Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: Lennyjoe on January 19, 2010, 09:24:40 PM
-
Dems take notice. The people are pissed and won't take it sitting down!
-
That was quick. I expected weeks of counting and recounting, over and over until one of the counts showed Coakley as the winner.
-
I expected weeks of counting and recounting, over and over until one of the counts showed Coakley as the winner.
I expected that or blatant, flagrant ballot box stuffing. Oh, well, it's not too late for the Taxachusetts state government to dilly-dally, cogitate, consider, reconsider, and generally take its own sweet time making the election official enough to send Brown to Washington, D.C.
On the "bright side" that far too infrequently sheds actual illumination, it tickles me to wonder how much fun the current occupant of the White House is having this evening, especially after flying up there to relieve himself of snotty remarks about Brown.
How's that for hope and change?
-
I think that's the sweetest part. He went up to NJ and Mass and both of the candidates he went up for lost. =D
She conceded bout 15 minutes ago.
-
Evidently they couldn't find enough dead people for Coakley to win.
-
Reports are they found lots of dead people on the rolls. I guess they weren't enough. She must have really tanked.
-
Awesome! Gives ya hope for 2010.
-
Since she conceded does this mean they won't wait for the overseas military ballots to certify the election.
-
They'll probably wait. I'm guessing a concession speech has no legal binding, as people have before 'unconcessed' and challenged the results.
-
They will wait until the last possible second. That you can count on.
Good message sent. But with democrats being democrats, it will fall on deaf ears. And that's a good thing.
-
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.manlyrash.com%2Fblog%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2009%2F08%2Ftears-of-a-clown1.jpg&hash=c8f6967f7264e361a1ae45df4d8ded14142f3337)
-
I just had to tune into MSNBC to hear what the buzz was.
Chris Matthews was outlining a way to ram through health care and saying that the reason they were losing races was because health care wasn't done.
They are really on a mission.
-
Chris Matthews was outlining a way to ram through health care and saying that the reason they were losing races was because health care wasn't done.
I don't think I've ever seen that level of denial.
If they try to ram the bill through by not seating Brown until after the vote, the mood in the country is going to go from dissatisfied to rage.
-
Glenn Beck made an interesting point this morning. The response to this election will tell us if the Democrats are honest, rational people who simply disagree with us on policy, or whether they've become irrational zealots who care about nothing but their radical agenda.
The country has sent a clear message to the leadership in Washington: pull back from the extreme left, come back to the center. If you continue heading in the current direction, we can and will vote you out of office.
If the Democrats are rational, they'll heed the message and respect the will of the people, even if it's only out of a sense of self-preservation. If they're irrational zealots, they'll double down on their agenda and try even harder to force their progressive revolution through before the everything comes undone for them.
Chalk Chris Mathews up in the "irrational zealot" column.
-
get him a seat next to olberman
-
Glenn Beck made an interesting point this morning. The response to this election will tell us if the Democrats are honest, rational people who simply disagree with us on policy, or whether they've become irrational zealots who care about nothing but their radical agenda.
Second one. No question about it.
they'll double down on their agenda and try even harder to force their progressive revolution through before the everything comes undone for them.
And that's what will happen.
-
Chris Matthews was outlining a way to ram through health care and saying that the reason they were losing races was because health care wasn't done.
The man is either a pathological liar . . . or is just plain nuts.
Seriously. There's such a thing as being mistaken, even badly mistaken . . . and then there's being divorced from reality.
I expect to see him institutionalized at some point; when you see a press report that he's "in rehab," or "being treated for exhaustion" or "taking a well-earned vacation" you'd probably be right if you guessed he was in a padded room somewhere, or strapped to a bed with a Thorazine drip.
-
Gosh, and I thought Obama and Coakley's cracks about Brown driving a pickup would have put it in the bag for Coakley. :)
-
I am absolutely thrilled with this result. The democrats thought that they where entitled to the seat and the people showed them that it is not theirs (democrats) just for the taking. The irony of the whole thing is that Teddy's seat will hopefully tank his life long dream. =)
-
The irony of the whole thing is that Teddy's seat will hopefully tank his life long dream.
Bwahahahahaha!
-
Oh, PS -- here's some good sore loser stuff:
Rep. Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, head of the House Democrats' campaign effort, said Coakley's loss won't deter his colleagues from continuing to blame the previous administration.
From:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100120/ap_on_el_se/us_massachusetts_senate
-
If the GOP was half way smart, they'd say "Kill Obamacare or we dig our heels in on EVERYTHING, even our own pet projects."
-
Debbie Downer Wolf Blitzer on CNN, I'm waiting for him to start crying.
-
The irony of the whole thing is that Teddy's seat will hopefully tank his life long dream.
Heh.
Say, I'd heard that it was Teddy who arranged to have the replacement senator elected instead of appointed by governor in Mass, so that Romney couldn't replace him with a Republican if he died earlier? And now Romney's out, and the Democrat governor can't appoint a Democrat senator, and the election gives the seat to a Republican...
Thanks, Teddy. Couldn't've done it without you. :lol:
-
Say, I'd heard that it was Teddy who arranged to have the replacement senator elected instead of appointed by governor in Mass, so that Romney couldn't replace him with a Republican if he died earlier? And now Romney's out, and the Democrat governor can't appoint a Democrat senator, and the election gives the seat to a Republican...
Thanks, Teddy. Couldn't've done it without you.
I wonder if he was sober when he did that?
-
Heh.
Say, I'd heard that it was Teddy who arranged to have the replacement senator elected instead of appointed by governor in Mass, so that Romney couldn't replace him with a Republican if he died earlier? And now Romney's out, and the Democrat governor can't appoint a Democrat senator, and the election gives the seat to a Republican...
