or at least will be forced to change. They should evolve or they should die off, and either is fine with me.

3- Bush managed to turn a surplus into a debt, remember?

4- I'd personally define "screwing the military" as "sending them off into a wild goose chase of a war for NOTHING without protective equipment", but, then, one-post wonder, I'm sane.

Let the GOP change, or let it suffer and die. Both would be good, the second would be enjoyable to boot.

This makes sense. If I'm not mistaken, some of his primary challengers were polling quite far ahead of him. Switching parties like this virtually guarantees him another term.

You mean this isn't a King of the Hill discussion thread?

so, what does this do for the even more moderate repubs from maine?
http://www.voteview.com/sen110.htm

He voted for Obama's stimulus. That guaranteed that the Republican Party would abandon him during his next election and support on of his Republican primary challengers instead. This was self-preservation, plain and simple, and more power to him for ditching the Republican Party before it ditched him.

It would've been better if he went Libertarian.

Yeah, we do need a third party. Though it is increasingly looking like we need a second. I'm not the jovial type who'll claim the Republicans are dead, all it takes is some major fuckups from the Democrats (aka the party of fuckups) to revive them.

Conservative crap got America in the shoddy position it's in.

Nonsense, liberal crap is just digging us in a deeper hole.


2- The GOP IS dying or at least will be forced to change. They should evolve or they should die off, and either is fine with me.


Yeah same thing was said about the Democrats. GOP will be back.


3- Bush managed to turn a surplus into a debt, remember?


So because Bush was an idiot we should keep start spending more?


4- I'd personally define "screwing the military" as "sending them off into a wild goose chase of a war for NOTHING without protective equipment", but, then, one-post wonder, I'm sane.


The military had protective equipment for many front line active Army units but under the order of battle at the time logistics units did not have body armor and mainly used thin-skinned vehicles. The reason there were equipment shortages and so many logistics problems to begin with were due to the past 8 years of Democrat penny pinching when it came to military spending. Yeah, sure your sane...


Let the GOP change, or let it suffer and die. Both would be good, the second would be enjoyable to boot.

And I presume somebody like yourself would not want to see a conservative party rise to takes it place? Instead you just want people to keep voting the same corrupt Democrats like Chris Dodd (who Obama naturally supports) into place. That is some mighty fine "change" for ya.

This is garbage. If the Dems get a filibuster-proof majority they are going to try and pass every load of liberal BS they can think of while the country is distracted on the real issues. Once the mess sorts itself out they will just take credit for it (and no nothing about our debt). Plus they are already on the path to screwing over our military again.

Dems were said to be dead in times past. GOP isn't dead now.
You mean the way the Republicans had a stranglehold on the Congress? and told 49% of the country "too bad, so sad, we have a MANDATE?"

Oh, cry me a river.

So now we let the other side do the same but with more power than the Republicans had? Great thinking.

Shouldn't people here be denouncing him as a traitor, like Joe Lieberman?

Shouldn't people here be denouncing him as a traitor, like Joe Lieberman?

Is he a massive fuckwit like Lieberman?

So now we let the other side do the same but with more power than the Republicans had? Great thinking.

Yes.

REVENGE!

Shouldn't people here be denouncing him as a traitor, like Joe Lieberman?

i think you misunderstand why people dislike lieberman

Is he a massive fuckwit like Lieberman?

What does that have to do with my question? Being a fuckwit does not automatically make someone a traitor; not being a fuckwit does not exclude someone from being a traitor.

What does that have to do with my question? Being a fuckwit does not automatically make someone a traitor; not being a fuckwit does not exclude someone from being a traitor.

being a traitor is not necessarily a bad thing. it depends on what you are betraying.

i think you misunderstand why people dislike lieberman

Enlighten me; what did Liberman do that was traitorous that this senator has not also done?

So now we let the other side do the same but with more power than the Republicans had? Great thinking.

I love this line of retarded neo-con sore loser argument. So, because the Republicans showed that they absolutely cannot be trusted with any sort of consolidated power, the Democrats should voluntarily forego striving for the same sort of power? Because why? Because Democrats are expected to be bigger and better people than Republicans? It's stupid thinking. The Democrats spent 6 of the past 8 years having their agenda completely marginalized. Why shouldn't they strive to bring their agenda into reality now that they have the ability? Why should we assume that just because the Republicans are completely immoral and corrupt, the Democrats will be too? Why are Democrats expected to be the bigger man in politics?

being a traitor is not necessarily a bad thing. it depends on what you are betraying.

I never made any qualitiative statement to imply otherwise.

Enlighten me; what did Liberman do that was traitorous that this senator has not also done?

He directly campaigned for the opposing party. Honestly now.

The Democrats spent 6 of the past 8 years having their agenda completely marginalized.

Key word bolded. Because it wasn't only "excluded", it was also "implied to be traitorous".

I love this line of retarded neo-con sore loser argument. So, because the Republicans showed that they absolutely cannot be trusted with any sort of consolidated power, the Democrats should voluntarily forego striving for the same sort of power? Because why? Because Democrats are expected to be bigger and better people than Republicans? It's stupid thinking. The Democrats spent 6 of the past 8 years having their agenda completely marginalized. Why shouldn't they strive to bring their agenda into reality now that they have the ability? Why should we assume that just because the Republicans are completely immoral and corrupt, the Democrats will be too? Why are Democrats expected to be the bigger man in politics?

I read that somewhat differently. What I took from it was "We proved we can't govern, so the Democrats can't either, thus we deserve another chance!".

So now we let the other side do the same but with more power than the Republicans had? Great thinking.
No, the great thinking is thinking it's fine when one side does it, then wailing that it's the end of the world when the tables turn. Anyone except the supremely arrogant Republican party could have seen coming over the eight years they marginalized and alienated moderates in this country, to the point that obviously, their own supporters both elected and not, have left in disgust to join the more liberal and, to their mind, more centrist and sane, democratic moderates.

Does this automatically make them better? No, but at least give them the chance. The Republicans have demonstrated for nearly a decade that they don't really give a shit about anything but lining their own pockets and represent nothing, while giving lip service to "family values".

OHMYGOD is this april 1st?

whose head has already exploded? did rush limbaugh have a stroke yet? is hannity reduced to a gibbering idiot after his nervous breakdown?

He directly campaigned for the opposing party. Honestly now.

And this guy has completely switched party membership. I don't see how one act could be considered traitorous and the other something else.

I love this line of retarded neo-con sore loser argument. So, because the Republicans showed that they absolutely cannot be trusted with any sort of consolidated power, the Democrats should voluntarily forego striving for the same sort of power? Because why? Because Democrats are expected to be bigger and better people than Republicans? It's stupid thinking. The Democrats spent 6 of the past 8 years having their agenda completely marginalized. Why shouldn't they strive to bring their agenda into reality now that they have the ability? Why should we assume that just because the Republicans are completely immoral and corrupt, the Democrats will be too? Why are Democrats expected to be the bigger man in politics?

Ah, I am already a "neo-con" for not voting Obama, I love it! The Democrats have already shown they can't be trusted with any sort of consolidated power and are easily as immoral and corrupt as the Republicans. How can you possibly put your full support behind these lying scum who think they are a party for the people when they don't even pay their own taxes. Why shouldn't they strive to bring their agenda into reality? Because the agenda of the far-left is batshit insane. Why are they expected to be the bigger man in this scenario? Because doing the same thing they accuse Republicans of, but working for the far-left rather than the far-right is bad for the country perhaps? They ran on a platform of "hope and change." Not "more of the same, plus some mindless liberal social policies."

And this guy has completely switched party membership. I don't see how one act could be considered traitorous and the other something else.

Then that's your shortcoming. If you can't see the difference between switching parties due to a change in ideology and actively campaigning for the opposition party's candidate while maintaining your relationship, including all the benefits of being in a position of senior leadership, then there's really no point in discussing it with you.

No, the great thinking is thinking it's fine when one side does it, then wailing that it's the end of the world when the tables turn. Anyone except the supremely arrogant Republican party could have seen coming over the eight years they marginalized and alienated moderates in this country, to the point that obviously, their own supporters both elected and not, have left in disgust to join the more liberal and, to their mind, more centrist and sane, democratic moderates.

Does this automatically make them better? No, but at least give them the chance. The Republicans have demonstrated for nearly a decade that they don't really give a shit about anything but lining their own pockets and represent nothing, while giving lip service to "family values".

The Democrats have already proven themselves anything but moderate. Arrogance? The face of arrogance these days is the look on the face of Nancy Pelosi. If you honestly expect these tax-cheating fools who only look out for their party to be better I think you are in for a rude awakening. Better lip service to "family values" than actual legislation to appease the far-left.

Ah, I am already a "neo-con" for not voting Obama, I love it! The Democrats have already shown they can't be trusted with any sort of consolidated power and are easily as immoral and corrupt as the Republicans. How can you possibly put your full support behind these lying scum who think they are a party for the people when they don't even pay their own taxes. Why shouldn't they strive to bring their agenda into reality? Because the agenda of the far-left is batshit insane. Why are they expected to be the bigger man in this scenario? Because doing the same thing they accuse Republicans of, but working for the far-left rather than the far-right is bad for the country perhaps? They ran on a platform of "hope and change." Not "more of the same, plus some mindless liberal social policies."

If you disapprove of the label, then try to distance your arguments somewhat from the lock step neo-con sore loser whining.

Regardless, my post wasn't about whether I agree with the Democrats pushing through their agenda now that there isn't a viable opposition. It was about your stupid position that the Democrats should not do exactly what the Republicans did for 8 years, just because the Republicans fucked it up so completely. It's a completely assinine position to maintain; that one side of the spectrum is subject to a more stringent set of "rules" for politics than the other. It's a common argument to hear, but hearing it a lot does not make it any less stupid.

Any time you see the left using the same tactics as the right, you invariably hear the peanut gallery crying about how the Democrats are stooping to the level of the Republicans, and how they're supposed to be above that? Above what? Winning? Seems that those people crying have a seriously deluded idea of the true nature of politics.

Because the agenda of the far-left is batshit insane.

I'm probably going to regret this, but now I kinda have to ask exactly what "far-left" agendas you're referring to.

Then that's your shortcoming. If you can't see the difference between switching parties due to a change in ideology and actively campaigning for the opposition party's candidate while maintaining your relationship, including all the benefits of being in a position of senior leadership, then there's really no point in discussing it with you.

I can see the difference between the two actions clearly, you have yet to point out why one is a betrayal and the other is not. If Lieberman had completely switched from the party he was elected as and joined the Republican party and endorsed their candidate, that wouldn't have been traitorous?

This is garbage. If the Dems get a filibuster-proof majority they are going to try and pass every load of liberal BS they can think of while the country is distracted on the real issues. Once the mess sorts itself out they will just take credit for it (and no nothing about our debt). Plus they are already on the path to screwing over our military again.

Dems were said to be dead in times past. GOP isn't dead now.
mr specter is not going to become a liberal. all this means is that the bullshit filibuster is over. the party still has to make sense to its more conservative members or stuff wont get passed.

And this guy has completely switched party membership. I don't see how one act could be considered traitorous and the other something else.
im sure that when a republican poster comes on he will call mr specter a traitor to the party. its not smart for a democrat or democrat supporter to call him names. to us he is a hero.

Ave duci novi, similis duci seneci. I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for the brave new world of leftist politics to sweep the nation. If there is one thing I've learned, it's that 'business as usual' will trump ideology every time.

I'm probably going to regret this, but now I kinda have to ask exactly what "far-left" agendas you're referring to.

Tax fairness, universal health care, education that actually works, not blowing up countries that disagree with us, and preventing the earth from melting, and funnily enough, LOWERING TAXES.

Oh, I know, its horrors isn't it?

The Democrats have already proven themselves anything but moderate. Arrogance? The face of arrogance these days is the look on the face of Nancy Pelosi. If you honestly expect these tax-cheating fools who only look out for their party to be better I think you are in for a rude awakening. Better lip service to "family values" than actual legislation to appease the far-left.

Only someone as extreme as yourself would call the current series of policies far left-wing.
But just to make sure we know the score, lets look at the issues.
Who knew that closing down a jail designed to hold people WITHOUT charges was an extremist position? Here I thought following the LAW was a good thing that normal people did...
Who knew that a middle class tax cut was an extreme socialist idea? Heaven forbid that millionaires pay a few cents more on the dollar so that the rest of us don't go bankrupt.
Who knew that we could save money by NOT blowing up two countries? Saving money and fiscal prudence is supposed to be what YOUR party believes in, thank god reality shows that's just not true.
Who knew that cap and trade, which Newt Gingrich himself applauded only a couple years ago as a brilliant market-based solution, would be such a socialist, anti-market idea? Clearly you and your party didn't, it was YOUR guys' idea after all!

Neocon through and through; don't let reality hit you on the way out.

All I'm hearing is a lot of "but we weren't done screwing everyone over yet! IT'S NOT FAIR!"

Where was the outcry when Bush started the bailouts? But it's all Obama's fault now, isn't it?

The Democrats have already proven themselves anything but moderate. Arrogance? The face of arrogance these days is the look on the face of Nancy Pelosi. If you honestly expect these tax-cheating fools who only look out for their party to be better I think you are in for a rude awakening. Better lip service to "family values" than actual legislation to appease the far-left.

Wait, wait wait. You're going to one-label the Democrats as "tax-cheating"? How many Republican nominees were shot down because they didn't declare nannies? Y'know, the illegals taking care of their CHILDREN and cleaning their HOUSES? GOod Lord, man, if you're gonna throw THAT many stones, have the courtesy to at least let the local glazier know, wouldja? The guy needs advance notice for replacing so many windowpanes.

Also, answer the question -- what's "far-left" to your twisted (if not actually sprained) mind?

Wait, wait wait. You're going to one-label the Democrats as "tax-cheating"? How many Republican nominees were shot down because they didn't declare nannies? Y'know, the illegals taking care of their CHILDREN and cleaning their HOUSES? GOod Lord, man, if you're gonna throw THAT many stones, have the courtesy to at least let the local glazier know, wouldja? The guy needs advance notice for replacing so many windowpanes.

Also, answer the question -- what's "far-left" to your twisted (if not actually sprained) mind?

Per-diem.

All I'm hearing is a lot of "but we weren't done screwing everyone over yet! IT'S NOT FAIR!"

Where was the outcry when Bush started the bailouts? But it's all Obama's fault now, isn't it?

/winner

All I'm hearing is a lot of "but we weren't done screwing everyone over yet! IT'S NOT FAIR!"

Where was the outcry when Bush started the bailouts? But it's all Obama's fault now, isn't it?

I'm not sure what the second part has to do with this thread, but I as a conservative, did completely oppose bush's bailouts as well as Obama's. I'm kind of sick of people saying "but you didn't hate bush enough, lol", its an ad hominem at best.

I read that somewhat differently. What I took from it was "We proved we can't govern, so the Democrats can't either, thus we deserve another chance!".

Whoa. That's the way I took it.

HEY! Are you in my head?

I'm not sure what the second part has to do with this thread, but I as a conservative, did completely oppose bush's bailouts as well as Obama's. I'm kind of sick of people saying "but you didn't hate bush enough, lol", its an ad hominem at best.
No, it's just observing that there wasn't much outcry for these identical items previously -- it's only now that the other party is in power that it's become a reason to wring hands and wail about the country's disintegration.

I'm probably going to regret this, but now I kinda have to ask exactly what "far-left" agendas you're referring to.

*raises hand*

Ah? Not giving the money to the wealthy class so it will trickle down to everybody else!

As a Pennsylvania resident, it makes me feel warm and fuzzy to know that I can vote for Specter and not worry about him being knocked off of the ballot by some GOP joker.

That being said, the idea of any one party having complete control over both houses and the executive does not exactly fill me with joy.

I'm not sure what the second part has to do with this thread, but I as a conservative, did completely oppose bush's bailouts as well as Obama's. I'm kind of sick of people saying "but you didn't hate bush enough, lol", its an ad hominem at best.
many republicans did. youre right that its silly to say "why didnt you oppose the bailouts when bush was doing them" because bailouts were very unpopular with bush at that time.

but it would be good to acknowlege that obama didnt start the bailouts or crash the economy. hes the one who has to try to pick up the pieces the last administration left behind.

That being said, the idea of any one party having complete control over both houses and the executive does not exactly fill me with joy.

Oh, it makes me ecstatic.

No more Republican obstructionism? Awesome.

Originally Posted by Katganistan View Post
All I'm hearing is a lot of "but we weren't done screwing everyone over yet! IT'S NOT FAIR!"

