Discussion: The REPUBLICAN Party

[redfirebird2008]

Well, that's a silly thing to bring up. Obama won where it mattered-- his bid for statewide elected office. He lost two primaries, I believe, but he won when he was the nominee. Michael Steele was the party's nominee for Senate and lost by ten points. Certainly not a good sign to elect someone who lost a statewide bid that badly as a party leader... especially after that party was dealt crippling electoral blows for two years in a row...

And George W. Bush lost to my alma mater's chancellor, Kent Hance (a Democrat at the time). Past losses don't really prove anything. I think Steele has the potential to be a good or great leader for the Republicans. And I also think the Democrats will hand over the power without any effort from the Republicans. Simply by driving the economy further into the gutter with these insane spending policies, the Democrats are asking to get ousted from office.

[StorminNorman]

I sincerely hope not Norm.

As do I.

Do I personally like to hear the statement Steele made? No. But I am giving him, as I have with Obama, the benefit of the doubt.

[The Senator]

No not really silly.....our last 2 presidents lost early races......Steele losing just seems in the past as well....

And again, Obama lost a primary election. Not the same as a general election. Bush and Steele lost in the general election. Obama suffered no political repercussions as a result of his losses, whereas the other two did. Bush was able to actually rebound and become governor of Texas, though he used his name as an advantage. Michael Steele hasn't done anything noteworthy since his loss, and was a part of a corrupt, ineffective gubernatorial administration beforehand. If Barack Obama wasn't the Democratic nominee for President and either Clinton or Edwards had won, I doubt the RNC would have chosen him to be their leader.

[Kelly]

Nevermind.......I'm going to get some juice myself.......

[The Senator]

And George W. Bush lost to my alma mater's chancellor, Kent Hance (a Democrat at the time). Past losses don't really prove anything.

Yes, they do. They mean that the candidate obviously didn't do something right on the campaign trail. It means that candidate didn't have the skills necessary to win. It means that candidate couldn't manage his own campaign to a winnable degree.

It took Bush YEARS to rebound from this loss. Years. Michael Steele has been out of office for little over two years and hasn't done anything to repair his image among his former Maryland constituents. And he lost in a state which has a history of electing moderate Republicans like himself, against an opponent with virtually no statewide name recognition. I mean, it doesn't get any more lopsided than that...

[redfirebird2008]

Nevermind.......I'm going to get some juice myself.......

:woot::hehe:

[Kelly]

And again, Obama lost a primary election. Not the same as a general election. Bush and Steele lost in the general election. Obama suffered no political repercussions as a result of his losses, whereas the other two did. Bush was able to actually rebound and become governor of Texas, though he used his name as an advantage. Michael Steele hasn't done anything noteworthy since his loss, and was a part of a corrupt, ineffective gubernatorial administration beforehand. If Barack Obama wasn't the Democratic nominee for President and either Clinton or Edwards had won, I doubt the RNC would have chosen him to be their leader.


Maybe....


But, I'll wait and see what he does.....

[redfirebird2008]

Yes, they do. They mean that the candidate obviously didn't do something right on the campaign trail. It means that candidate didn't have the skills necessary to win. It means that candidate couldn't manage his own campaign to a winnable degree.

It took Bush YEARS to rebound from this loss. Years. Michael Steele has been out of office for little over two years and hasn't done anything to repair his image among his former Maryland constituents. And he lost in a state which has a history of electing moderate Republicans like himself.

And how long did it take Obama? 4 years. I really don't think a past loss is proof of anything. I do think Steele is going to have to change his tactics. You can't use misleading "I'm a Democrat" advertising on a national level. The rest of the Republican Party would be appalled by that kind of behavior, simply because they can't stand what the Democratic Party stands for. He's going to have to run on the issues. And I think he's got the potential to come up with an effective strategy to help the party across the country.

[Kelly]

And as far as Bush, it wasn't like he sat around trying to figure out how to run a campaign.....lmao. He saw his chance for governor, saw that it was the right time, ran a very good campaign.....and won. Maybe all of the above have LEARNED from their past losses. YA NEVA KNOW....

[redfirebird2008]

Maybe all of the above have LEARNED from their past losses. YA NEVA KNOW....

Exactly. I think we should all jump in the "wait and see" boat regarding Steele. He's a smart guy. We'll see if he can put together a really strong strategy for the party across the country. I happen to think he doesn't really need to since I think the Democrats will dig their own grave, but that's a different issue altogether.

[The Senator]

And how long did it take Obama? 4 years. I really don't think a past loss is proof of anything. .

Why don't people ever read my posts?

I mean, is it that hard?

Because I just explained, several posts ago, that Obama ran a primary campaign while holding office. He lost a primary campaign. While holding office.

Which meant he kept the office he was holding at the time. Which meant, he suffered no political repercussions as a result. Which meant, his name stayed in the public spotlight. Which meant, he had time to garner support amongst his constituents for a future election bid.

Etc.

Bush and Steele, meanwhile, lost general elections. They didn't have the liberty of returning to an office, either, after losing their elections. Obama had that luxury.

And it took Bush sixteen years to rebound from his loss.

A general election loss severely injures a politician. Very few can recover. And if they do, it takes considerable time, and a lot of education on that politician's part. Steele hasn't been away from the campaign trail long enough to have recovered from his loss, in my opinion. Obviously not, considering he is still acting the same as he did two years ago.

[The Senator]

Oh, I'm already in the wait and see boat for Michael Steele. The "Wait and See how long it takes for him to completely incinerate the Republican Party" boat.

[redfirebird2008]

Oh, I'm already in the wait and see boat for Michael Steele. The "Wait and See how long it takes for him to completely incinerate the Republican Party" boat.

I'm going to guess that Pelosi and Obama manage to incinerate their own party before Steele has a chance to do such a thing to his. :cwink:

[The Senator]

I'm going to guess that people said Pelosi and Obama would destroy the Democrats' chances of winning in 2008, and... um... they didn't...

[redfirebird2008]

I'm going to guess that people said Pelosi and Obama would destroy the Democrats' chances of winning in 2008, and... um... they didn't...

Obama? Obama hasn't even been part of the government long enough to have an impact. He was a lowly junior Senator for 2 years and then ran for President. And now he is the President, meaning he has a good chance to screw up big time. And thus far with this spending bill, he is proving himself very capable of screwing up big time.

[The Senator]

People said that Obama was a polarizing figure who deeply divided the Democratic Party and made Republicans horrified to vote for him, so he would lose.

People are now saying that Obama and Pelosi will destroy the Democratic Party. I doubt it. Obama's cultural and political image will keep him popular for the foreseeable future, and pending a Depression, which can easily be blamed on Bush, I do not see how Obama is going to destroy the Democratic Party or impair their chances for success in the next election. Especially since the Republicans have limited ground they CAN take from the Democrats, while the Democrats have plenty of ground to take away from the Republicans in several states and congressional districts.

Also, as an addendum to that, the Democrats have been chastised for spending bills before over the past two years and were not only re-elected, but made significant gains in Congress. So history is elusive to your claims.

[redfirebird2008]

People said that Obama was a polarizing figure who deeply divided the Democratic Party and made Republicans horrified to vote for him, so he would lose.

People are now saying that Obama and Pelosi will destroy the Democratic Party. I doubt it. Obama's cultural and political image will keep him popular for the foreseeable future, and pending a Depression, which can easily be blamed on Bush, I do not see how Obama is going to destroy the Democratic Party.

Also, as an addendum to that, the Democrats have been chastised for spending bills before over the past two years and were not only re-elected, but made significant gains in Congress. So history is elusive to your claims.

First of all, who was saying Obama had no shot? The dude was raising so much money and is so charming that he definitely had a damn good shot to win. His main challenge was beating Clinton. Once he did that, he had a very strong shot.

Second of all, if a depression happens, you can bet that Americans will blame it on Obama. The average person in this country has a really short memory when it comes to politics.

Third of all, how big were those spending bills? $1.1 trillion like Obama's bailout and "stimulus" bills?

[The Senator]

Um... you do prove a point about people having short-term memories, considering the previous Congress presided over a trillion dollar bailout bill and a stimulus bill worth several hundred billions of dollars... and the former was only four months ago, while the latter was less than a year ago...

[redfirebird2008]

Um... you do prove a point about people having short-term memories, considering the previous Congress presided over a trillion dollar bailout bill and a stimulus bill worth several hundred billions of dollars... and the former was only four months ago, while the latter was less than a year ago...

With Bush in office, aka both parties taking the blame. The current President and Congress are controlled entirely by the Democrats. The blame will fall entirely on their shoulders.

[The Senator]

Or, the blame will continue to fall on the previous administration. Which is exactly what most people I have been speaking to have been doing. People from all parts of the country, from different political backgrounds, continue to blame Bush for the economic mess. And they will continue to do so, for a very long time. Obama inherited an economic crisis and very few people began to blame him for it. Even with the bickering in Congress right now, Obama holds approval ratings in the 70s. Other presidents have inherited better conditions and started off with worse approval ratings.

I doubt your scenario is likely, let alone plausible given the political climate in this country. It is very much against the Republican Party, and will be for a long time. So much so that even red state voters are rejecting their own politicians, even as the Democrats control all three branches of government. I doubt that the token poster boy Michael Steele will be able to capitalize on any perceivable failure on behalf of the Democrats to propel the Republicans to victory. The Republican Party will not be able to rebound for at least four years. The odds are against them. The country is against them.

They are up **** creek.

[redfirebird2008]

LOL, apparently Steele has a message for Obama: "How do you like me now?" It's apparently in response to the fact that Obama stumped for Steele's Senate campaign opponent in 2006. Kind of funny that he asks this question. Steele's opponent beat him and Obama has since gone on to win the Presidency. Not exactly sure why Steele would expect Obama to somehow be impressed by his appointment to the RNC.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0109/18233.html

[redfirebird2008]

Or, the blame will continue to fall on the previous administration. Which is exactly what most people I have been speaking to have been doing. People from all parts of the country, from different political backgrounds, continue to blame Bush for the economic mess. And they will continue to do so, for a very long time. Obama inherited an economic crisis and very few people began to blame him for it. Even with the bickering in Congress right now, Obama holds approval ratings in the 70s. Other presidents have inherited better conditions and started off with worse approval ratings.

I doubt your scenario is likely, let alone plausible given the political climate in this country. It is very much against the Republican Party, and will be for a long time. So much so that even red state voters are rejecting their own politicians, even as the Democrats control all three branches of government. I doubt that the token poster boy Michael Steele will be able to capitalize on any perceivable failure on behalf of the Democrats to propel the Republicans to victory. The Republican Party will not be able to rebound for at least four years. The odds are against them. The country is against them.

They are up **** creek.

Maybe I'm just in such a red area of the country (Midland, TX) that I'm in a bubble. People here are very angry. I am too, and I consider myself an Obama supporter. The spending is unacceptable and if I'm getting pissed at it, then I can't help but think some of his other supporters are too.

[StorminNorman]

I'm going to guess that people said Pelosi and Obama would destroy the Democrats' chances of winning in 2008, and... um... they didn't...

Pelosi sure did try to destroy the Democrats' chances, luckily Americans care more about a President than a Speaker.

[StorminNorman]

People said that Obama was a polarizing figure who deeply divided the Democratic Party and made Republicans horrified to vote for him, so he would lose.

I didn't hear this at all - especially from Republican circles. I heard this charge aimed at Hillary Clinton, not Obama.

[dnno1]

Yeah how hard can it be to spur growth? Cut income tax, cut capital gains tax and stop the frikkin spending. amirite?

In all seriousness I think this election was the kick the party needed to get back to its conservative roots. There hasn't been much difference between the two in the last 8 years (at least it hasn't felt like it).

Although now that we have a Democrat in the White House we'll see what pork really is.

Apparently the house bill (HR1 (http://www.rules.house.gov/111/LegText/111_hr1_text.pdf)) had tax breaks for work pay, child income credit, an American opportunity tax credit, a first time home buyer credit, and a tax incentive for businesses -- and the Republicans still didn't vote for it. The Republican party has not changed and if you think they are now, or that this past presidential election was the jolt they needed, you better think again. They are just thinking of a way that the can steal away swing voters. Once they do that it will be more of the same.

[redfirebird2008]

I didn't hear this at all - especially from Republican circles. I heard this charge aimed at Hillary Clinton, not Obama.

That's the way I remember it going down too. Hillary had a 55% disapproval rating or something and many (including myself) felt that it would hurt her in a general election whereas Obama was fresh on the scene with a likeable personality.

[Kelly]

Why don't people ever read my posts?

I mean, is it that hard?

Because I just explained, several posts ago, that Obama ran a primary campaign while holding office. He lost a primary campaign. While holding office.

Which meant he kept the office he was holding at the time. Which meant, he suffered no political repercussions as a result. Which meant, his name stayed in the public spotlight. Which meant, he had time to garner support amongst his constituents for a future election bid.

Etc.

Bush and Steele, meanwhile, lost general elections. They didn't have the liberty of returning to an office, either, after losing their elections. Obama had that luxury.

And it took Bush sixteen years to rebound from his loss.

A general election loss severely injures a politician. Very few can recover. And if they do, it takes considerable time, and a lot of education on that politician's part. Steele hasn't been away from the campaign trail long enough to have recovered from his loss, in my opinion. Obviously not, considering he is still acting the same as he did two years ago.

I try....I really do.....but the partisan undertone is kinda hard to stomach these days. I guess I'm just ready for some work to get done, and the who's d*** is bigger type of discussions are getting pretty tiresome.

[Kelly]

Apparently the house bill (HR1 (http://www.rules.house.gov/111/LegText/111_hr1_text.pdf)) had tax breaks for work pay, child income credit, an American opportunity tax credit, a first time home buyer credit, and a tax incentive for businesses -- and the Republicans still didn't vote for it. The Republican party has not changed and if you think they are now, or that this past presidential election was the jolt they needed, you better think again. They are just thinking of a way that the can steal away swing voters. Once they do that it will be more of the same.


Um, it didn't even have the amount of tax cuts that Obama wanted....

So you think "Honey Bee Insurance" is important?

good to know..

[StorminNorman]

I really can't understand why people like j want Steele to fail.

Haven't we all been in agreement that the GOP must become more open to minorities and more moderate on social issues?

This guy is a moderate! This is a guy that DOESN'T support an Amendment on Gay Marriage! This is a guy who was apart of the Republican Leadership Council (an enemy of the social conservatives in party).

No matter what you think about his campaign practices in the past, you should want him to be successful so he has the chance to forward THAT agenda in the Republican Party.

[The Senator]

I didn't hear this at all - especially from Republican circles. I heard this charge aimed at Hillary Clinton, not Obama.

Matt. PUMAS. Former Hillary supporters.

These claims were rampant until the Democratic convention and even later.

[Kelly]

I really can't understand why people like j want Steele to fail.

Haven't we all been in agreement that the GOP must become more open to minorities and more moderate on social issues?

This guy is a moderate! This is a guy that DOESN'T support an Amendment on Gay Marriage! This is a guy who was apart of the Republican Leadership Council (an enemy of the social conservatives in party).

No matter what you think about his campaign practices in the past, you should want him to be successful so he has the chance to forward THAT agenda in the Republican Party.


*sighs*

Well Stormin, when Republicans are dumb asses, and Democrats are the guardians of all that is good.....well these things happen.:cwink:

[redfirebird2008]

I really can't understand why people like j want Steele to fail.

Haven't we all been in agreement that the GOP must become more open to minorities and more moderate on social issues?

This guy is a moderate! This is a guy that DOESN'T support an Amendment on Gay Marriage! This is a guy who was apart of the Republican Leadership Council (an enemy of the social conservatives in party).

No matter what you think about his campaign practices in the past, you should want him to be successful so he has the chance to forward THAT agenda in the Republican Party.

Agreed. Anything that moves the Republicans to the left on social issues like gay marriage is a good thing in my opinion. I'm a fiscal conservative, but I am disgusted by the Republican Party's adherence to right wing social ideas. I wish there could somehow be a combination of the two parties. I know the Libertarians are out there, but they are completely irrelevant unfortunately. I would actually vote for the Republicans if they start getting their act together and recognizing the reality of 21st Century society. Michael Steele would be a step in the right direction. I wish him luck though because he's got a hell of a fight on his hands with the religious right that currently controls the party.

[The Senator]

I really can't understand why people like j want Steele to fail.

Haven't we all been in agreement that the GOP must become more open to minorities and more moderate on social issues?

This guy is a moderate! This is a guy that DOESN'T support an Amendment on Gay Marriage! This is a guy who was apart of the Republican Leadership Council (an enemy of the social conservatives in party).

No matter what you think about his campaign practices in the past, you should want him to be successful so he has the chance to forward THAT agenda in the Republican Party.

I don't want Steele to fail. I think he will fail, given who he is, the campaigns he has run in the past, and the way the public currently perceives the Republican Party.

[StorminNorman]

Matt. PUMAS. Former Hillary supporters.

These claims were rampant until the Democratic convention and even later.

Matt's attacks were of his lack of substance, not his being too extreme. PUMAS and bitter Hildogs can hardly be used as a voice of credibility.

[The Senator]

*sighs*

Well Stormin, when Republicans are dumb asses, and Democrats are the guardians of all that is good.....well these things happen.:cwink:

Yes, that's exactly what I said.

[StorminNorman]

I don't want Steele to fail. I think he will fail, given who he is, the campaigns he has run in the past, and the way the public currently perceives the Republican Party.

And I say we should...I don't know...let the guy have more than one day in office to proclaim him a failure.

[Kelly]

See J.....I was reading your posts........lol

[dnno1]

Um, it didn't even have the amount of tax cuts that Obama wanted....

So you think "Honey Bee Insurance" is important?

good to know..

That's because some of the cuts were not likely to have produced the desired effect. One example was a $3000 tax credit to businesses who hire or retain their workers. some Democratic senators didn't think it was viable because a business more than likely wouldn't hire someone or even retain them if they were not producing (remember demand drives supply not the other way around).

If you look at the bill (http://www.rules.house.gov/111/LegText/111_hr1_text.pdf), it actually says nothing in its 647 pages about honey bee insurance. I think that is just talk for effect.

[StorminNorman]

See J.....I was reading your posts........lol

I wasn't. :o:woot:

[The Senator]

Matt's attacks were of his lack of substance, not his being too extreme. PUMAS and bitter Hildogs can hardly be used as a voice of credibility.

But Redfirebird is the one currently claiming that Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama will receive the bulk of the blame for the economic crisis and will lose future elections. And other posters here-- i.e. Matt, lazur-- have claimed that Pelosi and Obama would harm the Democratic Party and cause them to lose during the elections.

[The Senator]

And I say we should...I don't know...let the guy have more than one day in office to proclaim him a failure.

He's off to a rousing start by claiming that bipartisanship is overrated... yes, when you are the minority party in the federal government, bipartisanship is such an awful thing...

[StorminNorman]

But Redfirebird is the one currently claiming that Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama will receive the bulk of the blame for the economic crisis and will lose future elections. And other posters here-- i.e. Matt, lazur-- have claimed that Pelosi and Obama would harm the Democratic Party and cause them to lose during the elections.

I don't think Red is saying its unavoidable, simply stating that it COULD happen. Respectfully, you have been the one in here talking about how the GOP is completely and utterly hopeless for four years; most everyone else seems to be dealing with possibilities, not certainties.

Now as for Matt and lazur I don't remember word for word their posts so I can't comment.

[StorminNorman]

He's off to a rousing start by claiming that bipartisanship is overrated... yes, when you are the minority party in the federal government, bipartisanship is such an awful thing...

You are looking at the headline and skipping the actual article.

[The Senator]

LOL, apparently Steele has a message for Obama: "How do you like me now?" It's apparently in response to the fact that Obama stumped for Steele's Senate campaign opponent in 2006. Kind of funny that he asks this question. Steele's opponent beat him and Obama has since gone on to win the Presidency. Not exactly sure why Steele would expect Obama to somehow be impressed by his appointment to the RNC.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0109/18233.html

This is what I mean when I say Steele hasn't learned a damn thing since his Senate race. This sort of arrogant, childish behavior seeped from his pores during that race, and he had his ass handed to him. He doesn't have time to be cocky and narcissistic.

[The Senator]

I don't think Red is saying its unavoidable, simply stating that it COULD happen. Respectfully, you have been the one in here talking about how the GOP is completely and utterly hopeless for four years; most everyone else seems to be dealing with possibilities, not certainties.

The Democratic majorities in the House and the Senate are so large that it will indeed take years for the Republicans to regain control of either chamber of Congress. To deny this would be intellectually dishonest.

[StorminNorman]

The Democratic majorities in the House and the Senate are so large that it will indeed take years for the Republicans to regain control of either chamber of Congress. To deny this would be intellectually dishonest.

But not being able to gain control of Congress is not the same as being dead.

Making gains in the House and Senate would be a success - no matter who is Majority.

[redfirebird2008]

The Democratic majorities in the House and the Senate are so large that it will indeed take years for the Republicans to regain control of either chamber of Congress. To deny this would be intellectually dishonest.

Seeing as how there won't be an election for 2 years, you are correct. It will take years for the Republicans to regain any power no matter what they do. It'll be a bare minimum of 2 years and more likely 4 to 6 years. But if Obama's policies keep the country's morale in the gutter, he will get ousted and it's likely the Republicans would take over the Congress too at that point. Obama is far more popular than Congressional Democrats. If his popularity goes down the tubes, then the Congressional Democrats are in even hotter water.

[The Senator]

But not being able to gain control of Congress is not the same as being dead.

Making gains in the House and Senate would be a success - no matter who is Majority.

Did I actually say dead? :huh:

[The Senator]

Seeing as how there won't be an election for 2 years, you are correct. It will take years for the Republicans to regain any power no matter what they do. It'll be a bare minimum of 2 years and more likely 4 to 6 years. But if Obama's policies keep the country's morale in the gutter, he will get ousted and it's likely the Republicans would take over the Congress too at that point. Obama is far more popular than Congressional Democrats. If his popularity goes down the tubes, then the Congressional Democrats are in even hotter water.

Sigh... I obviously mean four to six... and I actually predict six years will pass before the Republicans make significant gains... significant being more than fifteen seats in the House and two in the Senate, as long as they offset Democratic gains...

[StorminNorman]

Did I actually say dead? :huh:

Do you need to?

With comments like "The political environment is against the Republican Party and will be for the next two election cycles." and "Outstanding. The RNC ought to rig up the laugh track, because the next few years are going to be hilarious." it tends to mean the same thing in this business.

[Kelly]

That's because some of the cuts were not likely to have produced the desired effect. One example was a $3000 tax credit to businesses who hire or retain their workers. some Democratic senators didn't think it was viable because a business more than likely wouldn't hire someone or even retain them if they were not producing (remember demand drives supply not the other way around).

If you look at the bill (http://www.rules.house.gov/111/LegText/111_hr1_text.pdf), it actually says nothing in its 647 pages about honey bee insurance. I think that is just talk for effect.


So you read all 647 pages? wow....I'm impressed beyond words, beyond amazement, beyond belief....

[Marx]

I think this thread is starting to give me a headache.

[The Senator]

Do you need to?

With comments like "The political environment is against the Republican Party and will be for the next two election cycles" and "Outstanding. The RNC ought to rig up the laugh track, because the next few years are going to be hilarious." it tends to mean the same thing in this business.

No... all that means is that you enjoy putting words in my mouth, rather than discussing what I actually said.

And you cannot take from those two statements that I claimed the Republicans were dead, given that 1) the first statement was analytical of the current political situation in the country, and 2) the second statement was commentary on how abysmal Michael Steele is as an established politician and a prediction of what to expect from him as the leader of the RNC.

Nowhere did I say the Republicans were dead.

[dnno1]

So you read all 647 pages? wow....I'm impressed beyond words, beyond amazement, beyond belief....

That's what the keyword search feature is for.

[Kelly]

Can you please check to see if there is a cut from 35% to 25% in corporate taxes for me please....I would actually like to see some jobs created that aren't just building bridges, but will actually last for awhile.....thanks...

[The Senator]

Given that our infrastructure is in such poor condition, infrastructure repair jobs will last quite a while...

[StorminNorman]

No... all that means is that you enjoy putting words in my mouth, rather than discussing what I actually said.

And you cannot take from those two statements that I claimed the Republicans were dead, given that 1) the first statement was analytical of the current political situation in the country, and 2) the second statement was commentary on how abysmal Michael Steele is as an established politician and a prediction of what to expect from him as the leader of the RNC.

Nowhere did I say the Republicans were dead.

The first was an analytical statement of the current political situation and assuming it stayed true for years - which you can't do. Things can change, and change quickly.

Abysmal is gross hyperbole. He lost one election, in a state that favored a DemocratIC candidate. Lets not pretend that this guy lost a race in Alabama.

[redfirebird2008]

Things can change, and change quickly.

This is exactly how I look at it. After the '04 elections, Republicans felt they would keep winning for a long time. It quickly turned around on them. And it can just as easily turn around in a hurry on the Democrats.

[The Senator]

The first was an analytical statement of the current political situation and assuming it stayed true for years - which you can't do. Things can change, and change quickly.

I am using my knowledge of trends and political behavior to make a prediction, and unless the Republicans are poised to make the biggest political comeback in American history in two years in a highly polarized political environment, defying current voter trends which have been expanding since the 2004 elections, while also defying previous voter trends and alignment periods which usually last at least three election cycles, I can truly say that it will take several election cycles for the Republican Party to make significant gains in the House and the Senate.


Abysmal is gross hyperbole. He lost one election, in a state that favored a DemocratIC candidate. Lets not pretend that this guy lost a race in Alabama.

You would have a point if Maryland didn't have a history of electing moderate Republicans to statewide offices... in fact, Steele was Lt. Governor under a moderate Republican... and, your point would be further buoyed if Steele hadn't led Cardin in multiple polls at the beginning of the Senate race...

[Kelly]

Given that our infrastructure is in such poor condition, infrastructure repair jobs will last quite a while...

In Texas they last forever........but I doubt that a man or woman that has a master's degree in chemistry, really wants to work on roads....that is not their area of study, and they probably wouldn't be very good at it....:yay:....SO, do I think we need money to go to infrastructure....that would be a duh.....but do I think that is going to get us out of this **** we are in........no, and history shows us it doesn't either.....

[The Senator]

This is exactly how I look at it. After the '04 elections, Republicans felt they would keep winning for a long time. It quickly turned around on them. And it can just as easily turn around in a hurry on the Democrats.

The Republicans had a 232-201 seat majority in the House and a 55-45 majority in the Senate during the 109th Congress.

The Democrats currently hold a 257-178 majority in the House and a 59-41 majority in the Senate, the 111th Congress.

Now, I'm no mathematician, but I do not see how the Republicans will be able to reasonably gain 10 seats in the Senate and over 40 seats in the House in one election cycle to regain control of either chamber of Congress, when the political environment they face is currently against them in the states and districts up for election in 2010...