Where was the outcry when Bush started the bailouts? But it's all Obama's fault now, isn't it?


http://www.nytimes.com/1999/10/07/us/bush-softens-view-of-gop-after-outcry-by-conservatives.html?sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0213-06.htm

I love how people have no memory of what -actually- happened in the past...


BTW, are any of you aware that GB is still open? And that Obama has decided that domestic wiretapping is a good idea? But where is the media outrage about the wiretapping now?

Someone probably mentioned this already but it was kind of amusing that Limbaugh said, "Good riddance and take John McCain and his daughter with you."

Nice.

Limbaugh

Who?

http://www.nytimes.com/1999/10/07/us/bush-softens-view-of-gop-after-outcry-by-conservatives.html?sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0213-06.htm

I love how people have no memory of what -actually- happened in the past...


BTW, are any of you aware that GB is still open? And that Obama has decided that domestic wiretapping is a good idea? But where is the media outrage about the wiretapping now?

The shrub softened the view of Republicans? What were they before the Mongals?

http://www.nytimes.com/1999/10/07/us/bush-softens-view-of-gop-after-outcry-by-conservatives.html?sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0213-06.htm

I love how people have no memory of what -actually- happened in the past...


BTW, are any of you aware that GB is still open? And that Obama has decided that domestic wiretapping is a good idea? But where is the media outrage about the wiretapping now?

Pssst ... He said GB would be closed in a year, not by end of business that day of the announcement.

As for wiretapping, FISA goes back to 1976 but that wasn't good enough for the Previous Occupant and his Administration. They didn't even want to have to apply for a rubber-stamp FISA warrant, which you could do after the fact. No, they wanted to be able to listen wherever and whenever they decided, without even a nod to due process.

Someone probably mentioned this already but it was kind of amusing that Limbaugh said, "Good riddance and take John McCain and his daughter with you."

Nice.
rush has been on a "purify the party" kick for at least a year.

its one of the big reasons the republicans should stop deferring to him. he wants to be a tiny party of ultra conservatives. the theory being that if they are true to their ultra conservative ideals the american public will come around.

what a jackass.

Who?

Rush. Isn't that how you spell his surname?

The shrub softened the view of Republicans? What were they before the Mongals?
yeah. back in '99 (when the nyt link was written) before he had starting screwing us all, he was the compassionate conservative. a uniter not a divider. a man who didnt believe in regime change.

yeah. back in '99 (when the nyt link was written) before he had starting screwing us all, he was the compassionate conservative. a uniter not a divider. a man who didnt believe in regime change.

I hope the speech writer who came up with "compassionate conservative" got a big bonus, it's really good. They ought to amend the definition of "alligator tears" to add "See also, compassionate conservatism."

I think this is going to be a liability rather than an asset for the Democrats. Whenever one party starts to become too powerful, abuses creep in and they wind up in the same trap as their predecessor. The past trend has shown that their influence declines steadily from the establishment of one-party control of the government, so I think it may prove to be a challenge for Obama if the Democrats follow the historical trend and begin losing support.

However, I think he has the leadership necessary to stand against his own party and veto bad legislation when it arises (something Bush in particular never had), so it may result in a lot more successes and a lot fewer failures with a corresponding boost in the long-term political power of the Democrats.

That's so Italian-style.
Which is also Filipino-style. :D

I think this is going to be a liability rather than an asset for the Democrats. Whenever one party starts to become too powerful, abuses creep in and they wind up in the same trap as their predecessor. The past trend has shown that their influence declines steadily from the establishment of one-party control of the government, so I think it may prove to be a challenge for Obama if the Democrats follow the historical trend and begin losing support.
My thoughts exactly. Power can be intoxicating.

Pssst ... He said GB would be closed in a year, not by end of business that day of the announcement.

As for wiretapping, FISA goes back to 1976 but that wasn't good enough for the Previous Occupant and his Administration. They didn't even want to have to apply for a rubber-stamp FISA warrant, which you could do after the fact. No, they wanted to be able to listen wherever and whenever they decided, without even a nod to due process.
that's nice... however Obama is continuing the exact same program...

http://my.auburnjournal.com/detail/111636.html?content_source=&category_id=&search_filter=&user_id=&event_mode=&event_ts_from=&event_ts_to=&list_type=&order_by=&order_sort=&content_class=2&sub_type=blogs&town_id=&page=

Regarding GB...

His exact wording was:


Sec. 3. Closure of Detention Facilities at Guantánamo. The detention facilities at Guantánamo for individuals covered by this order shall be closed as soon as practicable, and no later than 1 year from the date of this order. If any individuals covered by this order remain in detention at Guantánamo at the time of closure of those detention facilities, they shall be returned to their home country, released, transferred to a third country, or transferred to another United States detention facility in a manner consistent with law and the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States.


Meaning, that if they decide to, he can just continue GB in another facility.

Ya' know, maybe it's just me, but I like to have pseudo-functional opposition parties--especially when they've been humbled. All this will do is to further the Dolchstosslegende that the far right has been trying to develop for the past six months (or twenty years, take your pick) But hey, cue triumphant fappery at the lost chance to drive the Republicans towards Specter.

I think this is going to be a liability rather than an asset for the Democrats. Whenever one party starts to become too powerful, abuses creep in and they wind up in the same trap as their predecessor. The past trend has shown that their influence declines steadily from the establishment of one-party control of the government, so I think it may prove to be a challenge for Obama if the Democrats follow the historical trend and begin losing support.

However, I think he has the leadership necessary to stand against his own party and veto bad legislation when it arises (something Bush in particular never had), so it may result in a lot more successes and a lot fewer failures with a corresponding boost in the long-term political power of the Democrats.

maybe, but there really isn't any hope of the repubs gaining ground in the senate next time. all of the open seats are republican, a couple more republican seats look to be in significant danger due to the changing demographics and political alliances, and all of the dems who look even vaguely in trouble come from deeply blue states and just are personally vulnerable.

for the repubs to retake the house would involve a fucking ridiculous slaughter. probably literally. and that's gotten harder and harder to pull off, even for parties that people actually like.

and their next chance is when obama will be up for reelection. and then things will be somewhat tied to people's opinion him, and he's got a ton of lee way from the public.

NO. It was more like he was forced out along with all the other moderate Republicans.

You guys who have never been Republican have no idea what a^^^^^^les the religious fruitcakes and neocons in the party really are.

EDIT: Just so you know, I'm not putting any bets on republicans winning California's governor's race next on account of the fact that I have it from a very good authority that the California Republican Party is gearing up for a civil war between its own members.

It's basically imploding because of the scheming and mechanations of a small group of very narrow minded people who want to dictate everything.

I wonder if he drifted away from the party or if the party drifted away from him. Hmm....

I wonder if he drifted away from the party or if the party drifted away from him. Hmm....

he stayed put and the party stayed put. the republicans of pennsylvania left.

Now I have to decide if I want to vote for him in the primary or not.

When he wins, what stops him from becoming a republican again?
He's 76 right? that will put him at 82 when he is up for re-election?

US Senate is a six year term. What's he going to do? Die in the Senate from old age?

I wonder if he drifted away from the party or if the party drifted away from him. Hmm....

"I didn't leave the Republican Party. The Republican Party left me."

When he wins, what stops him from becoming a republican again?

the desire to be relevant, presumably

NO. It was more like he was forced out along with all the other moderate Republicans.

You guys who have never been Republican have no idea what a^^^^^^les the religious fruitcakes and neocons in the party really are.

EDIT: Just so you know, I'm not putting any bets on republicans winning California's governor's race next on account of the fact that I have it from a very good authority that the California Republican Party is gearing up for a civil war between its own members.

It's basically imploding because of the scheming and mechanations of a small group of very narrow minded people who want to dictate everything.
when i told my husband about it (he is a semi-republican) he was dismayed. its hard for a sane republican to understand why they would drive out one of their most powerful senators. the penn. repubs were actually planning to have an ultra conservative run (and win) against specter in the primaries even though there isnt a chance in hell that that guy would win the seat.

so they were planning on replacing a powerful republican with a newbie democrat. AS REPUBLICANS. its not good for the party and its not good for pennsylvania.

This is garbage. If the Dems get a filibuster-proof majority they are going to try and pass every load of liberal BS they can think of while the country is distracted on the real issues. Once the mess sorts itself out they will just take credit for it (and no nothing about our debt). Plus they are already on the path to screwing over our military again.

Dems were said to be dead in times past. GOP isn't dead now.

Yeah. Doesn't it suck when people get distracted by real issues instead of focusing on stuff like gay marriage and the right to own rocket launchers and the War on Christmas?

It's just such a shame that this total fluke of a financial meltdown and a few prisoners who just hate America so much that they can't shut up about getting tortured once the wet rags get pulled out of their mouths.

If only Republican's didn't have to worry about things like getting elected and the ultimately self-destructive nature of psychopathy they could really give the military their due and make them the rulers of the country and the few pieces of the rest of the world that they don't leave on fire.

when i told my husband about it (he is a semi-republican) he was dismayed. its hard for a sane republican to understand why they would drive out one of their most powerful senators. the penn. repubs were actually planning to have an ultra conservative run (and win) against specter in the primaries even though there isnt a chance in hell that that guy would win the seat.

so they were planning on replacing a powerful republican with a newbie democrat. AS REPUBLICANS. its not good for the party and its not good for pennsylvania.

Well in this capacity at least Sen. Specter can continue to serve the people of Pennsylvania. I do hope he continues to vote as he has in the past. Democrats don't need a filibuster proof majority.

Well in this capacity at least Sen. Specter can continue to serve the people of Pennsylvania. I do hope he continues to vote as he has in the past. Democrats don't need a filibuster proof majority.

Well they're up against a party that votes "no" not because they oppose the ideas, but because they oppose the people presenting them. The Republicans didn't need a filibuster proof majority because the Dems hardly ever filibustered. The Dems do need one because the Reps do so constantly.

Tax fairness, universal health care, education that actually works, not blowing up countries that disagree with us, and preventing the earth from melting, and funnily enough, LOWERING TAXES.

Oh, I know, its horrors isn't it?

Oh so that's what the far left wants to do. Yet according to you guys the far right wants to establish an "EVIL" Christian theocracy led by a manically laughing Dick Cheney?

The far left would rather raise taxes (but the elite don't have to pay), greatly reduce the capability of our military, dump more money in ineffective social programs, redefine marriage, remove laws protecting doctors from being forced to perform procedures against their conscience and beliefs, ruining our economy due to global warming alarmists, appease countries like Iran and North Korea under the false hope they will won't build nukes if we give them things, and generally being the UN's bitch. Giving illegal aliens virtually all sorts of benefit and legal protection. Plus catering to lobbying groups of atheists, Greenpeace-like hippies, and radical gays. With a combined agenda to include nonsense such as removing "In God we Trust" from the $, no financial aid any for any religious or even semi-religious organization like the Boy Scouts, less legal protection for the religious, no nuclear power, and "reparation" to gays because we did not recognizing their idea of marriage for so long. Eventually everybody is forced to buy "carbon credits" unless your one of the elite hypocrites like Al Gore.

Yes quite horrible. I would rather have this far right wing has to offer if I had to choose. This "effective education" will be horribly expensive due to teachers unions, will have Democratic senators attach all sorts of pork to it, and the universal health care while possibly a good concept will end up horribly mismanaged, and provided to all the illegal immigrants no doubt.

But in your eyes the left can do no wrong.

Well in this capacity at least Sen. Specter can continue to serve the people of Pennsylvania. I do hope he continues to vote as he has in the past. Democrats don't need a filibuster proof majority.
i assume that the benefit to the democratic party (and to the country) is that he will help to stop the bullshit filibusters. those that happen just to drag out the process to the supposed benefit of the republican party. he should still stand firm on the issues.

Oh so that's what the far left wants to do. Yet according to you guys the far right wants to establish an "EVIL" Christian theocracy led by a manically laughing Dick Cheney?

The far left would rather raise taxes (but the elite don't have to pay), greatly reduce the capability of our military, dump more money in ineffective social programs, redefine marriage, remove laws protecting doctors from being forced to perform procedures against their conscience and beliefs, ruining our economy due to global warming alarmists, appease countries like Iran and North Korea under the false hope they will won't build nukes if we give them things, and generally being the UN's bitch. Giving illegal aliens virtually all sorts of benefit and legal protection. Plus catering to lobbying groups of atheists, Greenpeace-like hippies, and radical gays. With a combined agenda to include nonsense such as removing "In God we Trust" from the $, no financial aid any for any religious or even semi-religious organization like the Boy Scouts, less legal protection for the religious, no nuclear power, and "reparation" to gays because we did not recognizing their idea of marriage for so long. Eventually everybody is forced to buy "carbon credits" unless your one of the elite hypocrites like Al Gore.

Yes quite horrible. I would rather have this far right wing has to offer if I had to choose. This "effective education" will be horribly expensive due to teachers unions, will have Democratic senators attach all sorts of pork to it, and the universal health care while possibly a good concept will end up horribly mismanaged, and provided to all the illegal immigrants no doubt.

But in your eyes the left can do no wrong.
sucks to be you.

not all of that is on the agenda but a bunch of it is.

Oh so that's what the far left wants to do. Yet according to you guys the far right wants to establish an "EVIL" Christian theocracy led by a manically laughing Dick Cheney?

The far left would rather raise taxes (but the elite don't have to pay), greatly reduce the capability of our military, dump more money in ineffective social programs, redefine marriage, remove laws protecting doctors from being forced to perform procedures against their conscience and beliefs, ruining our economy due to global warming alarmists, appease countries like Iran and North Korea under the false hope they will won't build nukes if we give them things, and generally being the UN's bitch. Giving illegal aliens virtually all sorts of benefit and legal protection. Plus catering to lobbying groups of atheists, Greenpeace-like hippies, and radical gays. With a combined agenda to include nonsense such as removing "In God we Trust" from the $, no financial aid any for any religious or even semi-religious organization like the Boy Scouts, less legal protection for the religious, no nuclear power, and "reparation" to gays because we did not recognizing their idea of marriage for so long. Eventually everybody is forced to buy "carbon credits" unless your one of the elite hypocrites like Al Gore.

Yes quite horrible. I would rather have this far right wing has to offer if I had to choose. This "effective education" will be horribly expensive due to teachers unions, will have Democratic senators attach all sorts of pork to it, and the universal health care while possibly a good concept will end up horribly mismanaged, and provided to all the illegal immigrants no doubt.

But in your eyes the left can do no wrong.

Tinfoil hat?

I'm probably going to regret this, but now I kinda have to ask exactly what "far-left" agendas you're referring to.

You know...

Communism
Socialized Medicine
Workers' Rights
Persecution of Christianity in the Name of Science
Mandated School Athiesm
Perpetual Democratic Party Rule
Throwing Israel Under the Bus

and worst of all...

Establishing the AmeriCaliphate

Tinfoil hat?

Hey, I am not the one claiming that the far right is some EVILLLL attempt to establish a Christian theocracy run by dark lord Dick Cheney who masterminded 9/11 and tortures people and small animals for fun. They are worthy of the tinfoil hat.

Oh so that's what the far left wants to do. Yet according to you guys the far right wants to establish an "EVIL" Christian theocracy led by a manically laughing Dick Cheney?

. . . .

But in your eyes the left can do no wrong.

You know, we've heard this song and dance so many times on NSG, I don't have anything new to add to it, so I'm just going to repost something I've already said:

Here's the thing. I've noticed some noise on the right wing about things like this, the idea of "well liberals counted the days, and blamed things on Bush, now it's OUR TURN".

Yes, we did. Yes, we blamed things on Bush. Yes, we counted the days until he was out on his ass. Yes, all of that is true. But we had our reasons.

September 11th demonstrated a complete failure of the intelligence community to do its job. In the months and years afterwards, it's become patently obvious that during the first months of the Bush presidency, there was a total failure of the intelligence communities to speak with each other. And while there is evidence that this circumstance extended back before Bush took office, as the saying goes, the buck stopped with him. The fact that problems might have existed when he got there does not excuse his failure to rectify them.

Moreover, the whole nonsense regarding the Nigerian Yellow Cake, the "mobile WMD factories", and the outting of Valerie Plame demonstrate that Bush did absolutely nothing to correct these faults. Rather than treat our intelligence agencies as organizations of unbiased intel, he used them in order to filter out information that did not serve to accomplish his goals, and used biased, subjective, and utterly unreliable information, information it now appears was known by the White House to be unreliable, to justify a war. Information that has now been demonstrably proven to have been false.