[Sebastos]

I think this thread is starting to give me a headache.

The Republican Party gives me a headache. :o

[Kelly]

The Republican Party gives me a headache. :o


Partisanship makes me want to puke.....beatcha....:o

[dnno1]

Can you please check to see if there is a cut from 35% to 25% in corporate taxes for me please....I would actually like to see some jobs created that aren't just building bridges, but will actually last for awhile.....thanks...

I didn't see anything like that. What I did see was that you get a 35% credit on the interest paid on a governmental bond option or on a qualified bond issued before 2011, but nothing specifically tied to a business getting a 25-35% tax credit.

[redfirebird2008]

The Republican Party gives me a headache. :o

Both parties give me a headache.

[dnno1]

The Republicans had a 232-201 seat majority in the House and a 55-45 majority in the Senate during the 109th Congress.

The Democrats currently hold a 257-178 majority in the House and a 59-41 majority in the Senate, the 111th Congress.

Now, I'm no mathematician, but I do not see how the Republicans will be able to reasonably gain 10 seats in the Senate and over 40 seats in the House in one election cycle to regain control of either chamber of Congress, when the political environment they face is currently against them in the states and districts up for election in 2010...

If Judd Gregg (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-obama-commerce1-2009feb01,0,7197628.story?track=rss) takes the commerce secretary position, it could very well be a 60-40 majority in the senate.

[Sebastos]

Partisanship makes me want to puke.....beatcha....:o

Don't betcha me missy. :hehe:

Both parties give me a headache.

To each their own. :o

[chesslover]

The media runs the country.

[Kelly]

Don't betcha me missy. :hehe:



:bow:

[The Overlord]

Im fairly sure if Coulter was allowed to "teach" (I use the term very loosely) the class would probably be full of blazer and brown loafer wearing Young Republicans

The problem is she is a media whore not a teacher, she doesn't have the skills to teach a class, I wouldn't put Slander on a shelf with a book written by a real professor.

[Sebastos]

:ninja:

[Marx]

STEELE: THE GOP DOES NOT HAVE A MESSAGE PROBLEM
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/01/steele-the-gop-does-not-h_n_162896.html

RNC Chairman Michael Steele took to the Sunday talk show circuit for the first time since he was elected to the post. And while he pledged to help restore the Republican Party to a more powerful perch, he outlined a game plan that seemed reminiscent of years past.

Pressed by Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace, Steele diagnosed the GOP ills as a problem of the messenger but not the message -- he even suggested that the party should look back to New Gingrich's Contract With America for inspiration.

"We failed to lead," said the former Lt. Maryland Governor. "The principles we espoused [in 1994] are still true and good today and that's not what people moved away from us for. They moved away from us because we behaved badly. We came to Washington and we became like the people we were sent here to replace. And they replaced us."

That mindset extended itself throughout the conversation on policy and politics, where Steele did little to distance himself from the issues that defined the GOP's poor showing in recent elections. He put forward Gov. Sarah Palin's name -- among others -- as the future of Republican leadership. And on immigration, he pledged "no change in the position on the party..."

I have no words. :dry:

[Kelly]

Whatever you may think of Newt.....he, the House and Clinton balanced the budget....

[Marx]

Whatever you may think of Newt.....he, the House and Clinton balanced the budget....

I cannot stand Newt Gingrich. All that aside though, I find it incredibly disturbing that Steele is choosing to take the route that he is. Coming out saying that 'bipartisanship is overrated' and now saying that 'the GOP doesn't have a message problem'? Adding onto that this notion that Sarah Palin should be the future of the party? Is this guy deaf, dumb, and blind?

[Kelly]

I cannot stand Newt Gingrich. All that aside though, I find it incredibly disturbing that Steele is choosing to take the route that he is. Coming out saying that 'bipartisanship is overrated' and now saying that 'the GOP doesn't have a message problem'? Adding onto that this notion that Sarah Palin should be the future of the party? Is this guy deaf, dumb, and blind?

No Marx, apparently the Republican Party is, because the majority in that party, would tell you the exact same thing.....agree with it or not.....that is how they believe.

Even though McCain didn't run like it......he was the face of a new party, that began in 2000. He lost.....and that is all they see and remember from McCain.

[Marx]

No Marx, apparently the Republican Party is, because the majority in that party, would tell you the exact same thing.....agree with it or not.....that is how they believe.

Even though McCain didn't run like it......he was the face of a new party, that began in 2000. He lost.....and that is all they see and remember from McCain.

That line of thinking is what has cost them so severely in the past two election cycles. If they don't recognize that soon, they will continue to suffer.

[Kelly]

That line of thinking is what has cost them so severely in the past two election cycles. If they don't recognize that soon, they will continue to suffer.


Exactly, but you can't slam the guy for simply saying what his party wants to hear.......what I would like to see, is him get some balls and start saying what the party needs to hear. I dont want them to throw everything out......you may hate Newt, but I for one as a fiscal conservative, enjoyed his leadership.....as a social liberal, not so much.:cwink:

[Marx]

Exactly, but you can't slam the guy for simply saying what his party wants to hear.......what I would like to see, is him get some balls and start saying what the party needs to hear. I dont want them to throw everything out......you may hate Newt, but I for one as a fiscal conservative, enjoyed his leadership.....as a social liberal, not so much.:cwink:

This guy wasn't elected to stroke the GOP's ego. He was elected to be 'the new face of the GOP'. And you WILL NOT gain any positive ground when your 'new face' is the same as the old face that has hurt you so badly.

After the witchhunt that Gingrich lead against Clinton, all the while participating in his own extracurriculars, that man can take a flying leap for all I care. But that's an entirely different debate.

[Kelly]

This guy wasn't elected to stroke the GOP's ego. He was elected to be 'the new face of the GOP'. And you WILL NOT gain any positive ground when your 'new face' is the same as the old face that has hurt you so badly.

After the witchhunt that Gingrich lead against Clinton, all the while participating in his own extracurriculars, that man can take a flying leap for all I care. But that's an entirely different debate.


What? WHO THE HELL ELECTED HIM? Not the new faces, the OLD FOGGIES...

Well, there are some things that I still question about Obama....still not clear on....but I'm there with him. I guess I kind of look at it the way the Senate does.....some of Obama's have alot of ????????? in their vetting, but they still may be what we need. I don't know....and Clinton was a sleeze, doesn't mean he wasn't a damn good president.

[Kelly]

And then I'd show up to class late, and fall asleep in the back row


Oh please, you probably do that with all classes.:o:cwink:

[Marx]

What? WHO THE HELL ELECTED HIM? Not the new faces, the OLD FOGGIES...

Well, there are some things that I still question about Obama....still not clear on....but I'm there with him. I guess I kind of look at it the way the Senate does.....some of Obama's have alot of ????????? in their vetting, but they still may be what we need. I don't know....and Clinton was a sleeze, doesn't mean he wasn't a damn good president.

I know who he was elected by, but he was arguably the most moderate candidate out there. If the GOP elected him on the basis that he wouldn't break rank, then that tells me certain traits that Steele has were a qualifying factor in his election. I guess wanting to appear different goes further than actually wanting to improve the problems within the party.

[Kelly]

I know who he was elected by, but he was arguably the most moderate candidate out there. If the GOP elected him on the basis that he wouldn't break rank, then that tells me certain traits that Steele has were a qualifying factor in his election. I guess wanting to appear different goes further than actually wanting to improve the problems within the party.

I don't know......ya know, I voted for Obama hoping that his campaigning in black and white, will turn to gray when he starts governing....so we shall see....

[hippie_hunter]

STEELE: THE GOP DOES NOT HAVE A MESSAGE PROBLEM
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/01/steele-the-gop-does-not-h_n_162896.html



I have no words. :dry:

Steele is right to a certain extent. The Contract to America is what got Republicans elected in the 90's. The Republicans do need to sit down think what works and what doesn't just like they did after they lost to Clinton.

[Addendum]

Only with the ones at 7:35 in the AM. I'm not much of a morning people.

But I still graduated

[Kelly]

Only with the ones at 7:35 in the AM. I'm not much of a morning people.

But I still graduated


Well hey, the word "graduated"....is the most important word in that post....:yay:

[mclay18]

No it wouldn't, it would be full of liberal *******s ready to tear her apart....just to do it, not to have great debate...and yes there would be a few young republicans in there screaming to the president....and then the one guy screaming...."don't taze me bro'"...

The thing is, Coulter needs to adapt to the times rather than adopting the same old schtick. I would quite happily argue with Coulter about politics and crap, but she does have a tendency to interrupt people when she's being interviewed or asked questions.

And another thing is that when people call her out on her "facts," she tries to get around it and turn them into opinions. Cue that recent interview with Matt Lauer on NBC (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ikTcXy0wAxw), for example.

[DACrowe]

I just watched her interview with Lauer. She was so completely deranged and full of ****. Constantly playing victim (after criticizing the vague "Left" of doing so) to drum up book sales. Every question Lauer asked her she dodged to take shots at supposed attacks on her from Lauer when he was simply trying to get her to answer a ****ing question.

Nothing new in short. The only surprising thing was seeing how many right wing nutjobs were on youtube praising her for her "interview." ugh.

[PyroChamber]

I bet Matt Lauer just dreads whenever he has to talk to this *****. Like if finds out that she's on the show he goes "oh crap".

[Kelly]

I bet Matt Lauer just dreads whenever he has to talk to this *****. Like if finds out that she's on the show he goes "oh crap".


Yeah, cause he just hates huge ratings......I bet he cries all the way home.

[chaseter]

Ann Coulter looks like a Dementor from Harry Potter:o same hands....

[BlackLantern]

Yeah, cause he just hates huge ratings......I bet he cries all the way home.

I think Lauers probably ****ed her.....at least once....I know Bill Maher has

[Kelly]

:huh::huh:

[Sebastos]

I think Lauers probably ****ed her.....at least once....I know Bill Maher has

:huh:

It would be an insult to the under muscle. :o

[Kelly]

*sighs*....I wonder if this statement would have been made if Hannity had been interviewed by a woman reporter.

[redfirebird2008]

*sighs*....I wonder if this statement would have been made if Hannity had been interviewed by a woman reporter.

Yes, we live in a sexist society. Deal with it. :p

[BlackLantern]

Yea...now go make me a sammich...!!! kidding,kidding

[redfirebird2008]

Yea...now go make me a sammich...!!! kidding,kidding

How about some blueberry pancakes?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ppOyEbYVi0A

:woot:

[Hypestyle]

Newsweek article on Michael Steele's selection for the RNC:
http://www.newsweek.com/id/182881

...hmm.. wonder what his recruitment vision is, and if it will have any practical traction...

[chaseter]

I win! The Repubs are enacting their out with the old and white and in the with the young and diverse to try and win back their dominance. I wonder if he was part of the meetings in which they said we need a minority to head up our organization or if he just got the call.

[sinewave]

I win! The Repubs are enacting their out with the old and white and in the with the young and diverse to try and win back their dominance. I wonder if he was part of the meetings in which they said we need a minority to head up our organization or if he just got the call.

are we going to hear a song called "michael the magic negro" on rush limbaugh's show now?

[mclay18]

Ann's target of the week: how smoking is less harmful than being a single mother --

SECONDHAND CHILDREN
February 4, 2009


It's been weeks since the last one, so on Sunday, The New York Times Magazine featured yet another cheery, upbeat article on single mothers. As with all its other promotional pieces on single motherhood over the years, the Times followed a specific formula to make this social disaster sound normal, blameless and harmless -- even brave.

These single motherhood advertisements include lots of conclusory statements to the effect that this is simply the way things are -- so get used to it, bourgeois America! "(A)n increasing number of unmarried mothers," the article explained, "look a lot more like Fran McElhill and Nancy Clark -- they are college-educated, and they are in their 30s, 40s and 50s."

Why isn't the number of smokers treated as a fait accompli that the rest of us just have to accept? Smoking causes a lot less damage and the harm befalls the person who chooses to smoke, not innocent children.

The Times' single motherhood endorsements always describe single mothers as the very picture of middle-class normality: "She grew up in blue-collar Chester County, Pa., outside Philadelphia, and talks like a local girl (long O's). Her father was a World War II vet who worked for a union and took his kids to Mass most Sundays." Even as a girl she dreamed of raising a baby with a 50 percent greater chance of growing up in poverty.

How about some articles on all the nice middle-class smokers whose fathers served in World War II and took them to Mass? Only when describing aberrant social behavior do Times writers even recognize what normality is, much less speak of it admiringly.

According to hysterical anti-smoking zealots at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, smoking costs the nation $92 billion a year in "lost productivity." (Obviously these conclusions were produced by people who not only have never smoked, but also don't know any smokers, who could have told them smoking makes us 10 times more productive.)

Meanwhile, single motherhood costs taxpayers about $112 billion every year, according to a 2008 study by Georgia State University economist Benjamin Scafidi.

Smoking has no causal relationship to crime, has little effect on others and -- let's be honest -- looks cool. Controlling for income, education and occupation, it causes about 200,000 deaths per year, mostly of people in their 70s.

Single motherhood, by contrast, directly harms children, occurs at a rate of about 1.5 million a year and has a causal relationship to criminal behavior, substance abuse, juvenile delinquency, sexual victimization and almost every other social disorder.

If a pregnant woman smokes or drinks, we blame her. But if a woman decides to have a fatherless child, we praise her as brave -- even though the outcome for the child is much worse.

Thus, the Times writes warmly of single mothers, always including an innocent explanation: "Many of these women followed a similar and familiar pattern in having their first child: They planned to marry, found they hadn't by their 30s, looked some more and then decided to have a child without a husband." At which point, a stork showed up with their babies.