His "mission accomplished" speech demonstrated a profound ignorance as to the actual conditions on the ground, and a total unwillingness to recognize that this war would involve more than simply ousting Sadam Hussein, and watch Iraq magically spring into a stable democracy. It demonstrated that we were, as a nation, as a military, utterly unprepared for what was to come. Likewise, it has been revealed, that every single voice that attempted to tell the administration what was actually going to occur, was either discredited, insulted, or removed from their office. Every single attempt that was made to either derail the efforts for war, or demonstrate that the situation would be harder than we as a people were told, was specifically, forcibly, silenced.

His efforts to cut funding for legitimate areas of research, as well as his monstrously disastrous "no child left behind" has done manifest harm to America's position as an educated and technologically advanced nation, while his support of demonstrably worthless abstience only programs (literally worthless, studies have shown that, at best they accomplish nothing and, at worst, actually increase rates of teen pregnancy and STD infection) demonstrate that he has been less concerned with actually fixing legitimate problems, and more concerned with pushing his own moralistic agenda.

He has shown that he was willing to treat such fundamentally important institutions as the Supreme Court of the United States and the Federal Emergency Management Agency as bastions of political cronyism. The pardoning of Libby, the firing of the US attorneys, and the attempts to place Michael Brown and Harriet Miers into positions of extreme power and importance, positions that they were vastly unqualified for, demonstrate a complete disrespect for the fundamental importance of our justice system and, worst of all, total and utter disregard for the health, safety and lives of American citizens, and a willingness to promote favoritism and party politics over people's lives, and the fundamentals of our justice system.

Moreover, his recent press conference, in which he deflected criticisms about his handling of Katrina, suggests that he believes that America is mad because he personally didn't visit the disaster area earlier. Not only has he refused to apologize for his own failures, failures that directly manifested in the preventable death of hundreds of people, he refuses to even recognize them as failures.

His willingness to engage and authorize activities that we as a people had already legally defined as crimes against humanity, and the attempts to circumvent, and force out, individuals in his administration that he appointed who spoke out against it, shows a profound disregard for the sanctity of basic human liberties. Rights that he, as president, swore to uphold.

Many presidents have good areas and bad. Sometimes they make mistakes. Sometimes events happen beyond their control. But rare it is that we have a president where we can conclusively say that we, as a people, as a nation, are demonstrably worse off as a direct consequence of his presidency. Bush was one of those presidents. Yes, we counted the days. Yes, we said he would be a bad president.

And he turned out to be one of the worst in our history.

So yeah, us liberals did that. And if you wish, sure, feel free to do the same with Obama. And when we point out that you're full of it, you can point out how you said the same thing when we did it to Bush. But the unmistakable, inescapable fact should not elude you.

We were right.

Hey, I am not the one claiming that the far right is some EVILLLL attempt to establish a Christian theocracy run by dark lord Dick Cheney who masterminded 9/11 and tortures people and small animals for fun. They are worthy of the tinfoil hat.

No, you're the one claiming that the left is "batshit insane," apparently because they do things like "uphold the Constitution" and "protect basic human rights," according to your cute little list above. Claiming Cheney masterminded 9/11 would also be pretty silly, except no one here has actually done it.

Hey, I am not the one claiming that the far right is some EVILLLL attempt to establish a Christian theocracy run by dark lord Dick Cheney who masterminded 9/11 and tortures people and small animals for fun. They are worthy of the tinfoil hat.

oh, ok, I see. So, who is the one claiming that, exactly? You see, I think the vast majority of these claims are claiming things that...well...nobody ever said.

It's a clever trick actually by right wingers. To try and turn claims of "the Bush/Cheney administration will be bad for america" into "CHENEY EATS BABIES!!!!". It's a logical fallacy so old that it has its own name. It's a strawman. Try to pretend your opponents made so utterly insipid arguments that you can reject them out of hand.

It's a lot easier and more palpable for the right wing to pretend that us on the "looney left" made those arguments, because the minute they admit to themselves that, except perhaps for some extreme fringe, the argument was never "CHENEY EATS BABIES!1!!!111!" but rather "the bush/cheney administration will be bad for america" is the minute they have to accept yet another fact about us looney left.

We were right.

Oh so that's what the far left wants to do. Yet according to you guys the far right wants to establish an "EVIL" Christian theocracy led by a manically laughing Dick Cheney?

The far left would rather raise taxes (but the elite don't have to pay), greatly reduce the capability of our military, dump more money in ineffective social programs, redefine marriage, remove laws protecting doctors from being forced to perform procedures against their conscience and beliefs, ruining our economy due to global warming alarmists, appease countries like Iran and North Korea under the false hope they will won't build nukes if we give them things, and generally being the UN's bitch. Giving illegal aliens virtually all sorts of benefit and legal protection. Plus catering to lobbying groups of atheists, Greenpeace-like hippies, and radical gays. With a combined agenda to include nonsense such as removing "In God we Trust" from the $, no financial aid any for any religious or even semi-religious organization like the Boy Scouts, less legal protection for the religious, no nuclear power, and "reparation" to gays because we did not recognizing their idea of marriage for so long. Eventually everybody is forced to buy "carbon credits" unless your one of the elite hypocrites like Al Gore.

Yes quite horrible. I would rather have this far right wing has to offer if I had to choose. This "effective education" will be horribly expensive due to teachers unions, will have Democratic senators attach all sorts of pork to it, and the universal health care while possibly a good concept will end up horribly mismanaged, and provided to all the illegal immigrants no doubt.

But in your eyes the left can do no wrong.

Shut up.

Well they're up against a party that votes "no" not because they oppose the ideas, but because they oppose the people presenting them. The Republicans didn't need a filibuster proof majority because the Dems hardly ever filibustered. The Dems do need one because the Reps do so constantly.
From Fillibusted.us

Why are Republicans doing all the filibustering?

Because they’re the minority party in the Senate and have been since the 2006 midterm elections. If your party controls the agenda (as Democrats currently do) you don’t need the filibuster.

But both parties have used the filibuster; there’s nothing inherently Republican or Democratic about it.


How quickly they forget when the Dems were filibustering all of the presidents nominations.

Snip.

Ouch. You know, this piece of asskicking you did there could go well with an anime-esque soundtrack. Otakus around here, I think we found our Byakuya Kuchiki. :p

How quickly they forget when the Dems were filibustering all of the presidents nominations.
How quickly they ignore that the Dems threatened to filibuster a handful but passed the majority and in response, the GOP attempted to change the rules.

Which I loved because I knew the Senate would change hands one day and then the GOP would be crying.

From Fillibusted.us


How quickly they forget when the Dems were filibustering all of the presidents nominations.

http://www.american.com/graphics/2008/march-april-magazine/Gumming%20Up%20the%20Works.jpg

http://www.american.com/graphics/2008/march-april-magazine/Gumming%20Up%20the%20Works.jpg

It signals the start of the War on Middle Earth against Sauron, silly. Obviously things were much more peaceful and prosperous under the benevolent and intelligent, compassionate conservative rule of Cokey McSnortDrunk.

Hopefully The Libertarians can capitalize on this and become the second major party now.

Hopefully The Libertarians can capitalize on this and become the second major party now.

they'd have to find some people who like them first. good luck.

Hopefully The Libertarians can capitalize on this and become the second major party now.

That's sort of in the same category as "Anarchists Unite!" The Libertarians have too many nut-cases on their roster, I'm afraid.

Hopefully The Libertarians can capitalize on this and become the second major party now.
they would have to become sane.

judging from the republicans that is harder than you might think.

he filibuster has tremendously increased in frequency of use since the 1960s. In the 1960s, no Senate term had more than seven filibusters. One of the most notable filibusters of the 1960s was when southern Democratic Senators attempted, unsuccessfully, to block the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by making a filibuster that lasted for 75 hours. In the first decade of the 21st century, no Senate term had fewer than 49 filibusters. The 1999-2002 Senate terms both had 58 filibusters.[19] The 110th Congress broke the record for filibuster cloture votes reaching 112 at the end of 2008. [20] [21]


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e8/Cloture_Voting%2C_U.S._Senate%2C_1947_to_2008.jpg

they would have to become sane.

judging from the republicans that is harder than you might think.

Maybe it would help if they went cold turkey on their addiction to objectivism and Adam?

Maybe it would help if they went cold turkey on their addiction to objectivism and Adam?

Just what we need, all those country club elitists in their pink shirts and green pants going through the DTs. :eek2:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e8/Cloture_Voting%2C_U.S._Senate%2C_1947_to_2008.jpg

You know, it's kinda adorable when people try to attack modern Democrats by pointing to Dixiecrats. You just want to pinch their cheeks and say, "Aw, it's so cute how you haven't taken a high school American history class yet!"

You know, it's kinda adorable when people try to attack modern Democrats by pointing to Dixiecrats. You just want to pinch their cheeks and say, "Aw, it's so cute how you haven't taken a high school American history class yet!"

You are a supreme idiot if you think I was attacking anybody.

Fillibusters happen, it's part of the Senate's way of doing things.

You are a supreme idiot if you think I was attacking anybody.

Oh, that's right, totally neutral approach. That's why you bolded the part about Democrat fillibuster (40 years ago, by southern dixicrats opposed to the civil rights era) but totally failed to emphasis the fact that the 2006-2008 senate, the republican minority senate, used more fillibuster attempts than any senate in history.

Yeah, truly neutral :rolleyes:

Fillibusters happen, it's part of the Senate's way of doing things.

Yes, fillibusters happen. They just so very coincidentally tend to happen more when republicans are in the minority.

Hey, I am not the one claiming that the far right is some EVILLLL attempt to establish a Christian theocracy run by dark lord Dick Cheney who masterminded 9/11 and tortures people and small animals for fun. They are worthy of the tinfoil hat.

Who said any of that?

Shut up.

NOT HELPFUL. Why can't you see that?

From Fillibusted.us


How quickly they forget when the Dems were filibustering all of the presidents nominations.

Which President, what nominations? That's the problem with some folks, they want you to believe what they say without anything really being said.

NOT HELPFUL. Why can't you see that?

Look, if you believe the big pile of bullshit that guy posted earns more than a gainsay or a request for his silence, feel free - Neo himself obliterated the poor man, and got my due kudos for the way he did it - but I was busy, I wanted to chip in nonetheless, and I really don't think what the guy says earns more than that. I CAN see it's not helpful, though. But it's not against the rules either. ;)

Look, if you believe the big pile of bullshit that guy posted earns more than a gainsay or a request for his silence, feel free - Neo himself obliterated the poor man, and got my due kudos for the way he did it - but I was busy, I wanted to chip in nonetheless, and I really don't think what the guy says earns more than that. I CAN see it's not helpful, though. But it's not against the rules either. ;)

Why bother? Just to show how irrational you can be, too?

Why bother? Just to show how irrational you can be, too?

Well, I DID also hear of a "Best King Juan Carlos Impression" award for the next year of the NSGsies. ;)

Who said any of that?
Which President, what nominations? That's the problem with some folks, they want you to believe what they say without anything really being said.

Do you really need reminders of what happened just 4 years ago?...


Yes, fillibusters happen. They just so very coincidentally tend to happen more when republicans are in the minority.


Except for 2008, that just isn't true. Do you even know why there were so many filibusters in 2008? Do you even care? Or do you just care to slap labels on things against the people you mindlessly hate?

Do you really need reminders of what happened just 4 years ago?...

No, but YOU need to tell ME which nominations you mean, specifically, so that I can go look them up and prove you wrong. So I ask again, unless you're just pulling this crap out of your anus, WHICH nominations?

Except for 2008, that just isn't true. Do you even know why there were so many filibusters in 2008? Do you even care? Or do you just care to slap labels on things against the people you mindlessly hate?

Do you? You're the one pressing the issue, the burden of relevance is on you. I hate very rarely, and have good reason. I don't need to hate conservatives, they're too much fun to listen to when they get all lathered up and irrational. There might have been lots of filibusters in 2008 because the President didn't know what he was doing, and Congress finally figured it out. It also might have been because the phone book is just one hell of a riveting read. You're not being specific. Why should I?

Well, I DID also hear of a "Best King Juan Carlos Impression" award for the next year of the NSGsies. ;)

Aw. I can't stay mad at you. C'mere. :fluffle:

Seriously, though, that was funny.

Aw. I can't stay mad at you. C'mere. :fluffle:

Seriously, though, that was funny.

:fluffle:

So, do I have your vote? :D

Yes.

REVENGE!

See this is the problem with you H2, the crap you spill out when you condem what the opposition does and then when you get the chance to do the same thing you do it and you justify it by saying things like "revenge" and "well they did it" forgetting that you once said it was wrong.

I still love ya anyway buddy. :)

No, you're the one claiming that the left is "batshit insane," apparently because they do things like "uphold the Constitution" and "protect basic human rights," according to your cute little list above. Claiming Cheney masterminded 9/11 would also be pretty silly, except no one here has actually done it.

First I said the far-left is batshit insane, which is true. Oh yes, their protect your Constitutional rights unless you say something they don't agree with or want to own firearms. Also the far-left makes such silly claims about Cheney and the like all the time. Hell on the torture thread some of you seem to believe he had random people tortured for false confessions for his "evil agenda."

oh, ok, I see. So, who is the one claiming that, exactly? You see, I think the vast majority of these claims are claiming things that...well...nobody ever said.

It's a clever trick actually by right wingers. To try and turn claims of "the Bush/Cheney administration will be bad for america" into "CHENEY EATS BABIES!!!!". It's a logical fallacy so old that it has its own name. It's a strawman. Try to pretend your opponents made so utterly insipid arguments that you can reject them out of hand.

It's a lot easier and more palpable for the right wing to pretend that us on the "looney left" made those arguments, because the minute they admit to themselves that, except perhaps for some extreme fringe, the argument was never "CHENEY EATS BABIES!1!!!111!" but rather "the bush/cheney administration will be bad for america" is the minute they have to accept yet another fact about us looney left.

We were right.

You know, we've heard this song and dance so many times on NSG, I don't have anything new to add to it, so I'm just going to repost something I've already said:

Here's the thing. I've noticed some noise on the right wing about things like this, the idea of "well liberals counted the days, and blamed things on Bush, now it's OUR TURN".

Yes, we did. Yes, we blamed things on Bush. Yes, we counted the days until he was out on his ass. Yes, all of that is true. But we had our reasons.

September 11th demonstrated a complete failure of the intelligence community to do its job. In the months and years afterwards, it's become patently obvious that during the first months of the Bush presidency, there was a total failure of the intelligence communities to speak with each other. And while there is evidence that this circumstance extended back before Bush took office, as the saying goes, the buck stopped with him. The fact that problems might have existed when he got there does not excuse his failure to rectify them.

Moreover, the whole nonsense regarding the Nigerian Yellow Cake, the "mobile WMD factories", and the outting of Valerie Plame demonstrate that Bush did absolutely nothing to correct these faults. Rather than treat our intelligence agencies as organizations of unbiased intel, he used them in order to filter out information that did not serve to accomplish his goals, and used biased, subjective, and utterly unreliable information, information it now appears was known by the White House to be unreliable, to justify a war. Information that has now been demonstrably proven to have been false.

His "mission accomplished" speech demonstrated a profound ignorance as to the actual conditions on the ground, and a total unwillingness to recognize that this war would involve more than simply ousting Sadam Hussein, and watch Iraq magically spring into a stable democracy. It demonstrated that we were, as a nation, as a military, utterly unprepared for what was to come. Likewise, it has been revealed, that every single voice that attempted to tell the administration what was actually going to occur, was either discredited, insulted, or removed from their office. Every single attempt that was made to either derail the efforts for war, or demonstrate that the situation would be harder than we as a people were told, was specifically, forcibly, silenced.

His efforts to cut funding for legitimate areas of research, as well as his monstrously disastrous "no child left behind" has done manifest harm to America's position as an educated and technologically advanced nation, while his support of demonstrably worthless abstience only programs (literally worthless, studies have shown that, at best they accomplish nothing and, at worst, actually increase rates of teen pregnancy and STD infection) demonstrate that he has been less concerned with actually fixing legitimate problems, and more concerned with pushing his own moralistic agenda.

He has shown that he was willing to treat such fundamentally important institutions as the Supreme Court of the United States and the Federal Emergency Management Agency as bastions of political cronyism. The pardoning of Libby, the firing of the US attorneys, and the attempts to place Michael Brown and Harriet Miers into positions of extreme power and importance, positions that they were vastly unqualified for, demonstrate a complete disrespect for the fundamental importance of our justice system and, worst of all, total and utter disregard for the health, safety and lives of American citizens, and a willingness to promote favoritism and party politics over people's lives, and the fundamentals of our justice system.

Moreover, his recent press conference, in which he deflected criticisms about his handling of Katrina, suggests that he believes that America is mad because he personally didn't visit the disaster area earlier. Not only has he refused to apologize for his own failures, failures that directly manifested in the preventable death of hundreds of people, he refuses to even recognize them as failures.

His willingness to engage and authorize activities that we as a people had already legally defined as crimes against humanity, and the attempts to circumvent, and force out, individuals in his administration that he appointed who spoke out against it, shows a profound disregard for the sanctity of basic human liberties. Rights that he, as president, swore to uphold.

Many presidents have good areas and bad. Sometimes they make mistakes. Sometimes events happen beyond their control. But rare it is that we have a president where we can conclusively say that we, as a people, as a nation, are demonstrably worse off as a direct consequence of his presidency. Bush was one of those presidents. Yes, we counted the days. Yes, we said he would be a bad president.

And he turned out to be one of the worst in our history.

So yeah, us liberals did that. And if you wish, sure, feel free to do the same with Obama. And when we point out that you're full of it, you can point out how you said the same thing when we did it to Bush. But the unmistakable, inescapable fact should not elude you.

We were right.

September 11th and the leadup to the Iraq was a failure of the intelligent community combined with usual government bureaucracy. But you immediately shift the blame to Bush for the former case despite what happened to the CIA in the post-Cold War environment during the Clinton years. The force was a shadow of it's former self. Indeed Bush thought invading Iraq was the right course of action as did most of the country. Most people thought they had WMDs and had good reason to. Even the Democrats voted along with everybody else. It was not an attempt to create false information, and was simply rushing to action before adequate intelligence could be gathered. Everybody feared Iraqi had WMDs, intelligence said it was "likely", politicians wanted a fast reaction, many wanted to invade to reomve Saddam from power anyway, and so on. As far as military readiness, Rumsfield was an idiot but the military was certainly lacking in some equipment due to Clinton's "procurement holiday", a mistake Obama evidently wants to repeat.
As far as your strawmen argument, clueless liberals say such nonsense all of the time, I have even met some in person who believe this picture the left tries to paint of the right. Hell many attempt just to oppose the war which one has the right to do end up degrading into certain scumbags insulting our soldiers. To ignore the foolishness of the far-left while blaming this idea that the Republicans wanted to please the far-right on every problem we face is simply insanity?
When you say legitimate research I am sure you refer to embryonic stem cell research. I did not support that ban, although some restrictions (no payment to donors for example) made sense. Yet during the Bush admin major advancements were made in other types of stem cell research which avoided the serious moral complications. One could argue that there was no permit embryonic stem cell research now that newer developments have been so successful so far. As far as sex education, abstinence should be strongly encouraged but I agree more is needed than that. Yet giving out birth control pills and whatever else without notifying parents is a step too far, or requiring education on gay sex etc. Naturally some in the left want to take it too far however.

Political favors to cronies and party members? The left is just that bad in regard. Hell Obama recently went ahead and supported that corrupt scumbag Chris Dodd just because he is a Democrat, some "change" that is.
The torture issue? There are times when it is certainly acceptable, but it went too far. I don't pity those scumbags who get tortured but we should only use torture in the most dire circumstances, when we are likely never to hear about it anyway. Closing Guantanamo as a whole however was nothing more than a PR stunt. We still need somewhere to store those terrorists.

For the past eight years the left has constantly complained about the right having too much power, and yet now they are repeating the same thing, except they want more power. Since when do two wrongs make a right? It is simply hypocrisy, and if the Democrats were about "change" they would act like real moderates, and work with the Republicans rather than fighting tooth and nail to get a super majority to pass everything they damn please, which will certainly include disgusting pay-offs to the far-left.

Shut up.

Nah, but I am so... sorry for questioning your infallible far-left. Please go ahead and resume blindly following them.

Do you even know why there were so many filibusters in 2008?

the permanent republican majority fell through and rampant obstructionism was all they had left?

i mean, honestly, they were filibustering fair pay protection, increasing the minimum wage, d.c. voting rights, withdrawing from iraq, government ethics reform, etc.

they might as well have been tying women up on the train tracks, laughing as they twirled their mustache

See this is the problem with you H2, the crap you spill out when you condem what the opposition does and then when you get the chance to do the same thing you do it and you justify it by saying things like "revenge" and "well they did it" forgetting that you once said it was wrong.

I still love ya anyway buddy. :)

I know you love me. :fluffle:

Anyways. On to the other matter: Yes, I know it's wrong. But I guess I'm not as patient as you, and, with the crap we got for eight long years, I am even surprised some more people aren't, shall we say, frictioning the NaCl against the open injury.

Nah, but I am so... sorry for questioning your infallible far-left. Please go ahead and resume blindly following them.

Earn more than me gainsaying you or asking for your silence and you will get more than me gainsaying you or asking for your silence.

No, but YOU need to tell ME which nominations you mean, specifically, so that I can go look them up and prove you wrong. So I ask again, unless you're just pulling this crap out of your anus, WHICH nominations?



Do you? You're the one pressing the issue, the burden of relevance is on you. I hate very rarely, and have good reason. I don't need to hate conservatives, they're too much fun to listen to when they get all lathered up and irrational. There might have been lots of filibusters in 2008 because the President didn't know what he was doing, and Congress finally figured it out. It also might have been because the phone book is just one hell of a riveting read. You're not being specific. Why should I?

I didn't know, but since it was such an anomaly, I left it out of the discussion.

When you brought it up, I decided to look it up and see what the story was. Basically, the minority leader of the time, decided that all legislation should be passed with a 60+ vote, and so they filibustered every single piece of legislation that did not have more than 60 votes by their count. Even legislation that was introduced by the house republicans. He was a wacky minority leader, but he thought thats how things should be run. So he was not fillibustering to block legislation, and so it was really irrelevant to our conversation.

If you need a reminder of such a short time ago here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush_judicial_appointment_controversies

First I said the far-left is batshit insane, which is true. Oh yes, their protect your Constitutional rights unless you say something they don't agree with or want to own firearms. Also the far-left makes such silly claims about Cheney and the like all the time. Hell on the torture thread some of you seem to believe he had random people tortured for false confessions for his "evil agenda."



September 11th and the leadup to the Iraq was a failure of the intelligent community combined with usual government bureaucracy. But you immediately shift the blame to Bush for the former case despite what happened to the CIA in the post-Cold War environment during the Clinton years. The force was a shadow of it's former self. Indeed Bush thought invading Iraq was the right course of action as did most of the country. Most people thought they had WMDs and had good reason to. Even the Democrats voted along with everybody else. It was not an attempt to create false information, and was simply rushing to action before adequate intelligence could be gathered. Everybody feared Iraqi had WMDs, intelligence said it was "likely", politicians wanted a fast reaction, many wanted to invade to reomve Saddam from power anyway, and so on. As far as military readiness, Rumsfield was an idiot but the military was certainly lacking in some equipment due to Clinton's "procurement holiday", a mistake Obama evidently wants to repeat.
As far as your strawmen argument, clueless liberals say such nonsense all of the time, I have even met some in person who believe this picture the left tries to paint of the right. Hell many attempt just to oppose the war which one has the right to do end up degrading into certain scumbags insulting our soldiers. To ignore the foolishness of the far-left while blaming this idea that the Republicans wanted to please the far-right on every problem we face is simply insanity?
When you say legitimate research I am sure you refer to embryonic stem cell research. I did not support that ban, although some restrictions (no payment to donors for example) made sense. Yet during the Bush admin major advancements were made in other types of stem cell research which avoided the serious moral complications. One could argue that there was no permit embryonic stem cell research now that newer developments have been so successful so far. As far as sex education, abstinence should be strongly encouraged but I agree more is needed than that. Yet giving out birth control pills and whatever else without notifying parents is a step too far, or requiring education on gay sex etc. Naturally some in the left want to take it too far however.

Political favors to cronies and party members? The left is just that bad in regard. Hell Obama recently went ahead and supported that corrupt scumbag Chris Dodd just because he is a Democrat, some "change" that is.
The torture issue? There are times when it is certainly acceptable, but it went too far. I don't pity those scumbags who get tortured but we should only use torture in the most dire circumstances, when we are likely never to hear about it anyway. Closing Guantanamo as a whole however was nothing more than a PR stunt. We still need somewhere to store those terrorists.

For the past eight years the left has constantly complained about the right having too much power, and yet now they are repeating the same thing, except they want more power. Since when do two wrongs make a right? It is simply hypocrisy, and if the Democrats were about "change" they would act like real moderates, and work with the Republicans rather than fighting tooth and nail to get a super majority to pass everything they damn please, which will certainly include disgusting pay-offs to the far-left.

Wrong.

See? You didn't earn more than a gainsay.

Earn more than me gainsaying you or asking for your silence and you will get more than me gainsaying you or asking for your silence.

You seem to be under the false impression that I want to earn your input.

You seem to be under the false impression that I want to earn your input.

Well, you SHOULD, but that's neither a here nor a there. I never was under said impression, however.

...
your ideas are intriguing to me and i wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

First I said the far-left is batshit insane, which is true. Oh yes, their protect your Constitutional rights unless you say something they don't agree with or want to own firearms.

I would love to see a source for any members of the Democratic party suggesting that the right to free speech should no longer be protected if people say things they disagree with. I'd also rather love to see a source for members of the Democratic party suggesting that no one should be allowed to own firearms.

Also the far-left makes such silly claims about Cheney and the like all the time.

Which is why you keep saying it without providing any actual sources, obviously!

Hell on the torture thread some of you seem to believe he had random people tortured for false confessions for his "evil agenda."

Link to these posts, along with evidence that they are supported by congressional Democrats?

As far as your strawmen argument, clueless liberals say such nonsense all of the time, I have even met some in person who believe this picture the left tries to paint of the right.

Oh my god, you've even met at least one crazy liberal in person? Clearly this is proof of the overarching "batshit insane" agenda of liberal Congressional Democrats, which, as you might recall, was your original assertion. Incidentally, I know a family who genuinely believe Jesus rode on dinosaurs. Clearly I should be deeply worried about the Republican agenda to teach about Jesus's pet diplodocus in schools!

One could argue that there was no permit embryonic stem cell research now that newer developments have been so successful so far

Indeed one could, if one was a blithering idiot incapable of understanding that adult stem cell research is a separate field from embryonic stem cell research. One could also argue that, if probes to Mars work well, that means we should never send probes to Venus. It wouldn't make any sense, but one could argue it.

As far as sex education, abstinence should be strongly encouraged but I agree more is needed than that. Yet giving out birth control pills and whatever else without notifying parents is a step too far, or requiring education on gay sex etc.

Why are either of those things "a step too far"? What harm comes from properly educating people?

The torture issue? There are times when it is certainly acceptable,

No, there are not. This goes back to that whole "upholding the Constitution" thing.

but it went too far. I don't pity those scumbags who get tortured but we should only use torture in the most dire circumstances, when we are likely never to hear about it anyway. Closing Guantanamo as a whole however was nothing more than a PR stunt. We still need somewhere to store those terrorists.

Like, I dunno, prisons, after giving them actual legal trials? It's crazy, but it just might work!

if the Democrats were about "change" they would act like real moderates, and work with the Republicans.

Or, to paraphrase: "if you really wanted to change things, you'd go along with the people who don't want to change things."



Nah, but I am so... sorry for questioning your infallible far-left. Please go ahead and resume blindly following them.

*cough* pot *cough* kettle *cough*

wait thats super majority isn't it? Wow that would be great news for the dems.

wait thats super majority isn't it? Wow that would be great news for the dems.

Well, it transfers a lot of power into the hands of the moderates. That's not a bad thing, but three parties would be better.

The mind of neo-cons is fascinating. It truly is. There's a certain unique thought process that goes on in people that spend 6 years trying to do everything they can to use their slim majority to essentially force out the opposition, then whining when that minority party suddenly gets a super majority and uses it to take advantage of six years of being forced out of the political process.

And then, to top it all off, there's the amazingly ballsy move of setting yourself up to be such a strong opposition that your entire existence seems to be based on not putting forth your own agenda, but simply voting "no" to anything that comes along, to the point that you so alienate your won moderate element that of the three people that broke ranks, one of them leaves the party entirely, and then, on top of your efforts to try and steam roll any attempts by the opposition (the opposition that, may I add, beat your ass in an election), you whine that the democrats are not "compromising"

What the fuck? Compromising? Where was this bipartisan spirit between...say...2000 and 2006? Where was this interest in compromise then? Where was this idea that we should "work together"? Fuck that noise. Republicans don't care about compromise. They don't care about bipartisanship. They care about power, nothing more and nothing less.

So fuck this crying of "two wrongs don't make a right, TWO WRONGS DON'T MAKE A RIGHT!" crying we hear from the neo-cons. How convenient, how utterly fucking convenient that they're willing to decry their own actions at a greedy power grab, only after they are no longer in a position to try again. How utterly spineless. What a cheap political tactic, a failing mewling attempt at "see, we're going to be the bigger party and say what bad, bad people we were for doing those awful, awful things to you. So, see, we're saying we were wrong in doing it. You should stop doing it. Of course, we waited until afterwards to suddenly feel bad about our actions..."

Utter bullshit. The neo-cons feel no remorse, no regret. They have no belief that their actions were wrong, or bad, or contrary to the interests of the american people. It's only now that they're in the minority do they tout the idea that the majority should be inclusive of the minority viewpoint. A viewpoint that is, I may add, so repugnant to the american people, that it lead to one of the most ignominious ass kickings in modern american politics.

But yet they still call for "compromise". Yet I'm still not sure how "compromise" is supposed to work with a party that not only seems unwilling to present their own views, and unwilling to indicate where they are willing to compromise on those views, but seem entirely willing to vote "no" on anything with the oppositions name attached, just on principle alone.

So fuck that noise. And fuck your hubris that actually thought you'd have a "permanent republican majority" that you pissed off the opposition so much that, given half the chance, they'd happily send you to the wilderness. You forgot that those fellow senators you thumbed your nose at would be the very same senators, six years down the line, who suddenly held your agenda in their hands. You bargained on being in power forever. Or, at least, your lifetime. And you lost. Suck it the fuck up. Or, to paraphrase Jon Stewart, "you're in the minority, it's supposed to taste like a turd sandwich".

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0409/21808.html

As a Democrat, I have to say here what I wish I could say to Specter personally....

I have not agreed with you on a number of topics, Mr. Specter. Nor do I anticipate I will agree with everything you do as a Democrat. One thing, however, I respect about you...I gain the sense that when you speak up, you do so because you sincerely believe in what you are saying, not because it is politically advantageous to do so. You bucked the conservatives at times even when it would have been easier to go along with the flow. Even though we will not agree on everything, I am glad to have you in the Democratic Party...and not simply because of the Senatorial balance of power. I'm glad because it tells me that we have a large number of different people in this Party, and that we can forge consensus enough to move ahead with the business of the nation.

As for the conservatives...well...they are well on their way to expunging any trace of moderation. In their quest to attain ideological purity, they're annihilating the moderate, centrist Republican. Although the Democrats are certainly capable of excess themselves, they do not seem to be the radical, Limbaugh-fueled, wild-eyed type that is now firmly in control of the G.O.P.

*snip*

Bitter much?

Bitter much?

No, not at all. Politics is what it is. Tides rise and fall. At least I have the intellectual honesty to recognize that and recognize that if you make it your political ambition to fuck people over today, you sorta lose the right to whine when tomorrow you're the one being bent over the table.

Republicans made a gamble. They lost. They bullied through their agenda at the cost of pissing off the minority opposition. A minority opposition, that now has a super-majority. They gambled with their political capital, and gambled poorly. Oh well, maybe next time they get in power they'll have learned from their mistakes (doubt it though). So suck it up, time to pay the consequences.

Snip (Senbonzakura Senkei).

Remind me NEVER to enter a combat against you, Neo.

Republicans are going to split. Eventually the moderates are going to get bitch slapped by reality and they will realize that there is no way they can remain a viable party while bending to hardline right-wing interest groups. Either they continue their delusion that right-wing is GOP and GOP is right-wing and ignore all other factors or they recognize that that delusion will cost them political capital and that is all career politicians care about. Specter was the first to finally cave to the reality of losing political power, but he won't be the last.

Well, it transfers a lot of power into the hands of the moderates. That's not a bad thing, but three parties would be better.

The Republican moderates will split off if the Republicans lose more seats in 2010. Well, I'm not 100% sure, more like 45%. The moderates recognize that the hardline right-wing is going to cost them their political careers and eventually their need to have political power will trump their unquestioning loyalty to the GOP. Specter is the first to see this because he was the first threatened by it, but he won't be the last to 'defect'.