So apparently, single motherhood could happen to anyone!

How about: These smokers followed a similar and familiar pattern, they planned never to start smoking, found themselves working long nights at the law firm and then decided to have a cigarette to stay alert.

Then there is the Times' reversal of cause and effect, which manages to exonerate the single mother while turning her into a victim: "The biggest reason that children born to unmarried mothers tend to have problems -- they're more likely to drop out of school and commit crimes -- is that they tend to grow up poor."

First, the reason the children "tend to grow up poor" is that their mothers considered it unnecessary to have a primary bread-earner in the family.

Second, the Times simply made up the fact that poverty, rather than single motherhood, causes anti-social behavior in children. Poverty doesn't cause crime -- single mothers do. If poverty caused crime, how did we get Bernie Madoff?

Studies -- including one by the liberal Progressive Policy Institute -- have shown that controlling for factors such as poverty and socioeconomic status, single motherhood accounts for the entire difference in black and white crime rates.

The Times' claim that poverty is the "biggest reason" for the problems of illegitimate children is on the order of claiming that the biggest reason that smokers develop heart disease and lung cancer is not because they smoke, but because they tend to work so hard. It's a half-baked, wishful-thinking theory contradicted by all known evidence. Other than that, it holds up pretty well.

Finally, the Times produced an imaginary statistic that is valid only in the sense that no study has specifically disproved it yet. "No one has shown," the Times triumphantly announced, "that there are similar risks for the children of college-educated single mothers by choice."

No one has shown that there are similar risks for smokers who run marathons, either. There are probably about as many college graduate single mothers by choice (7 percent) as there are smokers who run marathons. And, unlike single mothers, smokers who run marathons look really cool.

If the establishment media wrote about smoking the way they write about unwed motherhood, I think people would notice that they seem oddly hellbent on destroying as many lives as possible.

What is this woman trying to prove?

[sinewave]

Ann's target of the week: how smoking is less harmful than being a single mother --



What is this woman trying to prove?

i knew it! single moms are the cause of everything bad in the world! :cmad:

[Paradoxium]

Ann's target of the week: how smoking is less harmful than being a single mother --



What is this woman trying to prove?She can make a lot of money by blatantly and gratuitously pissing people off.

Something deliciously evil and comedic about that :woot::up:

[chaseter]

i knew it! single moms are the cause of everything bad in the world! :cmad:
I was once affected by a friend's crazy single mom...it is called "Secondhand Single Mom.":o

[sinewave]

I was once affected by a friend's crazy single mom...it is called "Secondhand Single Mom.":o

tragic.

[chaseter]

I hear it is even worse if they are in fact what some may call: M.I.L.F.s

[sinewave]

I hear it is even worse if they are in fact what some may call: M.I.L.F.s

ahhh, the rarest of species...

[Paradoxium]

There is like an unofficial law in the dating world for men. Never ever date single mothers, potential baggage is not worth it. The only exception to the rule is if she is widowed or something. If they ask you out, start acting like a nice guy to deter them or something. :woot:

[BlackLantern]

There is like an unofficial law in the dating world for men. Never ever date single mothers, potential baggage is not worth it. The only exception to the rule is if she is widowed or something. If they ask you out, start acting like a nice guy to deter them or something. :woot:

Co-signed.....some guys do break this law because they are lonely, but then you are subject to having your Man Card revoked

[chaseter]

Anne Coulter's hands look like the face huggers on Alien:o

[Handsome Rob]

There is like an unofficial law in the dating world for men. Never ever date single mothers, potential baggage is not worth it. The only exception to the rule is if she is widowed or something. If they ask you out, start acting like a nice guy to deter them or something. :woot:

I actually do know a single mother that doesn't appear to be loaded with baggage. I loved being around her, and I would date her if she were interested. But, she thinks I'm a nice guy, so . . . deterred without me actually even trying. :o

[The Senator]

Maybe the future of the Republican Party lies with them taking their cues from a terrorist organization. Or at least, that's what one of the top-ranking Republicans thinks:


Sessions: House GOP learning from the Taliban
Politico

The House GOP was having a great week ... until Pete Sessions, their new fundraising director, told Hotline editors his conference was taking its cues from insurgents — like the Taliban.

We're talking about a major new Democratic talking point here, folks. Major.

"Insurgency, we understand perhaps a little bit more because of the Taliban," Sessions said during a meeting yesterday with Hotline editors. "And that is that they went about systematically understanding how to disrupt and change a person's entire processes. And these Taliban — I'm not trying to say the Republican Party is the Taliban. No, that's not what we're saying. I'm saying an example of how you go about [sic] is to change a person from their messaging to their operations to their frontline message. And we need to understand that insurgency may be required when the other side, the House leadership, does not follow the same commands, which we entered the game with."

DCCC Chairman Chris Van Hollen seized the opportunity, saying he was "shocked" — although he was probably also a wee bit delighted.

“NRCC Chairman Pete Sessions’ remark comparing his own party’s tactics during the economic recovery debate to those of a terrorist group in Afghanistan is truly shocking. While House Republican leaders profess to seek bipartisanship, they are comparing their tactics to the violent tactics used by the Taliban insurgency. NRCC Chairman Sessions should put partisanship aside and join our fight to urgently turn our economy around and get Americans working again.”

[Malice]

I have heard Steele talk if I remember correctly...I like him
(granted there has only been 1 or 2 times I have heard him speak on the TV)

[Marx]

Maybe the future of the Republican Party lies with them taking their cues from a terrorist organization. Or at least, that's what one of the top-ranking Republicans thinks:

I heard about that...

*shakes head*

[Marx]

I just read an article about RNC Chairman Steele suggesting the 'power' has gone to the Democrats' heads. Am I the only one who finds it funny that Republicans are accusing Democrats of a power trip?

Pot meet Kettle.

[Kelly]

I just read an article about RNC Chairman Steele suggesting the 'power' has gone to the Democrats' heads. Am I the only one who finds it funny that Republicans are accusing Democrats of a power trip?

Pot meet Kettle.


It certainly is the Pot calling the Kettle black, but it doesn't mean its wrong. I think the power has gone to the Democrats heads in the House, at least.....not sure on the Senate yet. And I don't see that with Obama.......but he's certainly not wrong, IMO.

[Marx]

It certainly is the Pot calling the Kettle black, but it doesn't mean its wrong. I think the power has gone to the Democrats heads in the House, at least.....not sure on the Senate yet. And I don't see that with Obama.......but he's certainly not wrong, IMO.

I think House Democrats are certainly appearing to have a power trip. (Though I blame a certain Democratic speaker for that.)

I have not seen a power trip within the Senate or with President Obama. (At least not yet.)

[Kelly]

I think House Democrats are certainly appearing to have a power trip. (Though I blame a certain Democratic speaker for that.)

I have not seen a power trip within the Senate or with President Obama. (At least not yet.)


Well, the fact that there is actually debate on the floor of the Senate, that tells me alot. Whereas Pelosi allowed barely an hour on the House floor before the vote there.

Everyone already knows how I feel about Pelosi, so I won't go there.


I would like to see Obama move away from the rhetoric I heard from him yesterday, and not keep looking at this as a "we (Democrats) want to do something, Republicans don't" type of talk, because thats just not it.......

*sighs*
I'll wait to see what the Senate has put together, and go from there.

[Marx]

Well, the fact that there is actually debate on the floor of the Senate, that tells me alot. Whereas Pelosi allowed barely an hour on the House floor before the vote there.

Everyone already knows how I feel about Pelosi, so I won't go there.


I would like to see Obama move away from the rhetoric I heard from him yesterday, and not keep looking at this as a "we (Democrats) want to do something, Republicans don't" type of talk, because thats just not it.......

*sighs*
I'll wait to see what the Senate has put together, and go from there.

I'm right there with ya.

[souvlaki]

COULTER UNDER INVESTIGATION

The Daily News reports today that Connecticut’s Elections Enforcement Commission is investigating right-wing author and provocateur Ann Coulter to determine if she violated election law by voting in Connecticut while living in New York City.

The News notes that Coulter's voting issues were first raised on WebOfDeception.com, a site run by private eye Joe Culligan, with a complaint filed by Coulterwatch.com blogger Dan Borchers.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/michaelcalderone/0209/Report_Coulter_under_investigation.html

Best news I've heard all day.

[Kelly]

Did she vote in both Connecticut and New York, or just one....


If just one......meh......who cares. If both, then its a story.

[souvlaki]

Did she vote in both Connecticut and New York, or just one....


If just one......meh......who cares. If both, then its a story.

I do if she's a resident of NY. We have voting laws for a reason. People can't pick and choose what state they vote in. Even if nothing comes about from this the hypocrite deserves the criticism given that she was crying "ACORN" on a consistent basis during the general election.

[Kelly]

Meh......won't be much of a story....I'd rather she voted in both, and really get her good. She'll probably get out of this....

[souvlaki]

Meh......won't be much of a story....I'd rather she voted in both, and really get her good. She'll probably get out of this....

I don't know that she will. It wasn't that she was simply living in NY, but was registered in CT. She was both living and registered in NY. And apparently this isn't the first time she's done this. She voted in the wrong precinct in FL in 2006 as well.

[Kelly]

She needs a map...

[souvlaki]

She needs a map...

lol. The thing is, I doubt it was a simple mistake. I'd wager it probably had something to do with congressional races in the districts she voted in. She's an idiot, but with the amount of energy she spends yelling about ACORN and voter fraud I'd imagine she at least has some idea of what the voter registration laws in this country are.

[The Overlord]

She can make a lot of money by blatantly and gratuitously pissing people off.

Something deliciously evil and comedic about that :woot::up:

So she's a media whore?

[souvlaki]

I think that goes without saying...

[redfirebird2008]

lol. The thing is, I doubt it was a simple mistake. I'd wager it probably had something to do with congressional races in the districts she voted in. She's an idiot, but with the amount of energy she spends yelling about ACORN and voter fraud I'd imagine she at least has some idea of what the voter registration laws in this country are.

Yeah she's an idiot and a hypocrite, but for some reason I just don't care at all about this issue. She's completely irrelevant at this point anyway.

[chaseter]

So she's a media whore?
Minus the media part:wow: That is how she feeds:o

[The Senator]

With overwhelming majorities in both the House and the Senate, after spending fourteen years in either the minority or with slim leads in both chambers, it makes perfect sense for the Democrats to go on a power trip. It may not work out in their favor in the end, but for the next two to four years, they are in charge, and there is little room for the Republicans to expect any favors in the process.

Of course, I don't think the Democrats are on a power trip. They are proposing and passing legislation in order to advance the President's agenda... which is exactly what the Republican Party did in 2001, after Bush was inaugurated...

[Kelly]

The problem is Jman, I don't see bipartisanship as "favors".....I see it as "how it should be" and "how the American people want it".

The "we have power now, and so we are going to do it our way, because ya'll were mean to us for so long"????? that is childish dribble, and Americans are tired of it.

THAT is why the Congress has a 12% approval rating, because of **** like that....

At this point, I don't give a damn about the last whatever years......I'm looking at RIGHT NOW, and what is going to happen the NEXT 4 YEARS....and if every argument ends up, "well the Republicans did it....." then nothing is going to "change" in the next 4 years. Both parties are ****ed up, and Americans just want it fixed.....you point a finger at someone, only means 3 are pointed back at you.....there is enough blame to go around, and I'm tired of the blame game. I'm ready for the adults to take over.

[Matt]

With overwhelming majorities in both the House and the Senate, after spending fourteen years in either the minority or with slim leads in both chambers, it makes perfect sense for the Democrats to go on a power trip. It may not work out in their favor in the end, but for the next two to four years, they are in charge, and there is little room for the Republicans to expect any favors in the process.

Of course, I don't think the Democrats are on a power trip. They are proposing and passing legislation in order to advance the President's agenda... which is exactly what the Republican Party did in 2001, after Bush was inaugurated...

So by all means, lets keep the never ending cycle of petty bickering going because "they pushed us first." :whatever:

[The Senator]

The problem is Jman, I don't see bipartisanship as "favors".....I see it as "how it should be" and "how the American people want it".

The American people just voted overwhelmingly to elect Barack Obama as President of the United States, while giving the boot to 20 Republican Congressmen and seven Republican Senators. The country as a whole became more Democratic, with the Bible Belt being the only region of the country which voted more Republican than it did four years ago. I think the American people want Democratic policies and programs enacted, not bipartisanship for the sake of bipartisanship. If they wanted that, then the Republican Party wouldn't have suffered as many losses as it had.


THAT is why the Congress has a 12% approval rating, because of **** like that....

No. Congress has a 12% approval rating because it has been unable to pass important legislation for several years, because the Republican Party has spent time filibustering legislation and holding votes on bills. Without the ability to pass important legislation, Congress cannot make a difference; and if Congress cannot make a difference, then the American people tend to disapprove. For that, you can blame the Republicans, who were too busy fellating the legacy of George W. Bush to remain in touch with the demands of the average voter.

Also, most Americans don't know how our government works, and expect legislation to come out of the chamber the second these guys get elected. It doesn't work that way. It takes time, consensus building... and when there are so many problems facing the country, the swift passage of important legislation is almost impossible. And it is especially impossible when you have four or five Republicans fillibustering every piece of legislation because it contains liberal policy ideals. Hopefully, once this stimulus bill is passed, the Democrats can move on to other matters which won't be as divisive as this.


At this point, I don't give a damn about the last whatever years......I'm looking at RIGHT NOW, and what is going to happen the NEXT 4 YEARS....and if every argument ends up, "well the Republicans did it....." then nothing is going to "change" in the next 4 years. Both parties are ****ed up, and Americans just want it fixed.....you point a finger at someone, only means 3 are pointed back at you.....there is enough blame to go around, and I'm tired of the blame game. I'm ready for the adults to take over.

Well, if you are unwilling to analyze the past, then you can't really speak on this subject. In order to know whether a governing body has been effective or not, you need to analyze past legislative sessions-- including WHY legislation didn't pass, why bills were tabled, why the majority party had to yield to the minority, etc. And the WHY for most of these answers revolves entirely around the Republican Party, and more specifically, the Republicans in the Senate who tabled legislation, placed holds on legislation, and fillibustered legislation so they could prove a point. And the legislation which experienced these tables, holds, and fillibusters happened to be legislation the American people supported.

You also had a Republican President who vetoed legislation regularly because it was proposed and passed by Democrats.

The adults are in charge right now... but the same seventy-year-old children who throw temper tantrums and threaten to sit in the middle of the doorway kicking and screaming unless someone pays attention to them are at it again...

[The Senator]

So by all means, lets keep the never ending cycle of petty bickering going because "they pushed us first." :whatever:

Nope, not at all what I said...

[Kelly]

I'm sorry Jman....lol, but I'm reading blah, blah, blah, I'm a Democrat, blah, blah, blah. I'm trying to read it in a different way, but that is what comes up.

I'll try back later.....


And I promise, I will read it again, and see if I get another vibe from it.

[redfirebird2008]

Senator,

Congress has had an abysmal approval rating for a long time. It's not just a case of Republicans filibustering. When Republicans were in control of Congress, it had a terrible approval rating even with a Republican President on their side.

[redfirebird2008]

Senator,

Congress has had an abysmal approval rating for a long time. It's not just a case of Republicans filibustering. When Republicans were in control of Congress, it had a terrible approval rating even with a Republican President on their side.

[Matt]

I'm sorry Jman....lol, but I'm reading blah, blah, blah, I'm a Democrat, blah, blah, blah. I'm trying to read it in a different way, but that is what comes up.

I'll try back later.....


And I promise, I will read it again, and see if I get another vibe from it.

:lmao:

[redfirebird2008]

I'm sorry Jman....lol, but I'm reading blah, blah, blah, I'm a Democrat, blah, blah, blah. I'm trying to read it in a different way, but that is what comes up.

I'll try back later.....


And I promise, I will read it again, and see if I get another vibe from it.

LOL, that's how it comes across to me as well.

[Paradoxium]

80% (of 300,000 million) of the American population are registered voters. About 64% voted, roughly 52% voted for Obama. That's only about like what, my math is rusty, 27% support for Mr. Obama? Less than a third of America is for Obama. I wouldn't call that overwhelming support....

[Kelly]

:lmao:


Shut up.....lol..................I'm being serious......

I know as I was reading I had the same look on my face that my students get sometimes...It's that look, that when I see it I'm thinking..."oh no, they are hearing Charlie Brown's teacher...." so I just stop, and we start the next day with fresh eyes and ears.

I know damn good and well that Jman said more than what I was reading...lol

So I'm going to come back tomorrow with fresh eyes, and possibly a better attitude to read it.

[redfirebird2008]

80% (of 300,000 million) of the American population are registered voters. About 64% voted, roughly 52% voted for Obama. That's only about like what, my math is rusty, 27% support for Mr. Obama? Less than a third of America is for Obama. I wouldn't call that overwhelming support....

How much of the population is under the age of 18? I doubt 80% of the population is registered to vote. And I'm not sure where in the hell you're getting the 64% number from. If it's 64% of 80%, the numbers don't add up. 80% of 300 million is 240 million registered voters under your scenario. 64% of that is 154 million voters. McCain and Obama received a combined 128 million votes, so your math is off somewhere. My guess is with that 80% number. 64% of registered voters might have voted, but I don't think 80% of the population is registered to vote.

[Kelly]

80% (of 300,000 million) of the American population are registered voters. About 64% voted, roughly 52% voted for Obama. That's only about like what, my math is rusty, 27% support for Mr. Obama? Less than a third of America is for Obama. I wouldn't call that overwhelming support....

Plus, "some" Republican's won as well......lol


And they have constituents that voted for them, and they have to represent them as well.


I'm having a hell of a time because pretty much the only ones that represent me, are those "Blue Dog Democrats"....and a few Republicans.....lol

[Paradoxium]

How much of the population is under the age of 18? I doubt 80% of the population is registered to vote. And I'm not sure where in the hell you're getting the 64% number from. If it's 64% of 80%, the numbers don't add up. 80% of 300 million is 240 million registered voters under your scenario. 64% of that is 154 million voters. McCain and Obama received a combined 128 million votes, so your math is off somewhere. My guess is with that 80% number. 64% of registered voters might have voted, but I don't think 80% of the population is registered to vote.You are right I ****ed up the numbers. :o

[Kelly]

re do.....re do........

[redfirebird2008]

You are right I ****ed up the numbers. :o

If 64% of registered voters voted, then that leaves 200 million registered voters. Which means that 2/3 (67%) of the public is registered to vote, not 80%. :cwink:

[Paradoxium]

From wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2008

the voter turnout for this election was broadly predicted to be very high by American standards,[115] and a record number of votes were cast. The final tally of total votes counted was 131.2 million, compared to 122.3 million in 2004 (which also boasted the highest record since 1968, after which the voting age was lowered to 18). Expressed as a percentage of eligible voters, 131.2 million votes could reflect a turnout as high as 63.0% of eligible voters, which would be the highest since 1960.[116][117] This 63.0% turnout rate is based on an estimated eligible voter population of 208,323,000. Another estimate puts the eligible voter population at 213,005,467, resulting in a turnout rate of 61.6%, which would be the highest turnout rate since 1968.[118]
52% of 131.2 million is 68.7, which is 22.9% out of a 300 million population

So in conclusion my 27% was actually too high, it's 22.9% or 23%

[redfirebird2008]

From wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2008


52% of 131.2 million is 68.7, which is 22.9% out of a 300 million population

So in conclusion my 27% was actually too high, it's 22.9% or 23%

I'm not sure why you needed all those percentages to figure it out. Simply divide the 69 million votes he received by 300 million people. And by the way, he received 52.9%, not 52%, of the vote.

[Paradoxium]

I'm not sure why you needed all those percentages to figure it out. Simply divide the 69 million votes he received by 300 million people. And by the way, he received 52.9%, not 52%, of the vote.Another correction 22.9% with the real population of 303.8 million

[redfirebird2008]

Another correction 22.8% with the real population of 303.8 million

Here's an actual for you:

69,456,897 divided by 303,824,640 = 22.860851%. :woot:

[Paradoxium]

Anyways I wasn't paying attention to the 69 million number on wikipedia :o

[The Senator]

I'm sorry Jman....lol, but I'm reading blah, blah, blah, I'm a Democrat, blah, blah, blah. I'm trying to read it in a different way, but that is what comes up.

I'll try back later.....


And I promise, I will read it again, and see if I get another vibe from it.

Actually, Kel, I'm speaking as someone who has not only studied Congress for three and a half years now, but as someone who has worked for both chambers of Congress and written several papers on the topic of how public approval impacts governance. So rather than patronize me and my thoughts on the matter, you could actually, you know, think about what I have to say and not treat me as some sort of partisan hack. I have been kind enough to refrain from summing your posts up as "blah blah blah I'm someone who doesn't know what I'm talking about and have extraordinarily high expectations as to how Congress should work," you could at least return the favor.

[Kelly]

Actually, Kel, I'm speaking as someone who has not only studied Congress for three and a half years now, but as someone who has worked for both chambers of Congress and written several papers on the topic of how public approval impacts governance. So rather than patronize me and my thoughts on the matter, you could actually, you know, think about what I have to say and not treat me as some sort of partisan hack. I have been kind enough to refrain from summing your posts up as "blah blah blah I'm someone who doesn't know what I'm talking about and have extraordinarily high expectations as to how Congress should work," you could at least return the favor.


Apparently you didn't read my other post....

Shut up.....lol..................I'm being serious......

I know as I was reading I had the same look on my face that my students get sometimes...It's that look, that when I see it I'm thinking..."oh no, they are hearing Charlie Brown's teacher...." so I just stop, and we start the next day with fresh eyes and ears.

I know damn good and well that Jman said more than what I was reading...lol

So I'm going to come back tomorrow with fresh eyes, and possibly a better attitude to read it.


Chill out, relax......and please put the peacock feathers down, there is no need to strut your stuff... I know that you've worked for Congress. You've told us several times.

[The Senator]

Senator,

Congress has had an abysmal approval rating for a long time. It's not just a case of Republicans filibustering. When Republicans were in control of Congress, it had a terrible approval rating even with a Republican President on their side.

Right, which-- if you had actually read my post-- is why I discussed a second point: Americans have extraordinarily high expectations as to how Congress should work. And because Congress doesn't work the way Americans expect it to, due to procedural measures which have long been a part of that body, they tend to disapprove of it in general. Congress's approval rating during the 110th Congress was high at the beginning, because the Democrats were able to pass several important pieces of legislation such as the minimum wage increase. But as the Congress progressed, its approval went down as more important pieces of legislation were put on hold or filibustered.

[The Senator]

Chill out, relax......and please put the peacock feathers down, there is no need to strut your stuff... I know that you've worked for Congress. You've told us several times.

When I have several people who have made it a prerogative of theirs to paint me in as much of a negative light as possible jumping on your post as if it accurately describes my motives, it bothers me. I apologize for being confrontational, but the childish "he's only saying this 'cause he's a Democrat" attitude is part of the reason why I keep my activity to a minimum here these days. Excluding weekends, of course.

[redfirebird2008]

Right, which-- if you had actually read my post-- is why I discussed a second point: Americans have extraordinarily high expectations as to how Congress should work. And because Congress doesn't work the way Americans expect it to, due to procedural measures which have long been a part of that body, they tend to disapprove of it in general. Congress's approval rating during the 110th Congress was high at the beginning, because the Democrats were able to pass several important pieces of legislation such as the minimum wage increase. But as the Congress progressed, its approval went down as more important pieces of legislation were put on hold or filibustered.

I did read your post and I do agree that most people don't realize how slow the legislative process is, and that this is at least partially the reason for the low approval ratings. Another factor is general cynicism thanks to the likes of Nixon, and recently, all the hypocrites in Congress like Larry Craig.

[Kelly]

When I have several people who have made it a prerogative of theirs to paint me in as much of a negative light as possible jumping on your post as if it accurately describes my motives, it bothers me. I apologize for being confrontational, but the childish "he's only saying this 'cause he's a Democrat" attitude is part of the reason why I keep my activity to a minimum here these days. Excluding weekends, of course.


Well, on these boards, everyone tends to label EVERYTHING....and you are labeled as a Democrat (mostly a label you have given yourself in one way or another), and your posts these days have gone strongly that direction....more so than ever before...... BUT in this case, I was slamming myself, and being very honest in my attitude....as I stated.:yay:

And I appreciate your knowledge.....just doesn't mean I'm going to always agree with your opinion.:cwink:

[souvlaki]

When I have several people who have made it a prerogative of theirs to paint me in as much of a negative light as possible jumping on your post as if it accurately describes my motives, it bothers me. I apologize for being confrontational, but the childish "he's only saying this 'cause he's a Democrat" attitude is part of the reason why I keep my activity to a minimum here these days. Excluding weekends, of course.

Don't let that stop you from posting here, Jman. You are one of the few posters here that I'm pretty much always in complete agreement with, and if it's any consolation I'm sure even the people that disagree with you regularly highly respect your opinion and enjoy reading your posts. No offense to the other boarders here (because I do very much enjoy reading everyone elses' posts as well) but I thought this place was kind of boring without you around.

[Kelly]

Don't let that stop you from posting here, Jman. You are one of the few posters here that I'm pretty much always in complete agreement with, and if it's any consolation I'm sure even the people that disagree with you regularly highly respect your opinion and enjoy reading your posts. No offense to the other boarders here (because I do very much enjoy reading everyone elses' posts as well) but I thought this place was kind of boring without you around.

Exactly, sou would be sooooo lonely.....there are very few of us that are "in complete" agreement with anyone around here.......

:oldrazz:

[SsM]

***** is crazy. End of story! Gives anyone that calls themselves a republican a bad name. She sometimes makes good points but they drown in how rude and just plain evil she is!

[Addendum]

At first I was impartial of Coulter since I never heard of her, and was in college when she first came onto the scene. Then I heard about a particular book of hers where she defended Joseph McCarthy. From that point on, I have never taken her as serious or credible

[souvlaki]

Exactly, sou would be sooooo lonely.....there are very few of us that are "in complete" agreement with anyone around here.......

:oldrazz:

Well, the thing is there are very few liberal boarders on here other than Jman and myself (I think Superman and a couple others are pretty liberal as well, but I don't think they post here as often). Granted, Marx, and a few others definitely lean off to the left but for the most part the Democrats on the board are fairly centrist Democrats. Not to say that Jman and myself are far left crackpots but we are probably two of the more liberal posters around here. Having him around levels the playing field, and people tend to agree far too often without him here (especially on fiscal issues)... which bugs the hell out of me. :cwink:

[redfirebird2008]

Souvlaki, I would say Overlord is a pretty liberal poster on here.

[souvlaki]

Souvlaki, I would say Overlord is a pretty liberal poster on here.