It would've been better if he went Libertarian.

Too bad hes too sane, eh?


On topic...blow me conservatives.

I would love to see a source for any members of the Democratic party suggesting that the right to free speech should no longer be protected if people say things they disagree with. I'd also rather love to see a source for members of the Democratic party suggesting that no one should be allowed to own firearms.

I am speaking of the far-left not the left as a whole. Yet anyway, there are plenty who would like to outlaw things such as people opposing gay marriage as "hate speech" and there have been considerations to confiscate "assault" weapons in the past, one halted because the FBI interfered.



Which is why you keep saying it without providing any actual sources, obviously!
Link to these posts, along with evidence that they are supported by congressional Democrats?


The whole internet is full of examples of this, hell go to abovetopsecret and see what they have to say about the matter. Although Democratic congressmen don't agree many would gladly cave in to the far-left. I believe the original post of that topic contained what I was referring to.


Oh my god, you've even met at least one crazy liberal in person? Clearly this is proof of the overarching "batshit insane" agenda of liberal Congressional Democrats, which, as you might recall, was your original assertion. Incidentally, I know a family who genuinely believe Jesus rode on dinosaurs. Clearly I should be deeply worried about the Republican agenda to teach about Jesus's pet diplodocus in schools!


I never said that all liberal congressmen are batshit insane, just that some of them cave in to the batshit insane crowd, and Obama is on that border, and evidently some Democrats worry about that when it comes to the concept of mentioning creationism.


Indeed-could, if one was a blithering idiot incapable of understanding that adult stem cell research is a separate field from embryonic stem cell research. One could also argue that, if probes to Mars work well, that means we should never send probes to Venus. It wouldn't make any sense, but one could argue it.


From what I have read advances in adult stem cell research have led to or promise similar possibilities, although I could be wrong. Now I really don't research the subject, engineering not biology and genetics is my interest but my view is that if alternatives can avoid the main moral issue why not use them? Haven't they found ways to get embryonic stem cells from umbilical cords anyway? Hell, I believe one Harvard team claimed to have converted skin cells into embryonic stem cells, and one Japanese team recently said they could get them from teeth. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/08/0823_050823_stemcells.html


Why are either of those things "a step too far"? What harm comes from properly educating people?
Because a parent should know if their child under 18 years old is getting these sort of things, and the student body as a whole does not need to be educated on something the vast majority does not want to know about, and many find morally objectionable. If gays want the info, there are organizations they can go to.


No, there are not. This goes back to that whole "upholding the Constitution" thing.

I won't debate this but there are certainly times when it is acceptable to torture a known terrorist to save the lives of many, yet I do believe that "legalization" results in it ending being used far too frequently and in the wrong cases.


Like, I dunno, prisons, after giving them actual legal trials? It's crazy, but it just might work!

So a military prison is no longer a prison? And military tribunals are not legal? Would you have them live in these prisons where they get access to a TV and other benefits they don't deserve?

Or, to paraphrase: "if you really wanted to change things, you'd go along with the people who don't want to change things."

You honestly think Republicans want nothing to be done different? Or is this "change" you want mindless liberal legislation?


*cough* pot *cough* kettle *cough*

Oh I hardly think the right is infallible. There are certainly members of the far-right I disagree with and politicians can easily be just as incompetent, corrupt, and incapable as those elsewhere on the political spectrum. Hell the GOP under Bush was a disgrace to what it used to be. Yet I find your belief that the Democrats are somehow better when it comes to incompetence, corruption, and incapability absurd. Both parties also equally play to the far-right and far-left these day which is bad for the country as a whole. The far-left is just more of a danger, especially now.

Neo, I don't understand.

Was it wrong for the republicans to do it in 2005? Is it wrong for Democrats to do it in 2009?

If it was wrong in 2005, why do you condone it in 2009? If it is ok in 2009 why did you make such a big stink in 2005?

All you are proving is that what they did in 2005 was correct, and the political left was successful in the fight, of pretending it was wrong? This is something to be proud of?

I never said that all liberal congressmen are batshit insane, just that some of them cave in to the batshit insane crowd, and Obama is on that border, and evidently some Democrats worry about that when it comes to the concept of mentioning creationism.

Which just proves you are talking out your ass. You are confusing "moderate Republicans" with "Democrats" and then confusing "Democrats" with "the American Communist Party." It's a common mistake by the hardline, crackpot right-wing in this country.

I am speaking of the far-left not the left as a whole. Yet anyway, there are plenty who would like to outlaw things such as people opposing gay marriage as "hate speech" and there have been considerations to confiscate "assault" weapons in the past, one halted because the FBI interfered.

Your goalpost-moving is nice and all, but I asked for a source.

some Democrats worry about that when it comes to the concept of mentioning creationism.

...so you're saying I actually should consider your party dangerously insane? Well, if you insist.


From what I have read advances in adult stem cell research have led to or promise similar possibilities, although I could be wrong. Now I really don't research the subject, engineering not biology and genetics is my interest but my view is that if alternatives can avoid the main moral issue why not use them? Haven't they found ways to get embryonic stem cells from umbilical cords anyway? Hell, I believe one Harvard team claimed to have converted skin cells into embryonic stem cells, and one Japanese team recently said they could get them from teeth. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/08/0823_050823_stemcells.html

I'm too tired to explain the science now, but they are overlapping but separate areas of research. *pokes Dempublicents to come explain, since this is Her Thang*

Because a parent should know if their child under 18 years old is getting these sort of things

Why?

and the student body as a whole does not need to be educated on something the vast majority does not want to know about

I suspect the vast majority of students do not particularly want to know about quadratic equations. Shall we stop teaching math? (For that matter, I am willing to bet pretty much everything I own that if I polled teenagers on whether they would rather be learning about (a) calculus or (b) sex of all kinds, B would win in a landslide. I mean, have you MET teenagers?)

, and many find morally objectionable. If gays want the info, there are organizations they can go to.

What organizations universally provide sex education to kids? I really want to hear about these.

I won't debate this but there are certainly times when it is acceptable to torture a known terrorist to save the lives of many

You keep using this word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

So a military prison is no longer a prison? And military tribunals are not legal? Would you have them live in these prisons where they get access to a TV and other benefits they don't deserve?

...you don't have any idea what this whole debate was about, do you?


You honestly think Republicans want nothing to be done different? Or is this "change" you want mindless liberal legislation?

I honestly think Republicans mostly want to continue the same sort of agenda they had when they were in power. And I prefer my liberal legislation mindful - specifically, of things like that whole "Constitution" thingie your side of the aisle keeps pissing on.

Let the GOP change, or let it suffer and die. Both would be good, the second would be enjoyable to boot.
The one-party state thing worked out so well for Germany, Italy, Russia, China, etc. Course the two-party system hasn't worked out so well for us so maybe we should ditch parties all together. And government. If you want a truly free country then we're going to have to be more like Somalia and less like Fascists and Communists of the past and present.

The one-party state thing worked out so well for Germany, Italy, Russia, China, etc. Course the two-party system hasn't worked out so well for us so maybe we should ditch parties all together. And government. If you want a truly free country then we're going to have to be more like Somalia and less like Fascists and Communists of the past and present.

And Somalia is just the poster boy for perfection, isnt it?

The mind of neo-cons is fascinating. It truly is. There's a certain unique thought process that goes on in people that spend 6 years trying to do everything they can to use their slim majority to essentially force out the opposition, then whining when that minority party suddenly gets a super majority and uses it to take advantage of six years of being forced out of the political process.

And then, to top it all off, there's the amazingly ballsy move of setting yourself up to be such a strong opposition that your entire existence seems to be based on not putting forth your own agenda, but simply voting "no" to anything that comes along, to the point that you so alienate your won moderate element that of the three people that broke ranks, one of them leaves the party entirely, and then, on top of your efforts to try and steam roll any attempts by the opposition (the opposition that, may I add, beat your ass in an election), you whine that the democrats are not "compromising"

What the fuck? Compromising? Where was this bipartisan spirit between...say...2000 and 2006? Where was this interest in compromise then? Where was this idea that we should "work together"? Fuck that noise. Republicans don't care about compromise. They don't care about bipartisanship. They care about power, nothing more and nothing less.

So fuck this crying of "two wrongs don't make a right, TWO WRONGS DON'T MAKE A RIGHT!" crying we hear from the neo-cons. How convenient, how utterly fucking convenient that they're willing to decry their own actions at a greedy power grab, only after they are no longer in a position to try again. How utterly spineless. What a cheap political tactic, a failing mewling attempt at "see, we're going to be the bigger party and say what bad, bad people we were for doing those awful, awful things to you. So, see, we're saying we were wrong in doing it. You should stop doing it. Of course, we waited until afterwards to suddenly feel bad about our actions..."

Utter bullshit. The neo-cons feel no remorse, no regret. They have no belief that their actions were wrong, or bad, or contrary to the interests of the american people. It's only now that they're in the minority do they tout the idea that the majority should be inclusive of the minority viewpoint. A viewpoint that is, I may add, so repugnant to the american people, that it lead to one of the most ignominious ass kickings in modern american politics.

But yet they still call for "compromise". Yet I'm still not sure how "compromise" is supposed to work with a party that not only seems unwilling to present their own views, and unwilling to indicate where they are willing to compromise on those views, but seem entirely willing to vote "no" on anything with the oppositions name attached, just on principle alone.

So fuck that noise. And fuck your hubris that actually thought you'd have a "permanent republican majority" that you pissed off the opposition so much that, given half the chance, they'd happily send you to the wilderness. You forgot that those fellow senators you thumbed your nose at would be the very same senators, six years down the line, who suddenly held your agenda in their hands. You bargained on being in power forever. Or, at least, your lifetime. And you lost. Suck it the fuck up. Or, to paraphrase Jon Stewart, "you're in the minority, it's supposed to taste like a turd sandwich".

Fuck that noise? So much for your hope and change bullshit. I love how anybody who points out the Democrats for what they are are "neo-cons" BTW. The Dems were the party that criticized the GOP for trying to force out the opposition, and pretended that they would be different. And yet people like you excuse these tax-cheating scumbags for being the lying hypocrites that they are. They don't care about the damn country as a whole. In fact you actually want MORE power than the Republicans had during 2000-2006 Also since when is a 46%-53% vote an "ass kicking"? Read some bloody history FFS.

Spineless? The Dems are the spineless ones. If Democratic assholes didn't want to compromise, they shouldn't have acted different from the corrupt greedy scumbags they really were. Suck it the fuck up? I don't recall you whiners sucking it up in 2000 or 2004. The fact that you couldn't pick a half-decent moderate candidate to win in 2004 was nothing short of pathetic, hell you idiots practically gave the White House to Bush again. Now because of you we got stuck with a clueless liberal ass who we will regret 4 years down the road, brilliant! And you have the nerve to justify power grabbing bullshit, after running on a platform of change because "the Republicans did it"? What a bunch of brain-dead, spineless hypocrites the Democrats are.

Fuck that noise? So much for your hope and change bullshit. I love how anybody who points out the Democrats for what they are are "neo-cons" BTW. The Dems were the party that criticized the GOP for trying to force out the opposition, and pretended that they would be different. And yet people like you excuse these tax-cheating scumbags for being the lying hypocrites that they are. They don't care about the damn country as a whole. In fact you actually want MORE power than the Republicans had during 2000-2006 Also since when is a 46%-53% vote an "ass kicking"? Read some bloody history FFS.

Spineless? The Dems are the spineless ones. If Democratic assholes didn't want to compromise, they shouldn't have acted different from the corrupt greedy scumbags they really were. Suck it the fuck up? I don't recall you whiners sucking it up in 2000 or 2004. The fact that you couldn't pick a half-decent moderate candidate to win in 2004 was nothing short of pathetic, hell you idiots practically gave the White House to Bush again. Now because of you we got stuck with a clueless liberal ass who we will regret 4 years down the road, brilliant! And you have the nerve to justify power grabbing bullshit, after running on a platform of change because "the Republicans did it"? What a bunch of brain-dead, spineless hypocrites the Democrats are.

Wrong.

Wrong.

Why do you even post?

Fuck that noise? So much for your hope and change bullshit. I love how anybody who points out the Democrats for what they are are "neo-cons" BTW. The Dems were the party that criticized the GOP for trying to force out the opposition, and pretended that they would be different. And yet people like you excuse these tax-cheating scumbags for being the lying hypocrites that they are. They don't care about the damn country as a whole. In fact you actually want MORE power than the Republicans had during 2000-2006 Also since when is a 46%-53% vote an "ass kicking"? Read some bloody history FFS.

Spineless? The Dems are the spineless ones. If Democratic assholes didn't want to compromise, they shouldn't have acted different from the corrupt greedy scumbags they really were. Suck it the fuck up? I don't recall you whiners sucking it up in 2000 or 2004. The fact that you couldn't pick a half-decent moderate candidate to win in 2004 was nothing short of pathetic, hell you idiots practically gave the White House to Bush again. Now because of you we got stuck with a clueless liberal ass who we will regret 4 years down the road, brilliant! And you have the nerve to justify power grabbing bullshit, after running on a platform of change because "the Republicans did it"? What a bunch of brain-dead, spineless hypocrites the Democrats are.
At least Obama has actually tried to talk to the GOP. Which is more then they did from 2000-2006. And more then those idiots deserve, considering their idea of 'bipartisan' and 'comprimise' is 'do exactly waht we want' and 'exactly what we want' is 'what got us into the mess we're in now'.
Now because of you we got stuck with a clueless liberal ass who we will regret 4 years down the road, brilliant!
Wow, so youre a sorcerer now? Want to divine the answers to my final on monday for me?

Why do you even post?

Because his post earns a gainsay, but doesn't earn anything else. :p

Republicans are going to split. Eventually the moderates are going to get bitch slapped by reality and they will realize that there is no way they can remain a viable party while bending to hardline right-wing interest groups. Either they continue their delusion that right-wing is GOP and GOP is right-wing and ignore all other factors or they recognize that that delusion will cost them political capital and that is all career politicians care about. Specter was the first to finally cave to the reality of losing political power, but he won't be the last.

You make it sound like it was nothing more than shameless political tact. I refuse to believe that about Specter. Furthermore, the problem isn't that the moderates need to be "bitch slapped" as you so eloquently put it. The problem is that conservatives have gone so completely fanatical that they will not allow divergence from the ideological tenets. It's either their way or the highway. Specter chose to pack his bags and go elsewhere.

Neo, I don't understand.

Was it wrong for the republicans to do it in 2005? Is it wrong for Democrats to do it in 2009?

If it was wrong in 2005, why do you condone it in 2009? If it is ok in 2009 why did you make such a big stink in 2005?

All you are proving is that what they did in 2005 was correct, and the political left was successful in the fight, of pretending it was wrong? This is something to be proud of?

I think politics is politics. I think the choices you make in governance, and how you treat the minority, affects how you get treated when they become the majority. The republicans made a political play. For better or worse, they made it, and that was their choice. "right" and "wrong" don't really play in to it.

If I disagree with republican political perspective, of course I'm going to disagree when they attempt to implement that perspective. That's totally abstracting from the fact that they certainly had the right to behave as they did. There was nothing illegal about it. I protested their attempts to implement what I considered bad policy, just as I expect the same from republicans from this democrat congress (although I will take the opportunity to point out, once again, that I was right when I called them bad policies).

But the fact is, the republicans made a strategic choice. They made a political decision. And it backfired on them. Now sure I expect them to disagree with democrats, just as we disagreed with them (yet, again, that whole "we were right" thing), but don't complain that you're being treated as you treated them. That was their strategic decision to make, and they made it.

If they are caring that much, it means they are suffering with the loss of Specter. Good. They deserve it. Carry on. ;)

Your goalpost-moving is nice and all, but I asked for a source.

Goalpost moving? If you want a source so badly. Find it yourself. I don't see any sources from you guys.


...so you're saying I actually should consider your party dangerously insane? Well, if you insist.


No, I am just saying that is evidently what some Democrats think as they go to vote in the same corrupt representative.


I'm too tired to explain the science now, but they are overlapping but separate areas of research. *pokes Dempublicents to come explain, since this is Her Thang*

Either way there are recent developments that should not be abandoned because the "cheaper" option is available.


Why?

Because a parent should know what their child is doing?


I suspect the vast majority of students do not particularly want to know about quadratic equations. Shall we stop teaching math? (For that matter, I am willing to bet pretty much everything I own that if I polled teenagers on whether they would rather be learning about (a) calculus or (b) sex of all kinds, B would win in a landslide. I mean, have you MET teenagers?)