Well, there are definitely a few liberal posters around here (Superman and I think dnno1 and SuperT come to mind) but I don't think any of them post on here nearly as often as Jman used to. The regulars that voted for Obama (you, Matt, Marx, Kel, danoyse, etc.) are all pretty centrist in your views, and I'm pretty sure the majority of you are fiscal conservatives. Apologies btw if I'm pegging any of you incorrectly but that's been mostly the impression I've gotten.

[redfirebird2008]

Well, there are definitely a few liberal posters around here (Superman and I think dnno1 and SuperT come to mind) but I don't think any of them post on here nearly as often as Jman used to. The regulars that voted for Obama (you, Matt, Marx, Kel, danoyse, etc.) are all pretty centrist in your views, and I'm pretty sure the majority of you are fiscal conservatives. Apologies btw if I'm pegging any of you incorrectly but that's been mostly the impression I've gotten.

I'm a fiscal conservative and a social liberal. I guess that's centrist. I'm not really sure what it is. I tend to think the Libertarian Party is probably where I fit in best. I do support Obama though even if I disagree with his ideas on government spending and the fact that he didn't immediately lay the smack down on the tax cheat nominees for his cabinet like Geithner and Daschle. Nevertheless, I think he's a good man with a good family and so long as he pushes a good social policy (especially on LGBT rights, which I consider a civil rights issue...not a political issue), I will continue supporting him.

[souvlaki]

I'm a fiscal conservative and a social liberal. I guess that's centrist. I'm not really sure what it is. I tend to think the Libertarian Party is probably where I fit in best.

Even though I'm fiscally fairly liberal it really is a shame the Libertarian Party is so marginalized. I may not agree entirely with their philosophy, but I would sure as hell be more willing to accept having the Republican Party in power if they resembled Libertarians a bit more.

[redfirebird2008]

Even though I'm fiscally fairly liberal it really is a shame the Libertarian Party is so marginalized. I may not agree entirely with their philosophy, but I would sure as hell be more willing to accept having the Republican Party in power if they resembled Libertarians a bit more.

Exactly how I feel. So long as the Republican Party officially endorses bigotry (their stance on gay marriage), I will not vote for them. I may disagree with the Democrats' fiscal policies, but I have more of a problem voting for a bigot. Especially a hypocritical bigot that tends to spend just as much as the liberals, just on their pet issues such as war and tax cuts.

[souvlaki]

Exactly how I feel. So long as the Republican Party officially endorses bigotry (their stance on gay marriage), I will not vote for them. I may disagree with the Democrats' fiscal policies, but I have more of a problem voting for a bigot. Especially a hypocritical bigot that tends to spend just as much as the liberals, just on their pet issues such as war and tax cuts.

Well, the thing about the Libertarian Party is even though I don't agree with them on fiscal issues, and to a lesser extant state rights, I think they represent what our founding fathers envisioned for our country more than any other party out there. Whether or not their philosophy would work within the context of our modern day government has yet to be proven though because they have never held a high position of power in our country. I'd love to see the Libertarian Party take the place of the Republican Party though. It would actually make my decision a little bit more difficult when voting.

[redfirebird2008]

Well, the thing about the Libertarian Party is even though I don't agree with them on fiscal issues, and to a lesser extant state rights, I think they represent what our founding fathers envisioned for our country more than any other party out there. Whether or not their philosophy would work within the context of our modern day government has yet to be proven though because they have never held a high position of power in our country. I'd love to see the Libertarian Party take the place of the Republican Party though. It would actually make my decision a little bit more difficult when voting.

That's the interesting thing. From a social standpoint, the Republicans are facing a crisis. You can't just rely on whackjob fundamentalist white people anymore. That might have worked when most of the country was apathetic toward voting and the demographics were more heavily white than they are now, but things are changing. They either need to get with the program and say hello to the 21st Century or they will end up being replaced by a 3rd Party. Really, the only thing that might help them stay relevant is if the Democrats' spending becomes as disastrous as some people are predicting. I'm sure that's what Republicans want. It's their only chance of winning in the future. They have lost on the social issues and the country will only continue getting more progressive on social issues as time goes by and more Latinos and other immigrants make their way into the country.

[souvlaki]

That's the interesting thing. From a social standpoint, the Republicans are facing a crisis. You can't just rely on whackjob fundamentalist white people anymore. That might have worked when most of the country was apathetic toward voting and the demographics were more heavily white than they are now, but things are changing. They either need to get with the program and say hello to the 21st Century or they will end up being replaced by a 3rd Party. Really, the only thing that might help them stay relevant is if the Democrats' spending becomes as disastrous as some people are predicting. I'm sure that's what Republicans want. It's their only chance of winning in the future. They have lost on the social issues and the country will only continue getting more progressive on social issues as time goes by and more Latinos and other immigrants make their way into the country.

For that reason I'd wager that in our lifetime the Republican Party will begin to change their stance on social issues. I can see evidence with the younger generation of Republicans who are becoming more tolerant of certain social issues. StorminNormin is a great example. His stance on gay rights, marijuana legalization, state rights, and where the church fits into politics are far more similar to Libertarian ideology than modern day Republican ideology (apologies in advance if I'm misrepresenting your views in any way, StorminNormin). Socially this country is becoming far more progressive and if Republicans continue to be so ass backwards on social issues they will be the modern day equivalent of the Whigs.

[Marx]

Well, there are definitely a few liberal posters around here (Superman and I think dnno1 and SuperT come to mind) but I don't think any of them post on here nearly as often as Jman used to. The regulars that voted for Obama (you, Matt, Marx, Kel, danoyse, etc.) are all pretty centrist in your views, and I'm pretty sure the majority of you are fiscal conservatives. Apologies btw if I'm pegging any of you incorrectly but that's been mostly the impression I've gotten.

You pegged me correctly, Souv. http://www.superherohype.com/forums/images/smilies/icon14.gif

[Timstuff]

Exactly how I feel. So long as the Republican Party officially endorses bigotry (their stance on gay marriage), I will not vote for them.

Obama does not support gay marriage either, for the record.

[Marx]

Obama does not support gay marriage either, for the record.

Obama supports civil unions with full rights. (Which is a he** of a lot more than their Republican counterparts support, for the record.) Obama is a huge advocate for gay rights. I would encourage you to look at the official White House website for the stances.

:dry:

[Matt]

Obama does not support gay marriage either, for the record.

Exactly. You can't really hold the whole gay marriage thing against Republicans when most Democrats support the same kind of institutionalized discrimination.

[Marx]

Exactly. You can't really hold the whole gay marriage thing against Republicans when most Democrats support the same kind of institutionalized discrimination.

See post above you.

[Matt]

Obama supports civil unions with full rights. (Which is a he** of a lot more than their Republican counterparts support, for the record.) Obama is a huge advocate for gay rights. I would encourage you to look at the official White House website for the stances.

:dry:

When I hear civil unions, all I can think of is Seperate But Equal :dry:

The fact of the matter is, neither party is up to scratch on gay rights.

[redfirebird2008]

Exactly. You can't really hold the whole gay marriage thing against Republicans when most Democrats support the same kind of institutionalized discrimination.

Republicans don't even support civil unions for the most part. There is a difference. Democrats are just too spineless to stand up for what they actually believe in. Does anyone seriously believe Obama is against gay marriage? In 1996 he supported it. What has changed since then? The fact that he's now on the national stage and bigotry is still widespread in the public (ahem Prop 8 passage in friggin' California of all places). Dems are spineless, that's all there is to it.

[Marx]

When I hear civil unions, all I can think of is Seperate But Equal :dry:

The fact of the matter is, neither party is up to scratch on gay rights.

Republicans don't even support civil unions for the most part. There is a difference. Democrats are just too spineless to stand up for what they actually believe in. Does anyone seriously believe Obama is against gay marriage? In 1996 he supported it. What has changed since then? The fact that he's now on the national stage and bigotry is still widespread in the public (ahem Prop 8 passage in friggin' California of all places). Dems are spineless, that's all there is to it.

Exactly, Firebird.

Civil Unions are 'seperate but equal'. But the point remains that the Democrats are more in support of gay rights than Republicans. I'm not exactly sure how that can be disputed.

[Matt]

A true leader will take unpopular stances even if it loses him votes, because it is right and he aspires to lead by example. Obama has gone the cowardly route of seperate but equal. I refuse to vote for either party on such an issue when they are both completely inadequate on it. Its not a matter of who is less wrong. They are both wrong.

[redfirebird2008]

Obama does not support gay marriage either, for the record.

His policies are a step in the right direction, whereas Republican policies are a step towards 1950. Obama supported gay marriage in 1996 but now that he's on the national stage he's chickening out just like other mainstream Democrats because bigotry on this issue is still widespread in the public.

[redfirebird2008]

A true leader will take unpopular stances even if it loses him votes, because it is right and he aspires to lead by example. Obama has gone the cowardly route of seperate but equal. I refuse to vote for either party on such an issue when they are both completely inadequate on it. Its not a matter of who is less wrong. They are both wrong.

Of course they are both wrong, but in a system that is controlled by two parties, I'll take the lesser of two evils for the time being. "Separate but equal" is better than "no rights whatsoever." Eventually we will get to a point where this bigotry is completely unacceptable in both parties. I can't wait until that day comes.

You want someone who will stand up for what they believe in on this issue? Then don't allow the mainstream media to caricature someone like Howard Dean. Dean stood up for what he believed in, the MSM (controlled by corporations) felt threatened by him, and as soon as they had their chance, they undermined him in a completely unfair manner. I don't agree with the guy on fiscal issues, but on social issues he is a truth teller and he's an honest person.

[Marx]

A true leader will take unpopular stances even if it loses him votes, because it is right and he aspires to lead by example. Obama has gone the cowardly route of seperate but equal. I refuse to vote for either party on such an issue when they are both completely inadequate on it. Its not a matter of who is less wrong. They are both wrong.

Of course they are both wrong, but in a system that is controlled by two parties, I'll take the lesser of two evils for the time being. "Separate but equal" is better than "no rights whatsoever." Eventually we will get to a point where this bigotry is completely unacceptable in both parties. I can't wait until that day comes.


Again, I agree Firebird. You cannot condemn the Democrats when they are AT LEAST taking steps in the right direction. You cannot go from absolutely nothing, to full blown gay marriage. There has to be a middle ground and a transition. I am happy to say that we are in that transition period now.

[Matt]

Seperate but equal is not better in my opinion. Just not good enough. Thus, it is not an issue I vote on. Just like I do not vote on an issue like abortion. I'm a Catholic. I detest abortion. But, Republicans like to dangle it over people's heads while doing nothing about it where as Democrats just don't want to do anything about it. So, it won't change. Why vote on it.

Hell, one could even argue the Democrats will not legalize gay marriage even if they could as they need to dangle it over their constituents heads like Republicans do with abortion. The Democrats have the votes and they have a president who supports civil unions for nearly a month now. Since this is such a disgusting violation of civil rights in their opinions, why not legalize federal civil unions on their first day in office?

[Marx]

Seperate but equal is not better in my opinion. Just not good enough. Thus, it is not an issue I vote on. Just like I do not vote on an issue like abortion. I'm a Catholic. I detest abortion. But, Republicans like to dangle it over people's heads while doing nothing about it where as Democrats just don't want to do anything about it. So, it won't change. Why vote on it.

Hell, one could even argue the Democrats will not legalize gay marriage even if they could as they need to dangle it over their constituents heads like Republicans do with abortion. The Democrats have the votes and they have a president who supports civil unions for nearly a month now. Since this is such a disgusting violation of civil rights in their opinions, why not legalize federal civil unions on their first day in office?

With everything else currently facing this country, people would be criticizing Obama for putting so much attention into gay rights.

I could already hear it now...

'We're at war! And this man wants to focus on teh gayz???'

'Our economy is tanking! And this man wants to help teh gayz???'

[redfirebird2008]

Seperate but equal is not better in my opinion. Just not good enough. Thus, it is not an issue I vote on. Just like I do not vote on an issue like abortion. I'm a Catholic. I detest abortion. But, Republicans like to dangle it over people's heads while doing nothing about it where as Democrats just don't want to do anything about it. So, it won't change. Why vote on it.

Hell, one could even argue the Democrats will not legalize gay marriage even if they could as they need to dangle it over their constituents heads like Republicans do with abortion. The Democrats have the votes and they have a president who supports civil unions for nearly a month now. Since this is such a disgusting violation of civil rights in their opinions, why not legalize federal civil unions on their first day in office?

Because they are spineless. As I said, you want a leader with balls on controversial issues, don't allow the media to caricature the likes of Howard Dean. I think he's wrong on fiscal issues, but he's got more integrity than a vast majority of the Democrats in Congress and the White House when it comes to standing up for what he believes on social issues.

[Matt]

Now you're just being apologetic for Democrats, Marx. This legislation wouldn't take too long to pass.

[Matt]

Because they are spineless. As I said, you want a leader with balls on controversial issues, don't allow the media to caricature the likes of Howard Dean. I think he's wrong on fiscal issues, but he's got more integrity than a vast majority of the Democrats in Congress and the White House when it comes to standing up for what he believes on social issues.

Yet you refuse to vote for Republicans, even if one could fix out country...based strictly on issues that you admit, won't change.

[Marx]

Now you're just being apologetic for Democrats, Marx. This legislation wouldn't take too long to pass.

The fact that Democrats are spineless is a well known fact. I do not deny that. All I am saying is that AT LEAST the Democrats are taking steps in the right direction. To me, that is a he** of alot better than keeping our country in the middle ages. (As Republicans would like to do.)

[redfirebird2008]

Yet you refuse to vote for Republicans, even if one could fix out country...based strictly on issues that you admit, won't change.

You have a problem with me refusing to vote for a bigot when I live in a state that isn't even a swing state (AKA my vote doesn't really even matter)? OK. I didn't vote in the Presidential election so I'm not exactly sure what your problem is.

[Marx]

You have a problem with me refusing to vote for a bigot when I live in a state that isn't even a swing state (AKA my vote doesn't really even matter)? OK. I didn't vote in the Presidential election so I'm not exactly sure what your problem is.

You didn't vote in the Presidential election!?!?!

Oh...Firebird. :csad:

[redfirebird2008]

And by the way, Matt, I think the Republicans are wrong on fiscal issues too. Their big business tax cuts and outrageous defense spending helped put us on the edge of disaster. I'm in favor of the FairTax, which isn't something that either party supports for the most part.

[souvlaki]

A true leader will take unpopular stances even if it loses him votes, because it is right and he aspires to lead by example. Obama has gone the cowardly route of seperate but equal. I refuse to vote for either party on such an issue when they are both completely inadequate on it. Its not a matter of who is less wrong. They are both wrong.

He took the route that would get him elected. Civil unions are not ideal, but they are a step in the right direction. Baby steps, my friend. African Americans didn't go straight from slavery to equal rights either. I'm not saying Obama's stance is ideal, but I'd rather have a President that supports civil unions than one that supports neither civil unions or gay marriage. Obama also doesn't support a federal ban on gay marriages, so if a particular state wishes to acknowledge gay marriage it's perfectly legal. I fail to see how that is just as wrong as Joe Republican's stance on gay marriage/civil unions. Granted, it's not the ideal stance on the issue, but there are different degrees of wrong here. And given public opinion on the issue, it's entirely possible fully supporting gay marriage may have completely alienated a lot of voters in key swing states. How well off do you think the gay marriage issue would have been with John McCain in office?

[redfirebird2008]

You didn't vote in the Presidential election!?!?!

Oh...Firebird. :csad:

I voted for Obama in the primary as well as caucus against Hillary (I'm in Texas so I got to vote twice LOL). But no, I did not vote in the general election. You see, I graduated from college in May. I was registered to vote in my college town's county, but I moved 2 hours south to a different county after graduation, and I never got around to changing my registration.

[Matt]

I'm speaking rhetorically firebird. Not about John McCain.

[souvlaki]

And by the way, Matt, I think the Republicans are wrong on fiscal issues too. Their big business tax cuts and outrageous defense spending helped put us on the edge of disaster. I'm in favor of the FairTax, which isn't something that either party supports for the most part.

Jesus, redfirebird... did SuBe get ahold of your password? :woot:

That's at least your second reference in the last hour to FairTax.

[Matt]

He took the route that would get him elected. Civil unions are not ideal, but they are a step in the right direction. Baby steps, my friend. African Americans didn't go straight from slavery to equal rights either. I'm not saying Obama's stance is ideal, but I'd rather have a President that supports civil unions than one that supports neither civil unions or gay marriage. Obama also doesn't support a federal ban on gay marriages, so if a particular state wishes to acknowledge gay marriage it's perfectly legal. I fail to see how that is just as wrong as Joe Republican's stance on gay marriage/civil unions. Granted, it's not the ideal stance on the issue, but there are different degrees of wrong here. And given public opinion on the issue, it's entirely possible fully supporting gay marriage may have completely alienated a lot of voters in key swing states. How well off do you think the gay marriage issue would have been with John McCain in office?

Why hasn't Obama and our Democratic Congress taken steps give federal recognition to civil unions?

[redfirebird2008]

I'm speaking rhetorically firebird. Not about John McCain.

Where did I mention McCain? I think you meant for this to be directed at Souvlaki, who did mention McCain in his response to one of your posts.

Souvlaki, SuBe has me brainwashed on the FairTax, I admit. :woot: But we do differ on our opinions of current tax policy. He supports tax cuts whereas I don't. We do agree on government spending though.

[redfirebird2008]

Why hasn't Obama and our Democratic Congress taken steps give federal recognition to civil unions?

Because they're busy dealing with the economic issue, which is the only thing anyone cares about right now. Surely you realize that Congress can't multi-task. :hehe:

[souvlaki]

Why hasn't Obama and our Democratic Congress taken steps give federal recognition to civil unions?

Dude, he hasn't even been in office for a month yet. If nothing happens in the next four years to at least get us on the road to civil unions I will be more than inclined to agree with you. As someone that lives in a state that may very soon overturn the ban on gay marriages I'm more than happy to just have a President that has absolutely no interest in a federal ban on gay marriages. The rest will come in time, but despite what a lot of his critics may think of Obama's supporters, we do not all believe he is the messiah. He can't turn water in to wine, nor can he accomplish eight years worth of work in 20 days. Anyone expecting as much is being unreasonable.

[Marx]

Dude, he hasn't even been in office for a month yet. If nothing happens in the next four years to at least get us on the road to civil unions I will be more than inclined to agree with you. As someone that lives in a state that may very soon overturn the ban on gay marriages I'm more than happy to just have a President that has absolutely no interest in a federal ban on gay marriages. The rest will come in time, but despite what a lot of his critics may think of Obama's supporters, we do not all believe he is the messiah. He can't turn water in to wine, nor can he accomplish eight years worth of work in 20 days.

You might want to keep that bit of news from Excel. :oldrazz:

[souvlaki]

You might want to keep that bit of news from Excel. :oldrazz:

:lmao:

Also, just as a bit of a history lesson, I should mention one of Clinton's biggest blunders was making the "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy his first priority once in office. If that didn't go over well, could you imagine what the reaction would be if Obama jumped on civil unions this early in his administration?

[Marx]

GOP CONVENES 'TECH SUMMIT'
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/02/09/gop-convenes-tech-summit/

Newly-elected Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele is convening a "Tech Summit" at the party's headquarters Friday, a signal the GOP's technology deficit during the last election cycle will be among the new chairman's top issues.

The summit will be held this Friday and is open to anyone who wants to participate. Speakers will be given five minutes to present their ideas.

The issue of technology was among the most prominent during the chairmanship's race, after Democrats clearly outpaced the GOP in tech fluency during the 2008 elections.

[The Senator]

Why hasn't Obama and our Democratic Congress taken steps give federal recognition to civil unions?

Because Obama has only been President for three weeks and there are more pressing matters to attend to which encompasses everyone? Not only that, but several Congressmen have been working on federal civil union legislation for years now. Why didn't they propose it in the 110th Congress? I don't know exactly, but maybe it has something to do with the fact that 1) the legislation would have to pass the Senate, where the Republicans were filibustering legislation left and right, and 2) if it did somehow pass the Senate, it had to be signed by a Republican President who has gone out of his way to support policies which discriminated against homosexuals in the past.

We'll see what happens... but considering we have this whole economic crisis facing us, I doubt anything will happen at the federal level for some time...

[The Senator]

Well, the thing is there are very few liberal boarders on here other than Jman and myself (I think Superman and a couple others are pretty liberal as well, but I don't think they post here as often). Granted, Marx, and a few others definitely lean off to the left but for the most part the Democrats on the board are fairly centrist Democrats. Not to say that Jman and myself are far left crackpots but we are probably two of the more liberal posters around here. Having him around levels the playing field, and people tend to agree far too often without him here (especially on fiscal issues)... which bugs the hell out of me. :cwink:

I guess I am more liberal than most posters here are, though I am conservative on a few issues and have actively criticized members of the Democratic Party while praising members of the Republican Party. But I am not going to praise conservative policies for the sake of appearing centrist when I think they are flawed, and I am not going to offer praise to a political party which I feel has caused more harm to the stature and reputation of the United States over the past few years. In my opinion, Group Think for the sake of agreement is just as dangerous as being on the extremities of one side of the political spectrum.

[The Senator]

Stop the Presses! God wants Norm Coleman to serve! (http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:7HJhAwel97cJ:blog.lib.umn.edu/cspg/smartpolitics/2009/02/coleman_says_god_wants_me_to_s.php) :wow:

Of course, if God wanted Norm Coleman to serve... then why didn't he get more votes? :huh:

[Raiden]

Stop the Presses! God wants Norm Coleman to serve! (http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:7HJhAwel97cJ:blog.lib.umn.edu/cspg/smartpolitics/2009/02/coleman_says_god_wants_me_to_s.php) :wow:

Of course, if God wanted Norm Coleman to serve... then why didn't he get more votes? :huh:

I guess Norm Coleman is God's BFF. He should be a Pope then, not a senator from Minnesota. :hehe:

[The Senator]

I guess Norm Coleman is God's BFF. He should be a Pope then, not a senator from Minnesota. :hehe:

He'd be the first Jewish Pope...

[StorminNorman]

Stop the Presses! God wants Norm Coleman to serve! (http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:7HJhAwel97cJ:blog.lib.umn.edu/cspg/smartpolitics/2009/02/coleman_says_god_wants_me_to_s.php) :wow:

Of course, if God wanted Norm Coleman to serve... then why didn't he get more votes? :huh:

Vote's aren't Norm Coleman's problem. :o

[The Senator]

Vote's aren't Norm Coleman's problem. :o

Is it his lack of belief in our Lord and savior, Jesus Christ?

[StorminNorman]

He has a bad habit of leaving the toilet seat up. Its costing him this election.

[BlackLantern]

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/02/09/MN5C15Q81D.DTL

Interesting news for the Republican Party....

[Kelly]

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/02/09/MN5C15Q81D.DTL

Interesting news for the Republican Party....


I actually thought she was going to be McCain's VP pick.......


BOY, was I wrong.....:whatever:

[Malice]

eBay is going down the crapper....

[BlackLantern]

eBay is going down the crapper....

what happened? the market for Elvis shaped potato chips drying up?

[Malice]

what happened? the market for Elvis shaped potato chips drying up?

So many scam artists and the like are taking advantage of it.
I will never use it again, I will tell you that

[Kelly]

Definitely.....I think more than anything, it just got too big for its own good.


YouTube is about to find itself, too big for its own good as well.....if it hasn't already.

[Sebastos]

You didn't vote in the Presidential election!?!?!

Oh...Firebird. :csad:

I wanted to vote, but my B-Day was on the 15th of November. So I was still 17....the humanity. :o

[hippie_hunter]

So many scam artists and the like are taking advantage of it.
I will never use it again, I will tell you that

That's why you got to do some research on the seller. My uncle uses eBay a lot to buy and sell Kiss collectors items. I never had any problems with eBay either when I bought the Heroes Reborn relaunches of Fantastic Four, Captain America, Iron Man, along with the Heroes Reborn conclusion and one-shots.

[hippie_hunter]

I was reading the newspaper today and I found myself very surprised that the Republicans can actually make some rather big gains in my homestate of New York in 2010 if they play their cards right.

They also seem poised to take Kirsten Gillibrand's House seat.

[The Senator]

I was reading the newspaper today and I found myself very surprised that the Republicans can actually make some rather big gains in my homestate of New York in 2010 if they play their cards right.

I do not see this as a likely scenario. The Republican Party in New York has been very disorganized since losing established politicians such as George Pataki, Al D'Amato, and numerous House Republicans in the 2006/ 2008 election cycles. Right now, the only three big-name politicians being mentioned for office during the 2010 elections are Rudy Giuliani, Peter King, and Rick Lazio. Giuliani is not viewed favorably among NYC residents and rubs a lot of New Yorkers in general the wrong way. I know a few people in my home town, which is rather conservative, view him as someone who is trying to build a political legacy based on the tragedies which occurred on 9/11, and have stated that they wouldn't vote for him in a statewide election. Peter King has very low name recognition, and even though he apparently plans to run against Sen. Gillibrand-- who also has low name recognition and has caused numerous Democrats to consider challenging her in a primary-- in 2010, he polls twenty points behind her. And Lazio couldn't defeat Hillary Clinton in 2000, I truly don't know why voters would want to elect him over Gillibrand, Paterson, or Schumer ten years later.

They may be able to pick up one or two House seats... Michael Arcuri and Kirsten Gillibrand's seats seem most likely...


They also seem poised to take Kirsten Gillibrand's House seat.

That was pretty much guaranteed... NY-20 is a Republican-leaning seat, and since there is very little time to campaign, Jim Tedisco automatically has the edge...

[Kelly]

I was reading the newspaper today and I found myself very surprised that the Republicans can actually make some rather big gains in my homestate of New York in 2010 if they play their cards right.

They also seem poised to take Kirsten Gillibrand's House seat.

That would be interesting....

[hippie_hunter]

I do not see this as a likely scenario. The Republican Party in New York has been very disorganized since losing established politicians such as George Pataki, Al D'Amato, and numerous House Republicans in the 2006/ 2008 election cycles. Right now, the only three big-name politicians being mentioned for office during the 2010 elections are Rudy Giuliani, Peter King, and Rick Lazio. Giuliani is not viewed favorably among NYC residents and rubs a lot of New Yorkers in general the wrong way. I know a few people in my home town, which is rather conservative, view him as someone who is trying to build a political legacy based on the tragedies which occurred on 9/11, and have stated that they wouldn't vote for him in a statewide election. Peter King has very low name recognition, and even though he apparently plans to run against Sen. Gillibrand-- who also has low name recognition and has caused numerous Democrats to consider challenging her in a primary-- in 2010, he polls twenty points behind her. And Lazio couldn't defeat Hillary Clinton in 2000, I truly don't know why voters would want to elect him over Gillibrand, Paterson, or Schumer ten years later.
The article I was reading was talking about the governor race in particular stating that Patterson has a very good chance of losing because he wasn't elected, his association with Elliot Spitzer, his budget, etc. Republicans are seriously courting Rudy Giuliani to run for governor. A recent poll has Paterson losing to Giuliani by a slim margin and polls before hand had him gaining on him.