Of course they are not thinking of gay sex when they see "sex of all kinds." There is simply no reason to teach such a subject. Sex education should be taught, but not gay/other sex.


What organizations universally provide sex education to kids? I really want to hear about these.


There are plenty of organizations for gay students. Hell back when I was in high school,outside the counselors office there were pamphlets with information about such things. If they want to know they can grab one of those.

You keep using this word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
I know what it means.


...you don't have any idea what this whole debate was about, do you?

I know what the debate is about, I just don't agree with your opinion.


I honestly think Republicans mostly want to continue the same sort of agenda they had when they were in power. And I prefer my liberal legislation mindful - specifically, of things like that whole "Constitution" thingie your side of the aisle keeps pissing on.

Bush managed to even isolate himself from most Republicans after awhile, and he is not the entire Republican party to begin with. I happen to prefer my conservative legislation and if you truly believe the Dems care more about the Constitution than the Republicans, your delusional.

I didn't want one party rule back in 2000-2006 either and I don't want it now.

You know what's funny? Despite the far right winging about how Obama "should be more bipartisan", 66% of americans, a 2:1 majority, think that Obama is making "a sincere effort to work with members of the other party to find solutions acceptable to both parties". 66% of americans think Obama is making legitimate bipartisan efforts. For congressional democrats, that number is about 50%. Half of america thinks that the congressional democrats are taking efforts to be bipartisan.

Now how do those numbers look for congressional republicans? 36%. just about one in three.

Two thirds of americans think Obama is making bipartisan efforts. Half of americans think congressional democrats are. Yet only just over one in three say the same for republicans. So despite the far right's whining that democrats are not compromising, it appears that the american people put the government's failure to reach consensus squarely at the feet of those republicans.

Why do you even post?

I think he posts due to the greater internet fuckwad theory.

http://globalnerdy.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2007/02/greater-internet-fuckwad-theory.jpg

I didn't want one party rule back in 2000-2006 either and I don't want it now.

You know, I see a lot of republicans saying that. The whole "we were against it then and we're against it now!" It's the same argument those faux grassroots "teabaggers" made, "we were against government spending the whole time!"

How funny it is that these people who were so against it this whole time, only seem to have found their voice now. How utterly fucking convenient. And how utterly fucking bullshit.

You know what's funny? Despite the far right winging about how Obama "should be more bipartisan", 66% of americans, a 2:1 majority, think that Obama is making "a sincere effort to work with members of the other party to find solutions acceptable to both parties". 66% of americans think Obama is making legitimate bipartisan efforts. For congressional democrats, that number is about 50%. Half of america thinks that the congressional democrats are taking efforts to be bipartisan.

Now how do those numbers look for congressional republicans? 36%. just about one in three.

Two thirds of americans think Obama is making bipartisan efforts. Half of americans think congressional democrats are. Yet only just over one in three say the same for republicans. So despite the far right's whining that democrats are not compromising, it appears that the american people put the government's failure to reach consensus squarely at the feet of those republicans.

And yet polls still show people disapprove of the job congress is doing and think the country is on the wrong track anyway...

Goalpost moving? If you want a source so badly. Find it yourself. I don't see any sources from you guys.



No, I am just saying that is evidently what some Democrats think as they go to vote in the same corrupt representative.


Either way there are recent developments that should not be abandoned because the "cheaper" option is available.


Because a parent should know what their child is doing?




Of course they are not thinking of gay sex when they see "sex of all kinds." There is simply no reason to teach such a subject. Sex education should be taught, but not gay/other sex.



There are plenty of organizations for gay students. Hell back when I was in high school,outside the counselors office there were pamphlets with information about such things. If they want to know they can grab one of those.


I know what it means.


I know what the debate is about, I just don't agree with your opinion.



Bush managed to even isolate himself from most Republicans after awhile, and he is not the entire Republican party to begin with. I happen to prefer my conservative legislation and if you truly believe the Dems care more about the Constitution than the Republicans, your delusional.

I didn't want one party rule back in 2000-2006 either and I don't want it now.

Forgive my insolence, but the Republicans hardly cared a whit about the Constitution during the Bush years, it would seem.

You know, I see a lot of republicans saying that. The whole "we were against it then and we're against it now!" It's the same argument those faux grassroots "teabaggers" made, "we were against government spending the whole time!"

How funny it is that these people who were so against it this whole time, only seem to have found their voice now. How utterly fucking convenient. And how utterly fucking bullshit.

Faux grassroots? And that MoveOn.org bullshit was real grassroots? The reason people are displaying how pissed off they are now is that because we have a president who will actually admit to being a big spender, hardly has a clue what he is, and when it comes to the economy is doing the same shit as the previous president expecting different results!

And yet polls still show people disapprove of the job congress is doing and think the country is on the wrong track anyway...

you really want to talk about what the polls say? OK, let's talk. The polls say: a majority of american feel it is the democrats, not republicans, who have made bipartisan efforts. Congressional approval ratings are at a four year high. Just about half of the country approves of the way congressional democrats are doing their jobs. For republicans, that figure is less than one in three. 2/3 of americans think Obama meets or exceeds expectations. And as for the polls that say that america is on the "right track"? 50% to 40% in favor.

You can make up all the fictional polls you want, but the results are clear. more people think america is on the right track than don't. More people approve of the job democrats are doing over republicans. More people think democrats are making bipartisan efforts, compared to republicans. More people think obama at least meets expectations than don't. Now, I know you want to pretend those poll results don't exist. Hell, if I were a republican I would too.

But, sad for you, they do. And the reality is, democrats are seen as more favored, more bipartisan, and taking the country in a better direction than republicans.

Goalpost moving? If you want a source so badly. Find it yourself. I don't see any sources from you guys.

That is not how debate works. You make an assertion, you back it up. You are welcome to ask me for sources for any assertions I make, but it is not my job to help you make your argument.


No, I am just saying that is evidently what some Democrats think as they go to vote in the same corrupt representative.


Which corrupt representative are you referring to?

Either way there are recent developments that should not be abandoned because the "cheaper" option is available.

No one in their right minds has suggested abandoning adult stem cell research. Again, this is like arguing that heart transplants often succeed, so we don't need to worry about kidney transplants. A lot of the same science goes into both, but they are not the same thing.


Because a parent should know what their child is doing?

*sigh* Why? I am getting bored with asking the same question and just having you restate "because they SHOULD."

Of course they are not thinking of gay sex when they see "sex of all kinds."

Then they apparently have roughly the IQ of cheese.

There is simply no reason to teach such a subject. Sex education should be taught, but not gay/other sex.

Why? Teenagers engage in it. Why should they not know how to keep themselves safe?

There are plenty of organizations for gay students. Hell back when I was in high school,outside the counselors office there were pamphlets with information about such things. If they want to know they can grab one of those.

Can you name just one such organization available to all kids, please? If there are so many such, it shouldn't be difficult.

I know what it means.

It would not appear so, given the vast numbers of people who dispute what you deem "certain."

I know what the debate is about, I just don't agree with your opinion.

Given that you appear to think that the issue has something to do with whether the prisoners get to watch TV, no, I'm pretty sure you have no idea what the debate is about.

Bush managed to even isolate himself from most Republicans after awhile, and he is not the entire Republican party to begin with. I happen to prefer my conservative legislation and if you truly believe the Dems care more about the Constitution than the Republicans, your delusional.

I didn't want one party rule back in 2000-2006 either and I don't want it now.

NA already answered this quite nicely.

Faux grassroots?

did I stutter?

and when it comes to the economy is doing the same shit as the previous president expecting different results!

and what presidents were those that "did the same shit" but had different results?

And yet polls still show people disapprove of the job congress is doing and think the country is on the wrong track anyway...

http://img411.imageshack.us/img411/1926/conj.jpg


http://img245.imageshack.us/img245/831/wrongz.jpg

you're welcome!

You mean this isn't a King of the Hill discussion thread?

Thats what I was thinkin, I was like, you mean Texas? lol

And yet polls still show people disapprove of the job congress is doing and think the country is on the wrong track anyway...

Actually, for the first time in a long time, more people think the country is on the right track then wrong.

Try again.

you really want to talk about what the polls say? OK, let's talk. The polls say: a majority of american feel it is the democrats, not republicans, who have made bipartisan efforts. Congressional approval ratings are at a four year high. Just about half of the country approves of the way congressional democrats are doing their jobs. For republicans, that figure is less than one in three. 2/3 of americans think Obama meets or exceeds expectations. And as for the polls that say that america is on the "right track"? 50% to 40% in favor
You can make up all the fictional polls you want, but the results are clear. more people think america is on the right track than don't. More people approve of the job democrats are doing over republicans. More people think democrats are making bipartisan efforts, compared to republicans. More people think obama at least meets expectations than don't. Now, I know you want to pretend those poll results don't exist. Hell, if I were a republican I would too. But, sad for you, they do. And the reality is, democrats are seen as more favored, more bipartisan, and taking the country in a better direction than republicans


I am the one making up the polls? What BS are you reading.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/polls/
As you can see most Americans think the country is on the wrong track, and eventually the Obamania will wear off as well the associated Democrat approval.

That is not how debate works. You make an assertion, you back it up. You are welcome to ask me for sources for any assertions I make, but it is not my job to help you make your argument.

I am not going to dig around for something one can find easily on any democratic/liberal forum out there, Probably including some posts lost within this one.


Which corrupt representative are you referring to?

Well I was actually thinking senator, specifically that lying idiot Chris Dodd that people up here keep voting for because he is a Democrat. And there are candidates far better than him in this case.


No one in their right minds has suggested abandoning adult stem cell research. Again, this is like arguing that heart transplants often succeed, so we don't need to worry about kidney transplants. A lot of the same science goes into both, but they are not the same thing.

I am not just talking about adult stem cells, but other methods to create/gather embryonic stem cells. And if they can achieve the same results (I honestly don't know) the focus should go towards the former.


*sigh* Why? I am getting bored with asking the same question and just having you restate "because they SHOULD."


In that case why SHOULDN'T a parent be informed as they in most aspects of education and their children's schools.


Then they apparently have roughly the IQ of cheese.


Most straight teenagers are not going to think of gay sex in that scenario unless somebody mentions it specifically.


Why? Teenagers engage in it. Why should they not know how to keep themselves safe?

An extremely small fraction of teenagers. The vast majority don't need to know, and many find it morally objectionable to teach. There is simply no good reason to teach such a subject in school sex education.


Can you name just one such organization available to all kids, please? If there are so many such, it shouldn't be difficult.


I support regular sex education, I am saying there are organizations like the GSA which can certainly help gays and other groups.


It would not appear so, given the vast numbers of people who dispute what you deem "certain."


It was my opinion, and there are many who agree with me as well.


Given that you appear to think that the issue has something to do with whether the prisoners get to watch TV, no, I'm pretty sure you have no idea what the debate is about.


I brought up the TV issue because some believe that prisoners not having a TV, good health care, and other comforts is "cruel and unusual punishment." They don't deserve anything more than the cells they were given in Guantanamo..[/QUOTE]

did I stutter?
For some odd reason I was just surprised how easily moonbat liberals dismiss claims that that was a "grassroots movement" and think all of this crap like MoveOn is.



and what presidents were those that "did the same shit" but had different results?

I said president as in he is doing the same corporate bailout strategy of Bush while expecting different results. Yet it seems Dems are resorting to this concept that Bush doing something is a defense for when their party does the same.

For some odd reason I was just surprised how easily moonbat liberals dismiss claims that that was a "grassroots movement" and think all of this crap like MoveOn is.

Tell me, who started MoveOn?

Did any major news organization endorse the hell out of it?

I am the one making up the polls? What BS are you reading.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/polls/

The problem with realclear is it takes an average including polling organizations that only an idiot would not agree are biased.

Tell me, who started MoveOn?

Did any major news organization endorse the hell out of it?

The Dems rapidly jumped on the bandwagon if that is what you mean, and MSNBC and others certainly endorsed the hell out of it.

You guys who have never been Republican have no idea what a^^^^^^les the religious fruitcakes and neocons in the party really are.
Oh, don't we? You don't think that the other half of the country has been affected by their demands?

The Dems rapidly jumped on the bandwagon if that is what you mean
But did they start it? In the way Republicans started "teabagging"? No. So it actually was a grassroots organization.
and MSNBC and others certainly endorsed the hell out of it.
Oh? To the extend Fox did? And you have proof of this?

Doubt it.

Hey, I am not the one claiming that the far right is some EVILLLL attempt to establish a Christian theocracy run by dark lord Dick Cheney who masterminded 9/11 and tortures people and small animals for fun. They are worthy of the tinfoil hat.
Name one poster who did. Link to it. We'll wait.

Shut up.
Not helpful.

And yet polls still show people disapprove of the job congress is doing and think the country is on the wrong track anyway...

Wait...what?

Most Americans think the President is making a sincere effort to be bipartisan. Many think the Democrats are trying but polls show people don't like congress so it really doesn't count?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e8/Cloture_Voting%2C_U.S._Senate%2C_1947_to_2008.jpg
Perhaps you are unaware that the 1960s were nearly fifty years ago?

But did they start it? In the way Republicans started "teabagging"? No. So it actually was a grassroots organization.


The movement was largely united by some Republicans but it started (although not in name) before that. Likewise it only became big when certain special interests got involved. Also the teabagging MSNBC joke is getting old, fast.


Oh? To the extend Fox did? And you have proof of this?
Doubt it.

I forgot, somebody like yourself probably thinks MSNBC is the definition of neutrality. Also those polls are biased you say? Where do you get yours, DailyKos or some crap?

Also those polls are biased you say? Where do you get yours, DailyKos or some crap?

Try Gallup.

But back on topic, I am brought back in my mind to a discussion of Lieberman. And the differences between the two, and how the parties responded. Now, let's look at Joe Lieberman. Joe here was the vice presidential candidate. He was one of the most influential democrats in the senate. And when he moved to independant, he did so with a voting record almost all in line with democrats, and a caucus with the democrats. He didn't even really move away from party ideology that much. He even went so far as to campaign for McCain. And the democrat response? Some grumbling sure, some anger, but they kept him in the caucus and let him keep his chairmanships. They kept him on the committees!.

Specter on the other hand, after serving this country, and his party, for forty years is called a traitor, and is told, essentially, to get the fuck out.

And I think that shows the difference in mentality between the parties, and why it's the republicans who are finally being shown as the partisan demagogues they are. Their mentality is simple, and it's why Bush was so successful in browbeating the republican congress. It's "party first". Not country. Not constituents. Not constitution. Republicans expect their members to be loyal to the party first. And to that mentality, stepping out of line is treason of the highest order. Worse than betrayal of country, or constituents, or constitution, it's betrayal of party. And that is the gravest sin of all, because to the republican leadership, the party comes before country, or constituents, or constitution.

And that's exactly why they shouldn't be allowed back in power.

The movement was largely united by some Republicans but it started (although not in name) before that.
Oh? Care to prove that? And show me where the protests over spending were?
Likewise it only became big when certain special interests got involved. Also the teabagging MSNBC joke is getting old, fast.
Teabaggers are what they called themselves initially. MSNBC didnt make it up.
I forgot, somebody like yourself probably thinks MSNBC is the definition of neutrality.
Dont watch MSNBC partner.
Also those polls are biased you say?
Some of them.
Where do you get yours, DailyKos or some crap?
Gallup.

EDIT: And whats this "someone like you" crap. Kid, youve been here for, what, 20 posts? You dont know anything about the posters youre arguing with outside of this one topic. Get over yourself.

I am not going to dig around for something one can find easily on any democratic/liberal forum out there, Probably including some posts lost within this one.

If one can "find it easily," why would you need to "dig around"? Make up your mind.


Well I was actually thinking senator, specifically that lying idiot Chris Dodd that people up here keep voting for because he is a Democrat. And there are candidates far better than him in this case.

I don't know a lot about Dodd, not being from his state, but if people are voting for him because they are genuinely afraid that his opposition wishes to teach about Jesus's pet dinosaur, I have a hard time believing he's not the better choice.


I am not just talking about adult stem cells, but other methods to create/gather embryonic stem cells. And if they can achieve the same results (I honestly don't know) the focus should go towards the former.

I'm not sure what you mean by other methods? We get embryonic stem cells from embryos. Hence the name.



In that case why SHOULDN'T a parent be informed as they in most aspects of education and their children's schools.

Because quite a lot of parents aren't good parents. Some, in fact, are horrendously awful parents. I would much rather see the option be available to get birth control without parental consent if the teenager in question's choices are "get pregnant from my father raping me" or "get beaten to death when someone informs my father that I said I needed birth control," for example - wouldn't you?

Further, since when are parents so informed? I definitely did not bring notes home declaring "Next week, your daughter will be learning about the Hapsburg dynasty, natural logarithms, titration, the rules of volleyball, how to say 'I would like a ham and cheese sandwich' in French, and how to write a sestina."


Most straight teenagers are not going to think of gay sex in that scenario unless somebody mentions it specifically.

Then, I repeat, they have approximately the IQ of cheese. The teenagers I knew growing up were apparently vastly more intelligent than the ones you know, because they were all aware that gay people existed and engaged in sexual behavior much as straight people do.

An extremely small fraction of teenagers.

Approximately 10% is "an extremely small fraction"? Since when?

The vast majority don't need to know, and many find it morally objectionable to teach. There is simply no good reason to teach such a subject in school sex education.

The vast majority of people don't need to know any of the things I learned in school I listed above, either. Is there simply no good reason to teach them? And the thing is, not knowing how to write a sestina almost certainly won't kill you. Not knowing the importance of condoms for anal intercourse very well might. That seems like a pretty fucking good reason to me.


I support regular sex education, I am saying there are organizations like the GSA which can certainly help gays and other groups.

I'm not honestly clear on what this "regular sex education" is. You do know straight people engage in the same sex acts as gay people, right? Beyond "gay people exist," what exactly is the controversial gay-only information you're so worried about?

It was my opinion, and there are many who agree with me as well.

Indeed it is. Not a statement of certain and objective truth.


I brought up the TV issue because some believe that prisoners not having a TV, good health care, and other comforts is "cruel and unusual punishment." They don't deserve anything more than the cells they were given in Guantanamo..

Health care is a "comfort"? ...I don't even know what to say.

Except, as you might have predicted, that I'd really love to see a source for anyone arguing that not having a TV is cruel and unusual punishment.

Beyond "gay people exist," what exactly is the controversial gay-only information you're so worried about?

that not only do they exist, they have sex. Which is a well hidden fact, because apparently despite the fact that most teenagers know that gay people exist, and most teenagers know that people have sex, the incredibly complicated logical jump of incorporating concept A into concept B eludes many of them :rolleyes:

that not only do they exist, they have sex. Which is a well hidden fact, because apparently despite the fact that most teenagers know that gay people exist, and most teenagers know that people have sex, the incredibly complicated logical jump of incorporating concept A into concept B eludes many of them :rolleyes:

Just ask a teenager about their parents having sex and you get the same answer.

that not only do they exist, they have sex. Which is a well hidden fact, because apparently despite the fact that most teenagers know that gay people exist, and most teenagers know that people have sex, the incredibly complicated logical jump of incorporating concept A into concept B eludes many of them :rolleyes:

Also, in his universe, teenage guys are totally unaware of lesbian porn. "What?" say the 16-year-old boys of Collin's world. "There are VIDEOS on the INTERNET of chicks getting it on?! I would never think of this in connection with sex!!!"

Also, in his universe, teenage guys are totally unaware of lesbian porn. "What?" say the 16-year-old boys of Collin's world. "There are VIDEOS on the INTERNET of chicks getting it on?! I would never think of this in connection with sex!!!"

Collin's world is deprived of much pleasure I see, :(


:p

No, not at all. Politics is what it is. Tides rise and fall. At least I have the intellectual honesty to recognize that and recognize that if you make it your political ambition to fuck people over today, you sorta lose the right to whine when tomorrow you're the one being bent over the table.

Republicans made a gamble. They lost. They bullied through their agenda at the cost of pissing off the minority opposition. A minority opposition, that now has a super-majority. They gambled with their political capital, and gambled poorly. Oh well, maybe next time they get in power they'll have learned from their mistakes (doubt it though). So suck it up, time to pay the consequences.

Yes but do you really have the right to do it tomorrow after complaining about how wrong it was for them to do it today?

Or in other words should we hold our politicians up to a higher standard and be be a bunch of hypocrites?

Just because that is the way it always has been doesn't mean that is the way we should allow it to continue.

Guys, get to know the newcomer before you start on the personal remarks, please (and then don't start at all).

Collinstan, these folk are not kidding you: there is a convention (not a rule) on NSG that if you make a "lots of people agree" or "there are plenty who say" statement you should source it, or say that you can't source it. (It helps avoid trolling.)

As you become more familiar and posters learn whether your statements about sources are reliable, the demands for links will probably become less frequent. But it never goes away completely.

Guys, get to know the newcomer before you start on the personal remarks, please (and then don't start at all).

Collinstan, these folk are not kidding you: there is a convention (not a rule) on NSG that if you make a "lots of people agree" or "there are plenty who say" statement you should source it, or say that you can't source it. (It helps avoid trolling.)

As you become more familiar and posters learn whether your statements about sources are reliable, the demands for links will probably become less frequent. But it never goes away completely.

Source?





:D

Source?





:D

Right here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?f=1227)


lol

You make it sound like it was nothing more than shameless political tact. I refuse to believe that about Specter.

As much as I would like to share your silly delusion, the fact that he refused to split until he was guaranteed to get his ass-kicked royally in the Republican primary by the hardline right-wing jackass just proves it was a political move. He even said it himself when he talked about refusing to have his 29-year career completely discounted by the Republicans of Pennsylvania.

He was the first, but he won't be the last. When the GOP's hardline crackpotism start threatening the other moderates, they are going to bail like rats on a sinking ship.

I am the one making up the polls? What BS are you reading.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/polls/
As you can see most Americans think the country is on the wrong track, and eventually the Obamania will wear off as well the associated Democrat approval.

Doesn't everyone love how hardline right-wing sites always seem to have to refer to themselves by adjectives that make themselves sound smart or impartial? I guess no one would believe them otherwise.

Guys, get to know the newcomer before you start on the personal remarks, please (and then don't start at all).


Already figured him out. He's an escapee from your average right-wing forums where everyone is batshit insane and when some one cites a right-wing talking head, 50 other people go "me too!" and have a nice big neocon circle jerk. And where "liberalism" is a bannable offense.

The sad thing is that being a U.S. Senator is a position of national focus. This draws national money. The only people it ought to be a concern for is the state voters. What Specter likely resigned over was that that the Republican Party wasn't going to cough up all the funding that he wanted to hold off any primary challengers, like it did the last time he ran.

As much as I would like to share your silly delusion, the fact that he refused to split until he was guaranteed to get his ass-kicked royally in the Republican primary by the hardline right-wing jackass just proves it was a political move. He even said it himself when he talked about refusing to have his 29-year career completely discounted by the Republicans of Pennsylvania.

hell, when has specter not acted in a shamelessly self-serving way?

hell, when has specter not acted in a shamelessly self-serving way?

Ditto for politicians in general.

So it will be impossible for the democrats to say the republicans road blocked their legislation from this point forward ?

So it will be impossible for the democrats to say the republicans road blocked their legislation from this point forward ?

Depends on the legislation, I'd say. Specter is still opposed to the EFCA and probably won't vote for cloture, so they can blame him for that still...

Depends on the legislation, I'd say. Specter is still opposed to the EFCA and probably won't vote for cloture, so they can blame him for that still...

but not the republicans. It would dissent within the democratic party that allowed it.
This puts a lot of pressure on the Democrats. not just on stimulus or economy but on war crimes trials and the like.

So it will be impossible for the democrats to say the republicans road blocked their legislation from this point forward ?

no. because we are in the same place as before - you need the entire republican party to pull off a filibuster. its normal to have a bit of float among the 'moderates' on both sides, so them getting 1 or 2 is just how things always go. if you have 40 republicans and specter or bayh or nelson voting against cloture, what you have is a republican filibuster.

now, when the dems have 63+ seats after next time, then yeah, much tougher argument to make. and if at that point they don't reform the filibuster rules to stop it from being used to routinely require supermajorities to pass legislation, then they really are the ultimate in cowardice.

but not the republicans. It would dissent within the democratic party that allowed it.
This puts a lot of pressure on the Democrats. not just on stimulus or economy but on war crimes trials and the like.

Its too bad party identity is so important to us - Specter isn't a Democrat anymore than he is a Republican.

Depends on the legislation, I'd say. Specter is still opposed to the EFCA and probably won't vote for cloture, so they can blame him for that still...
Nah, he'll vote for the card check bill in a second. Think of all the union members that count on Democrats to maintain their standard of mediocrity in the workplace.

Nah, he'll vote for the card check bill in a second. Think of all the union members that count on Democrats to maintain their standard of mediocrity in the workplace.

Man, damn unions getting their employees living wages and safe conditions. That creates mediocrity in the workplace. When your employees are healthy and can afford food.:rolleyes:

Man, damn unions getting their employees living wages and safe conditions. That creates mediocrity in the workplace. When your employees are healthy and can afford food.:rolleyes:
As usual, you're wrong.

As usual, you're wrong.

Youre funny.

Perhaps in this world you live in, this is true. But we deal in the real world Myrmi. The real world that very often seems to infringe on this neo-con fantasy of yours.

no. because we are in the same place as before - you need the entire republican party to pull off a filibuster. its normal to have a bit of float among the 'moderates' on both sides, so them getting 1 or 2 is just how things always go. if you have 40 republicans and specter or bayh or nelson voting against cloture, what you have is a republican filibuster.

Except in this scenario who is "bipartisan", the democrats with little to no opposition support or the republicans with little to moderate democrat support?
It ceases to be a republican filibuster when it requires democrats to side with their views.


now, when the dems have 63+ seats after next time, then yeah, much tougher argument to make. and if at that point they don't reform the filibuster rules to stop it from being used to routinely require supermajorities to pass legislation, then they really are the ultimate in cowardice.

That's an if, a year of having limited ability to pass the blame on to someone else for any negative events. Also Id prefer they kept the filibuster rules the senate is supposed to be a brake on legislation from the more populist house.

Except in this scenario who is "bipartisan", the democrats with little to no opposition support or the republicans with little to moderate democrat support?
It ceases to be a republican filibuster when it requires democrats to side with their views.

only if we assume filibusters are the natural state of the world

That's an if, a year of having limited ability to pass the blame on to someone else for any negative events. Also Id prefer they kept the filibuster rules the senate is supposed to be a brake on legislation from the more populist house.

it really isn't much of an if. the very best republicans could hope for is to not lose more ground, and that would be very surprising and requires everything to come together for them.

i'm more or less fine with the filibuster as a concept, but it cannot be painless. if your minority wants to block something, you need to really want to block it, not just passingly want to block it.

the way it is now, they have just decided - without any democratic deliberation in the public - that passing laws requires supermajorities. under the present system, the difference between the requirements for filling routine executive branch appointments and for ratifying an international treaty is just 7 votes, rather than the 16 it is 'officially'. if this is what we as a people really want to do, fine, but we cannot just coast on the inertia of obscure procedural tactics any more. we need to have this discussion and we need to make the senate conform to the outcome.

i'd propose filibusters have to be actively maintained by having something like 43-45 senators in the room taking part in the filibuster. hell, maybe even keep it at 41. whatever the case, that way if you want to block something, you've got to stay put and you've got to convince everyone else on your side to be there too. this had better be more important than eating lunch or fundraising or having sex with your mistress. this had better be more important than going to the bathroom. if it isn't, then your opposition isn't some deeply held sense that what is happening is unconscionable, but is just obstructionism.

only if we assume filibusters are the natural state of the world



it really isn't much of an if. the very best republicans could hope for is to not lose more ground, and that would be very surprising and requires everything to come together for them.

i'm more or less fine with the filibuster as a concept, but it cannot be painless. if your minority wants to block something, you need to really want to block it, not just passingly want to block it.

the way it is now, they have just decided - without any democratic deliberation in the public - that passing laws requires supermajorities. under the present system, the difference between the requirements for filling routine executive branch appointments and for ratifying an international treaty is just 7 votes, rather than the 16 it is 'officially'. if this is what we as a people really want to do, fine, but we cannot just coast on the inertia of obscure procedural tactics any more. we need to have this discussion and we need to make the senate conform to the outcome.

i'd propose filibusters have to be actively maintained by having something like 43-45 senators in the room taking part in the filibuster. hell, maybe even keep it at 41. whatever the case, that way if you want to block something, you've got to stay put and you've got to convince everyone else on your side to be there too. this had better be more important than eating lunch or fundraising or having sex with your mistress. this had better be more important than going to the bathroom. if it isn't, then your opposition isn't some deeply held sense that what is happening is unconscionable, but is just obstructionism.

I actually like that Idea. Though there are ways around the must stay on floor rule. Aides come in with a portable camp bathroom and a means to provide privacy.
And aides can bring in food and cots have been brought in with the things last into the night.
Id allow bathroom breaks though older senators would be at a disadvantage, and the risk of bladder infections would be very high especially among female senators.

I could see a a requirement for 41 people to be on the floor with maybe 4 30 minute bathroom breaks a 24 hour period and more with a doctors note.

I think politics is politics. I think the choices you make in governance, and how you treat the minority, affects how you get treated when they become the majority. The republicans made a political play. For better or worse, they made it, and that was their choice. "right" and "wrong" don't really play in to it.

If I disagree with republican political perspective, of course I'm going to disagree when they attempt to implement that perspective. That's totally abstracting from the fact that they certainly had the right to behave as they did. There was nothing illegal about it. I protested their attempts to implement what I considered bad policy, just as I expect the same from republicans from this democrat congress (although I will take the opportunity to point out, once again, that I was right when I called them bad policies).

But the fact is, the republicans made a strategic choice. They made a political decision. And it backfired on them. Now sure I expect them to disagree with democrats, just as we disagreed with them (yet, again, that whole "we were right" thing), but don't complain that you're being treated as you treated them. That was their strategic decision to make, and they made it.

Firstly, don't use "you", I'm officially registered as "decline to state" because what party somebody belongs to is and should be meaningless (as seen by Arlen switching parties, but being adamant about not switching votes)

Secondly, it sounds like you believe in the continuation of a never ending cycle of the majority not caring about what the minority has to say. Seems to me, that's a stupid way to govern and a stupid position to root for.

Firstly, don't use "you", I'm officially registered as "decline to state" because what party somebody belongs to is and should be meaningless (as seen by Arlen switching parties, but being adamant about not switching votes)

Secondly, it sounds like you believe in the continuation of a never ending cycle of the majority not caring about what the minority has to say. Seems to me, that's a stupid way to govern and a stupid position to root for.

What I read isnt Neo saying that everyone should fuck the minority. Neo is saying that the majority who fucked the minority for 6 years shouldnt whine when they get the same treatment.

It doesnt make the Democrats in the right. It just makes Republicans hypocrits.

To believe that you can demonize the minority, call them traitors, say they are emboldening the enemy, question their patriotism and their motives, link them with terrorists, scorn them, call them things like 'the angry left' and then suddenly whine about how mean they are because they dont let you get your way every single time when theyre suddenly in charge...thats blindness.

did I stutter?

Do you have a source to suggest that the tea parties were not grass roots?

It doesnt make the Democrats in the right. It just makes Republicans hypocrits.


The Republicans were voted out of office because they were hypocrites, and now less than 30% of the country will identify with them. But now the Democrats are being the hypocrites.

Isn't Do what I say, not what I do the definition of a hypocrite?

Didn't the Democrats whine for 8 years that the style of government that they are actively pursuing is wrong and bad for America?

The Republicans were voted out of office because they were hypocrites

i'm pretty sure it was more the running the country into the ground, rather than the pretending that they weren't.

Nah, he'll vote for the card check bill in a second. Think of all the union members that count on Democrats to maintain their standard of mediocrity in the workplace.

He has repeatedly stated his intention to vote against the EFCA and he stated when he switched parties that his opinion hadn't changed.

I am personally opposed to the EFCA as well. I think its a bad way to address the issue of unionization (which may or may not be a good thing in the first place) and there are better ways.

i'm pretty sure it was more the running the country into the ground, rather than the pretending that they weren't.

Then you would be wrong.

Most of them lost because of "corruption".

http://www.nysun.com/editorials/why-republicans-lost/43226/

Only a few wackjobs like yourself believe that the republicans were "running the country into the ground"

Then you would be wrong.

Most of them lost because of "corruption".

http://www.nysun.com/editorials/why-republicans-lost/43226/

Only a few wackjobs like yourself believe that the republicans were "running the country into the ground"

Did you just post an op ed piece as proof of something? Also that's November of 2006.

Neo, I don't understand.

Was it wrong for the republicans to do it in 2005? Is it wrong for Democrats to do it in 2009?

If it was wrong in 2005, why do you condone it in 2009? If it is ok in 2009 why did you make such a big stink in 2005?