It's pretty obvious that Gillibrand will win re-election. She resonates with upstate voters and is a Democrat. She's the perfect match. I plan on voting for her in 2010.

[hippie_hunter]

Republican Good News Bad for Obama, Dems in New York, Virginia, New Jersey, Illinois
February 09, 2009 10:28 AM ET | Michael Barone | Permanent Link | Print
By Michael Barone, Thomas Jefferson Street blog

In the 20th District of New York, vacated by the appointment of Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, Republican nominee Jim Tedisco leads Democratic nominee Scott Murphy, 50 percent to 29 percent, according to Tedisco's pollster. That's not bad, but it's certainly not dispositive. Tedisco benefits from high name identification; he's the Assembly minority leader (and it's quite a small minority: Republicans have 41 seats and Democrats 109). Murphy is capable of self-financing, and in this one-media-market (Albany) district, that counts for a lot. On the other hand, it appears that Murphy has some tax problems.

In Virginia, pollster Scott Rasmussen shows Republican Robert McDonnell ahead of each of the three Democrats competing for their party's nomination—42 percent to 5 percent against former Democratic National Chairman Terry McAuliffe, 39 percent to 30 percent against Delegate Creigh Deeds, 39 percent to 36 percent against former Delegate Brian Moran. McDonnell was elected attorney general in 2005 by a mere 320 votes; in accordance with Virginia custom, he has announced that he will resign that office later this month. None of these candidates are particularly well known to most voters, and none of them get close to 50 percent, so this must be regarded as a wide-open race.

In New Jersey, Quinnipiac reports that U.S. Attorney Christopher Christie leads incumbent Democratic Gov. Jon Corzine, 44 percent to 38 percent. That's a pretty dismal number for Corzine. He's got all the money in the world to overcome it, but it may take more than money. New Jersey is in dreadful fiscal shape, with high taxes and oodles of big government.

In Illinois, former Chicago, Philadelphia, and New Orleans school superintendent Paul Vallas is returning to Chicago and running as a Republican for Cook County Board president. In 2002, Vallas finished a close second to Rod Blagojevich in the Democratic primary for governor. The incumbent county board president is Todd Stroger, widely deemed to be a dim bulb; he got the job in 2006 after the incumbent, his father, John Stroger, became disabled after winning the Democratic primary. Barack Obama, by the way, supported John Stroger over a reform-minded Democrat in the primary and Todd Stroger over a reform-minded Republican in the general election. I interviewed Vallas when he was superintendent in Chicago and was mightily impressed.

http://www.usnews.com/blogs/barone/2009/2/9/republican-good-news-bad-for-obama-dems-in-new-york-virginia-new-jersey-illinois.html

[The Senator]

The article I was reading was talking about the governor race in particular stating that Patterson has a very good chance of losing because he wasn't elected, his association with Elliot Spitzer, his budget, etc. Republicans are seriously courting Rudy Giuliani to run for governor. A recent poll has Paterson losing to Giuliani by a slim margin and polls before hand had him gaining on him.

It's pretty obvious that Gillibrand will win re-election. She resonates with upstate voters and is a Democrat. She's the perfect match. I plan on voting for her in 2010.

The polls with Paterson and Giuliani going head-to-head constantly change, depending on which big issue in New York is receiving attention at the time they are conducted. In a few weeks, I would expect his approval ratings and poll numbers to go up as the Senate "scandal" rescinds... that's pretty much what sank him...

Also, if Eliot Spitzer was such a hindrance on his reputation, then I strongly doubt Paterson would have had such strong approval ratings until the end of last month.

I definitely think the Republicans are going to lose the top three races in New York in two years... though I would expect the margin of victory for Paterson to be much smaller than Spitzer's was in 2006...

[Excel]

You might want to keep that bit of news from Excel. :oldrazz:

I saw what he wrote....LIES!

[Marx]

I saw what he wrote....LIES!

:funny:

[mclay18]

lol. The thing is, I doubt it was a simple mistake. I'd wager it probably had something to do with congressional races in the districts she voted in. She's an idiot, but with the amount of energy she spends yelling about ACORN and voter fraud I'd imagine she at least has some idea of what the voter registration laws in this country are.

Although if the new stimulus package fails, Coulter would have plenty of ammo. I bet you if that happens, her newest column start off "I told you liberals that B. Hussein Obama would lead us to Hell!"

And the investigation is a breath of fresh air. Someone needs to knock Coulter down a peg or two -- law enforcement. *smiles*

[Sebastos]

She can break her jaw again for all I care. :o

[mclay18]

The bad thing is if she breaks her jaw again, she still has her hands. And she can still type out her hateful bile week after week.

[Sebastos]

The bad thing is if she breaks her jaw again, she still has her hands. And she can still type out her hateful bile week after week.

Must find another way then. :o

[Hobgoblin]

Brain damage, then.

....

Oh, wait...

[Sebastos]

:hehe:

[mclay18]

The stimulus package is the target for Coulter's weekly unhappiness:

GOODBYE, AMERICA! IT WAS FUN WHILE IT LASTED
February 11, 2009


It's bad enough when illiterate jurors issue damages awards in the billions of dollars because they don't grasp the difference between a million and a billion. Now it turns out the Democrats don't know the difference between a million and a trillion.

Why not make the "stimulus bill" a kazillion dollars?

All Americans who work for a living, or who plan to work for a living sometime in the next century, are about to be stuck with a trillion-dollar bill to fund yet more oppressive government bureaucracies. Or as I call it, a trillion dollars and change.

The stimulus bill isn't as bad as we had expected -- it's much worse. Instead of merely creating useless, make-work jobs digging ditches -- or "shovel-ready," in the Democrats' felicitous phrase -- the "stimulus" bill will create an endless army of government bureaucrats aggressively intervening in our lives. Instead of digging ditches, American taxpayers will be digging our own graves.

There are hundreds of examples in the 800-page "stimulus" bill, but here are just two.

First, the welfare bureaucrats are coming back.

For half a century, the welfare establishment had the bright idea to pay women to have children out of wedlock. Following the iron laws of economics -- subsidize something, you get more of it; tax it, you get less of it -- the number of children being born out of wedlock skyrocketed.

The 1996 Welfare Reform bill marked the first time any government entitlement had ever been rolled back. Despite liberal howling and foot-stomping, not subsidizing illegitimacy led, like night into day, to less illegitimacy.

Welfare recipients got jobs, as the hard-core unemployables were coaxed away from their TV sets and into the workforce. For the first time in decades, the ever-increasing illegitimacy rate stopped spiraling upward.

As proof that that welfare reform was a smashing success, a few years later, Bill Clinton started claiming full credit for the bill.

Well, that's over. The stimulus bill goes a long way toward repealing the work requirement of the 1996 Republican Welfare Reform bill and rewards states that increase their welfare caseloads by paying unwed mothers to sit home doing nothing.

Second, bureaucrats at Health and Human Services will electronically collect every citizen's complete medical records and determine appropriate medical care.

Judging by the care that the State Department took with private visa records last year, that the Ohio government took with Joe the Plumber's government records, that the Pentagon took with Linda Tripp's employment records in 1998, and that the FBI took with thousands of top secret "raw" background files in President Clinton's first term, the bright side is: We'll finally be able to find out if Bill Clinton has syphilis -- all thanks to the stimulus bill!

HHS bureaucrats will soon be empowered to overrule your doctor. Doctors who don't comply with the government's treatment protocols will be fined. That's right: Instead of your treatment being determined by your doctor, it will be settled on by some narcoleptic half-wit in Washington who couldn't get a job in the private sector.

And a brand-new set of bureaucrats in the newly created office of "National Coordinator of Health Information Technology" will be empowered to cut off treatments that merely prolong life. Sorry, Mom and Pop, Big Brother said it's time to go.

At every other workplace in the nation -- even Wal-Mart! -- workers are being laid off. But no one at any of the bloated government bureaucracies ever need fear receiving a pink slip. All 64,750 employees at the department of Health and Human Services are apparently absolutely crucial to the smooth functioning of the department.

With the stimulus bill, liberals plan to move unfirable government workers into every activity in America, where they will superintend all aspects of our lives.

Also, thanks to the stimulus bill, the private sector will gradually shrivel and die. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the cost of servicing the bill's nearly trillion-dollar debt will shrink the economy within a decade.

Robert Kennedy famously said: "There are those who look at things the way they are and ask, 'Why?' I dream of things that never were and ask, 'Why not?'"

The new liberal version is: There are those who look at things and ask, "Why on earth should the government be paying for that?" I dream of things that never were funded by the government and ask, "Why not?"

For once, she's making a point that I somewhat agree with (about a second stimulus package), but then she goes off with her insinuations and ludricrous assumptions and my contempt meter goes up again.

[Addendum]

For once, she's making a point that I somewhat agree with (about a second stimulus package), but then she goes off with her insinuations and ludricrous assumptions and my contempt meter goes up again.
How does that saying go? If you dig through **** and a diamond, you're still covered in ****?

[Hobgoblin]

Wait! She said goodbye! She must be leaving!!!:woot::woot::woot:

[Addendum]

Who would want her?

[Superman]

Wait! She said goodbye! She must be leaving!!!:woot::woot::woot:We ain't that lucky.:csad:

[Paradoxium]

Some of you guys take her way too seriously to begin with... I am pretty much against the stimulus, and she is on the same page as me... but I still couldn't take her "op-Ed" seriously either :woot: - especially the "find out if Bill Clinton has syphilis part". What a crude ***** :funny:

[danielisthor]

but I still couldn't take her "op-Ed" seriously either :woot: - especially the "find out if Bill Clinton has syphilis part". What a crude ***** :funny:

I'm fairly sure that was a very crude attempt at humor.

I can see her point on the second issue. If the federal government has your personal health records what's to stop them from using it against you, or even sharing that information. It's property of the government would it be made available under the disclosure act.

It's bad enough that Insurance companies deny certain type of procedures, claims or payments, now we're going to have the govenment telling our doctors what options they can perform as well. Is there review board we can take it up with?

[Hobgoblin]

I'm fairly sure that was a very crude attempt at humor.

I can see her point on the second issue. If the federal government has your personal health records what's to stop them from using it against you, or even sharing that information. It's property of the government would it be made available under the disclosure act.

It's bad enough that Insurance companies deny certain type of procedures, claims or payments, now we're going to have the govenment telling our doctors what options they can perform as well. Is there review board we can take it up with?

I heard once that one day employers may deny employment due to a potential employee's risk of getting sick in the future. They will pre-screen people's genetic health to save on future insurance costs. :wow::cmad:

[SuBe]

I heard once that one day employers may deny employment due to a potential employee's risk of getting sick in the future. They will pre-screen people's genetic health to save on future insurance costs. :wow::cmad:
I've heard about that. Just another varience of Eugenics.

[Hobgoblin]

I've heard about that. Just another varience of Eugenics.

I would think that it would backfire on the company badly, too. Considering how many people out there have genetic diseases, or the potential for genetic disease, thats a lot of people that would be disqualified from having a job. Millions of unemployable people (more so than now)? Thats a recipe for revolution, imo.

[Carcharodon]

But....but that means...the government would have to step in! We can't have that!! ANARCHY, I TELL YOU!!

[Handsome Rob]

But....but that means...the government would have to step in! We can't have that!! ANARCHY, I TELL YOU!!

The government already did, last year. :o

http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/elsi/legislat.shtml



On May 21st, President Bush signed into law the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA), which prohibits U.S. insurance companies and employers from discriminating on the basis of information derived from genetic tests. GINA passed both houses of Congress with a vote in the U.S. House of Representatives of 414 to 1. The bill had passed in the House twice before, most recently last year when the vote was 420 to 3. The U.S. Senate unamiously passed the current bill after compromises were reached on areas of disagreement that had held up its passage for several months.
GINA protects Americans from discrimination based on information derived from genetic tests. It forbids insurance companies from discriminating through reduced coverage or pricing and prohibits employers from making adverse employment decisions based on a person’s genetic code. In addition, insurers and employers are not allowed under the law to request or demand a genetic test.
A 2001 study by the American Management Association showed that nearly two-thirds of major U.S. companies require medical examinations of new hires. In addition, 14% conduct tests for susceptibility to workplace hazards, 3% for breast and colon cancer, and 1% for sickle cell anemia; 10% collect information about family medical history.
“Because of this legislation, Americans will be free to undergo genetic testing for diseases such as cancer, heart disease, diabetes, and Alzheimer’s without fearing for their job or health insurance,” said House speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) in a statement.
Increased genetic testing makes it more likely that researchers will come up with early, lifesaving therapy for a wide range of diseases with hereditary links, lawmakers said. Genetic testing also will help doctors catch problems early, perhaps leading to preventive treatment and lower costs.And it was signed by the evil George Bush!! :wow:

[Hobgoblin]

The government already did, last year. :o

http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/elsi/legislat.shtml


And it was signed by the evil George Bush!! :wow:

Score one for Georgie.



Yes, he still sucks.

[Sebastos]

Question were Maher and Coulter more than just "friends"? :huh:

[sinewave]

Question were Maher and Coulter more than just "friends"? :huh:

apparently that guy will stick his dick in anything that moves, so i wouldn't doubt it. i definitely don't want to picture that sight, though. :csad:

[Sebastos]

I don't know, he was acting like they were last night on Larry King.

[sinewave]

I don't know, he was acting like they were last night on Larry King.

i didn't catch it, but i've heard the rumor before. there must have been a lot of alcohol and drugs involved in that decision for him... and her.