All you are proving is that what they did in 2005 was correct, and the political left was successful in the fight, of pretending it was wrong? This is something to be proud of?Tu quoque (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque) fallacy.

Approximately 10% is "an extremely small fraction"? Since when?This would be the approximate fraction of gay teenagers. There would be a certain amount of straight teenagers who also engage in gay sex at some point also, and who would benefit from information on safe sex.

Nah, he'll vote for the card check bill in a second. Think of all the union members that count on Democrats to maintain their standard of mediocrity in the workplace.Except for the fact that the union standard for the average worker is above and beyond what the average non-union worker gets.

Tu quoque (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque) fallacy.


You've got it backwards my friend.

Neo suggested that it is ok for the Democrats to act like assholes because the Repulibcans were acting like assholes.

Did you just post an op ed piece as proof of something? Also that's November of 2006.

Yes, Nov 2006 is when the republicans lost control of the congress ... or have you forgotten that fact?

Any legislation that was passed between 2006 and 2008 was done by a Democratic congress and George Bush's lack of veto.

This would be the approximate fraction of gay teenagers. There would be a certain amount of straight teenagers who also engage in gay sex at some point also, and who would benefit from information on safe sex.

Good point. I was too busy being flummoxed by the whole "teenagers are totally unaware of gay people and/or sex" argument to consider that as well. :p

Except for the fact that the union standard for the average worker is above and beyond what the average non-union worker gets.
Unions in one shop drive down wages in other, non-union shops. And honestly, now is a shitty time to try and unionize, unless you'd like to drive your employer out of business and be out a job entirely.

You've got it backwards my friend.

Neo suggested that it is ok for the Democrats to act like assholes because the Repulibcans were acting like assholes.But likewise, you are saying that it is bad for the Democrats to act like asshole because it was bad when the Republicans did it.

Unions in one shop drive down wages in other, non-union shops.All the more reason for all shops to be unionized.

Just ask a teenager about their parents having sex and you get the same answer.
OMG my parents had sex? ICK! Sometimes, the entertainment just comes to you.

Man, damn unions getting their employees living wages and safe conditions. That creates mediocrity in the workplace. When your employees are healthy and can afford food.:rolleyes:
We should have more businesses run like that Triangle Shirtwaist company. I mean, locking fire escapes and stairwells so workers couldn't sneak out for an illicit smoke: stroke of genius, I say, really raised productivity.

Only a few wackjobs like yourself believe that the republicans were "running the country into the ground"
Leave off with the personal attacks.

In terms of sheer size, yes, the Dems will have a filibuster-proof Congress.

But I find it kind of hard to believe that, because Specter voted with the Dems for the stimulus package and switched sides, he's suddenly going to support everything that they support.

But hey, stranger things have happened.

But likewise, you are saying that it is bad for the Democrats to act like asshole because it was bad when the Republicans did it.

Did you read what you wrote? Cause I'm not seeing whats logically fallacious about suggesting that if one group does something wrong, then it is equally wrong for another group to do it.

If it's bad to be an asshole, then it's bad to be an asshole.
If it's not bad to be an asshole, then it's not bad to be an asshole.

How is that any sort of logical fallacy?

I think you must have meant to post the logical fallacy in connection with Neo's initial post.

Did you read what you wrote? Cause I'm not seeing whats logically fallacious about suggesting that if one group does something wrong, then it is equally wrong for another group to do it.It's logically fallacious to assume that because simply because the republicans acted wrongly when they had the power, the democrats will do so now because they have the power.
As they have not yet done so, this is conjecture on your part.

You've got it backwards my friend.

Neo suggested that it is ok for the Democrats to act like assholes because the Repulibcans were acting like assholes.

I imply no justification or sense of "it's ok because they did it". If you get that from my writings, I do think this conversation might be a bit above your level.

Politics is politics. The democrats in congress will do what they feel is in the best interest of their constituents, and their political position. As did the republicans. The decision the republicans made to act in that fashion was a strategic choice on their part, as it is with the democrats on theirs.

I'm not saying that it's "OK" because the republicans are doing it. I'm saying that it's beyond hypocritical, and into the realm of out and out dishonesty, for the republicans to talk now about how blocking out the minority is a bad thing. It's a post hoc "we're sowwwwwy", it's trying to say that they did a very bad thing, and feel REALLY bad about it, and now that they've come out and admitted it was so very bad of them to do it, the democrats should stop doing it too. After all, they were wrong when they did it, and look how upfront and honest they are to admit it now.

After the fact.

Yes I know they talk about how consolidated power is bad, and a government that compromises with the opposition is a better government. I know they say that. But, to put it simply, I don't believe them. For six years they had consolidated and for six years they did absolutely nothing to restrain themselves. So for them to come out now with this hang dog look on their faces and their "aww shucks, we're sorry, we shouldn't have done that" is, as I said, a lie. That position is utter bullshit. The republicans didn't feel bad about it then, they don't feel bad about it now. And given half a chance, they'd do it again.

I'm not saying they were wrong for doing it. I am saying that they did it, enjoyed doing it, and took absolutely no efforts to stop from doing it, but then now, when they can't do it any more, to say they were wrong for doing it and won't do it anymore...is a lie.

There's nothing necessarily wrong or right about using your majority to push through legislation. That's politics. That's one way to play the system. That's a strategic choice on behalf of the majority whether they want consensus and bipartisanship or not.

What makes it right or wrong is the kind of policy they push through. The republicans used their majority to push through bad laws. Bad policy. I protested the republican administration not for the way they enacted policy, but due to the fact that they enacted bad policy. I had hoped the republicans would compromise, not just for the sake of compromise, but that said compromise would result in policies not so bad.

They didn't. And now they, and the rest of us, are paying for it. Am I saying the republicans are assholes for using their majority for pushing through legislation? No. I'm saying they're assholes because they used their majority to push through bad legislation. There is a subtle, but crucial difference.

One I had hoped you'd understand. Perhaps I was mistaken.

It's logically fallacious to assume that because simply because the republicans acted wrongly when they had the power, the democrats will do so now because they have the power.
As they have not yet done so, this is conjecture on your part.

Haven't done so? Did you see the stimulus bill they passed?

Only democrats voted Yes for the stimulus bill, however both democrats and republicans voted no.


I'm not saying that it's "OK" because the republicans are doing it. I'm saying that it's beyond hypocritical, and into the realm of out and out dishonesty, for the republicans to talk now about how blocking out the minority is a bad thing.


So, its "OK" for the democrats to block out the minority when they come to power after 8 years of talk about how blocking out the minority is wrong?

The republicans shouldn't even be able to argue that blocking the minority is bad, because the Democrats from the get go, shouldn't be doing it. However, they did do it, and they are doing it.

Am I to understand you correctly, that you believed the Democrats were lying when they said it's bad to block the minority, as you believe now that the Republicans are lying when they say it?

To believe that you can demonize the minority, call them traitors, say they are emboldening the enemy, question their patriotism and their motives, link them with terrorists, scorn them, call them things like 'the angry left' and then suddenly whine about how mean they are because they dont let you get your way every single time when theyre suddenly in charge...thats blindness.

This. GODS, this.

I have no idea why the hell is it that Republicans expect Democrats to act as if Republicans were still in the majority after the crap we spent eight fucking years taking.

A WAR was started. Over NOTHING!
PEOPLE were tortured!
The American economy was left in shambles.
Religion was putting its paws on State more and more.
Scientific research was robbed.
Etc. Etc. Et fucking c.

All the while whoever dared question it was tarred and feathered. America-hater. Anti-American. Un-American. Terrorist coddler. Eurotrash. The Angry Left. Too 'Liberal'. Emboldening our enemies. On it FUCKING goes!

Republicans tried to FORBID filibuster when they were a majority, remember? The Democrats aren't doing this, yet Republicans complain. Boo motherfucking Hoo.

And Republicans are criticizing US for not being "nice enough" after the crap we all took? Because of what? Because Democrats are using a majority they have, WITHOUT treating the minority like crap as was done for six years, even though said minority is obstructing for what amounts to shits and giggles? Cry me a river, build a bridge and get over it! The way Republicans are reacting makes me wonder what would happen (besides my joy) if they took EXACTLY what they dished out. Republicans aren't having their patriotism questioned. They aren't being called names or silenced. They're a minority, only that and nothing more. Republicans dished it out a LOT. And now they're complaining as if they were taking it, when they AREN'T. Well, screw them, in the ass, sideways, with a poleaxe!

Haven't done so? Did you see the stimulus bill they passed?

Only democrats voted Yes for the stimulus bill, however both democrats and republicans voted no.The stimulus bill is an excellent example of the Democrats reaching out to the Republicans to try to reach a consensus. It contained more tax breaks than it would ordinarily have if the Democrats had not tried to compromise. If the Democrats intended to be assholes, they wouldn't have bothered to get Republican approval at all.

Yes, Nov 2006 is when the republicans lost control of the congress ... or have you forgotten that fact?

Any legislation that was passed between 2006 and 2008 was done by a Democratic congress and George Bush's lack of veto.

My little nooby friend, op ed peices are not 'proof'. Theyre opinions.

Haven't done so? Did you see the stimulus bill they passed?

Only democrats voted Yes for the stimulus bill, however both democrats and republicans voted no.

Uh, no, there were 3 [that voted in favor]... 2 Republicans and a the Republican spectre of Specter that voted for it.

lern2lernbackgroundinfo

Then you would be wrong.

Most of them lost because of "corruption".

http://www.nysun.com/editorials/why-republicans-lost/43226/

that doesn't say what you would have to think it does for this to make sense.

Only a few wackjobs like yourself believe that the republicans were "running the country into the ground"

the right direction/wrong track numbers over the past decade disagree.

Uh, no, there were 3 [that voted in favor]... 2 Republicans and a the Republican spectre of Specter that voted for it.

lern2lernbackgroundinfoThey voted in favor of overcoming the Republicans' filibuster attempt.
When the bill itself was voted on, they voted against it.

They voted in favor of overcoming the Republicans' filibuster attempt.
When the bill itself was voted on, they voted against it.

orly?

The Senate approved the measure 60-38 with three GOP moderates providing crucial support.

fail.

in fact, hell, don't take MY word for it. Here's the official senate roll call (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=111&session=1&vote=00060). Check how Collins Snowe and Specter voted.

And just in case you try to weasel out of it, note the date, February 10th. That's the actual senate vote. The Motion to Invoke Cloiture was the day before, February 9th, and can be seen here (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=111&session=1&vote=00059). Once again, note the votes of Collins Snowe and Specter.

While Republicans stood united against Obama, 11 Democrats broke with the President. Although there were some concerns about the stimulus plan expressed by progressives -- such as Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-OR), who felt like the spending provisions did not go far enough -- they still voted for the bill because the benefits outweighed the drawbacks. The 11 Democrats who voted no were almost exclusively from conservative districts:

Allan Boyd (D-FL)
Bobby Bright (D-AL)
Jim Cooper (D-TN)
Brad Ellsworth (D-IN)
Parker Griffith (D-AL)
Paul Kanjorski (D-PA)
Frank Kratovil (D-MD)
Walt Minnick (D-ID)
Collin Peterson (D-MN)
Heath Shuler (D-NC)
Gene Taylor (D-MS)

Six of 11 (the italicized names) are members of Blue Dogs Coalition, which expressed concerns about the fiscal impact of the bill. But the Blog Dogs had extracted a pledge from Obama to balance the government's checkbook, enabling most of them to support the economic stimulus plan. As for the others, here were some of the motivating factors.


Fail yourself sir...

I don't have time to go fishing, but at the time, many republicans were upset that Obama said he was listening to them, but really, all he did was make concessions that the right wing democrats wanted, and dictated to the republicans what those "compromises" would be. But really, it was just compromises between the various democratic factions within the house. (hence why 11 of them didn't vote for it)

Firstly, don't use "you", I'm officially registered as "decline to state" because what party somebody belongs to is and should be meaningless (as seen by Arlen switching parties, but being adamant about not switching votes)
It's pretty clear that the "you" Neo Art refers to is not you personally. He ought perhaps to have used "one" for clarity.

Fail yourself sir...

I don't have time to go fishing, but at the time, many republicans were upset that Obama said he was listening to them, but really, all he did was make concessions that the right wing democrats wanted, and dictated to the republicans what those "compromises" would be. But really, it was just compromises between the various democratic factions within the house. (hence why 11 of them didn't vote for it)

Actually, Obama did talk to the Republicans. A lot.

Just the Republican idea of compromise was 'keep doing what we want, the exact same things that got us into this mess'.

I have to say that the only thing stupider than thinking Specter did this for any other reason than hanging onto his Senate seat (HE SAID IT HIMSELF PEOPLE) is the Democratic cheerleading section going "yay, we almost have 60 seats because of Arlen Specter!" No you fucking don't. You have the exact same distribution but now with Specter in a different caucus. He didn't suddenly change his belief system. He never would've abandoned the party if his seat wasn't in danger. He said a few years ago he would never become a Democrat because he is a Republican, but here we are. Both Snow and Collins said basically the same thing today but I will bet your ass if the GOP loses more seats in 2010 or they are threatened with losing their seat in a primary they will put on a Democrat hat and sing the song of "The party left me long ago."

Actually, Obama did talk to the Republicans. A lot.

Just the Republican idea of compromise was 'keep doing what we want, the exact same things that got us into this mess'.

This. Republicans confuse "compromise" with "subjugation" then bitch and moan when Democrats refuse to "compromise" with them - and that is after the Democrats give up billions of dollars in concessions.

Fail yourself sir...

when exactly did I claim that no democrats voted against the stimulus? I never said that.

I might have said no senate democrats did, and they didn't. The fact is, your claim that no republicans voted for the stimulus is factually, demonstrably incorrect. Three did. Your claim that they only voted to invoke cloture, and voted against the stimulus is also factually, demonstrably incorrect. The same three that voted to invoke cloture also voted for the bill directly in the vote that immediately followed. Senators Snowe and Collins from Maine, and Specter from Pennsylvania.

You are correct that a claim of "no democrats voted against the stimulus" is also false. However nobody actually said that. You did say that no republicans voted for it. Twice.

And you were wrong. Both times. You're....um...you're not very good at this, are you?

Your claim that they only voted to invoke cloture, and voted against the stimulus is also factually, demonstrably incorrect.This part was me, not Daganeville.

This part was me, not Daganeville.

...wow, I stand corrected. It sounded like a continuation of his argument. Well...you were both wrong :p

...wow, I stand corrected. It sounded like a continuation of his argument. Well...you were both wrong :pI shouldn't have butted in, but I wanted to counter Christma's snarkiness. :p As it turns out, he had a reason to be snarky.

I shouldn't have butted in, but I wanted to counter Christma's snarkiness. :p As it turns out, he had a reason to be snarky.

heh, sorry for the snap, I'm usually not that quick to respond so harshly, I thought it was a continuation of a bad argument from someone else.

I shouldn't have butted in, but I wanted to counter Christma's snarkiness. :p As it turns out, he had a reason to be snarky.

Pff, you call that snarky? :)

heh, sorry for the snap, I'm usually not that quick to respond so harshly, I thought it was a continuation of a bad argument from someone else.Not a problem, it's easy to get people confused sometimes.

Pff, you call that snarky? :)Heh. I do, but my definition of snarky is fairly broad.

Not a problem, it's easy to get people confused sometimes.

Heh. I do, but my definition of snarky is fairly broad.

It's okay, at least I didn't mistake you. :D

And as a forewarning, me being snarky... when I start cursing like a longshoreman, then I might be snarky. -_-

Holy balls. Now Democrats will have no excuse if they fuck up.

*winces for two years*

Please don't fuck this up.

Hah. Hah. Hah.
*also winces*

Hah. Hah. Hah.
Yes, that is how I laugh.

A WAR was started. Over NOTHING!
PEOPLE were tortured!
The American economy was left in shambles.
Religion was putting its paws on State more and more.
Scientific research was robbed.
Etc. Etc. Et fucking c.

Mmm, to debate or not to debate that is the question.

It's okay, at least I didn't mistake you. :D

And as a forewarning, me being snarky... when I start cursing like a longshoreman, then I might be snarky. -_-You, curse? You probably use the word 'poop' as your main way of referring to fecal matter.

'poop'

:eek:

MY VIRGIN EARS!!!

:eek:

MY VIRGIN EARS!!!

Your ears are virgin? Well, let me solve th*gets shot*

Mmm, to debate or not to debate that is the question.

Unless you enjoy getting ranted at, and...well, suffice it to say that I wouldn't if I were you.