Thanks, Teddy. Couldn't've done it without you. :lol:
Nope. When the Dems were sure Kerry would beat W in 2004 they changed it from governor's appointment of a replacement to requiring a special election. They didn't want Romney to appoint a Republican to that seat. 'Course that point was mooted by the epic fail on Kerry's part. They switched it back when it was clear the Hero of Chappaquiddik would see his day of judgement before his current term expired.
-
I should clarify that when Swimmer was dying, they changed the rule so that Deval Patrick could appoint a temporary replacement in order to keep the Donks at a 60 seat majority until the election could be held. Without that, the election requirement would have left MA without one senator and the Donks with 57 seats (plus Sanders and Lieberman). The Reps could have sustained a filibuster in that case.
The rule change the made under Romney simply prevented him from naming a temporary replacement senator had Kerry won in 2004. The recent change just put it back the way it was prior to 2004.
-
woot.
-
Chris Matthews was outlining a way to ram through health care and saying that the reason they were losing races was because health care wasn't done.
Sir, I demand you share your fine smoke. I too wish to see the purple flying unicorn.
-
You can't expect Matthews to report objectively on the man he loves.
-
Nope. When the Dems were sure Kerry would beat W in 2004 they changed it from governor's appointment of a replacement to requiring a special election. They didn't want Romney to appoint a Republican to that seat. 'Course that point was mooted by the epic fail on Kerry's part. They switched it back when it was clear the Hero of Chappaquiddik would see his day of judgement before his current term expired.
I see. Thanks for clarifying.
-
Best news I heard this year.
Meanwhile ...
364 days down, 1097 days to go.
-
So is it Palin/Brown '012, or Brown/Palin? ;/ :laugh:
-
The WaPo has a wonderful little slideshow on the left side of their main page. Pictures of Dems (esp. J, Kerry) finding out that they did not win = priceless. Bitterness and anger prevail as the emotions being expressed.
That may say something. [/obviousness]
stay safe.
skidmark
-
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fpremium1.uploadit.org%2FdocZox%2F%2FDingieDongie.jpg&hash=0efd3b5e58440fc51effe6b05cab6137dd416e9b)
-
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fpremium1.uploadit.org%2FdocZox%2F%2FHearFAIL.jpg&hash=0ebf37dfc34697f370fec6992b7d03c33069aee5)
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fpremium1.uploadit.org%2FdocZox%2F%2FCOAKLEYfail.jpg&hash=3fd3b0573e5fe38eb18b7e0b6ad2739854bc60d2)
-
All I can say is, I woke up this morning with hope.
If Massachusetts can do this, hope yet remains for our country.
-
A) Harold is the man
B) I'm stealin that first one for facebook!
-
All I can say is, I woke up this morning with hope.
If Massachusetts can do this, hope yet remains for our country.
I just hope we don't over-react.
The last thing I want is a Republican supermajority and a Republican president in 2012. This has already been bad enough. Imagine what a Stupid Party supermajority would do to police powers domestically.
I love it like in 1994, when the FedGov shuts down and no one can agree on anything. No spending. No intrusive programs.
-
I just hope we don't over-react.
The last thing I want is a Republican supermajority and a Republican president in 2012. This has already been bad enough. Imagine what a Stupid Party supermajority would do to police powers domestically.
I love it like in 1994, when the FedGov shuts down and no one can agree on anything. No spending. No intrusive programs.
I want gridlock. I want the government STOPPED.
Status quo is better than Obama-_______ (Care, Energy, Stimulus, Taxing, Spending) but status quo is unsustainable. Something has to be done about entitlement spending and it must be done soon. It will collapse on itself within the next generation.
However, I don't know how we roll things back without a supermajority, though. I don't know how Social Security and Medicare are "fixed" (I'd prefer "ended") without that.
-
George Soros Learns About Brown Victory
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c4aQCiRjvZY&feature=player_embedded
This video is evergreen.
-
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fpremium1.uploadit.org%2FdocZox%2F%2FSuckit.jpg&hash=c0da252623160e494f4f397ea2d0b7fc774d8ec7)
-
However, I don't know how we roll things back without a supermajority, though. I don't know how Social Security and Medicare are "fixed" (I'd prefer "ended") without that.
I don't have reason to believe that the GOP would do any of these things with a supermajority.
-
I don't have reason to believe that the GOP would do any of these things with a supermajority.
+1 The GOP is not called the stupid party without reason. The current crop seem to love budget deficits and big government as much as anybody.
-
jfruser:
Thank you. I needed that today. I almost wet myself. My co-workers probably thought I was suicidal until they realized I was laughing.
SADShooter
-
"Obama probably failed lunch."
:D :D :D
-
I don't have reason to believe that the GOP would do any of these things with a supermajority.
Ditto.
Our only hope as voters, with an elected ruling elite that hates us (yet we still vote for), is to create the gridlock ourselves and inflate our way out of a spending deficit.
Or, get honest men in office.
Since honesty is unlikely, I hope for gridlock for a generation. I'll wish in one hand and do something else with the other, though, and see how I end up. ;/
-
I don't have reason to believe that the GOP would do any of these things with a supermajority.
Since I'm feeling hopeful:
I don't think the current GOP would fix entitlement spending with a supermajority.
However, the most popular political party in the country right now is the Tea Party. The group most specifically concerned about fiscal responsibility.
If we do not reign in government spending, our country will collapse in the next (WARNING! Economist predictions! Take with a grain of salt!) 30 years. Possibly into Argentina, possibly into Weimar republic. Those 30 years will be faster if we continue to grow spending.
However, like most of our problems, other countries will get there first.
What I'm afraid of is: What happens when the backbone of the world economy snaps? We're talking fall of Rome level of societal collapse.
I think the Tea Party's popularity is a result of citizens recognizing this. If this anger at spending finally gets traction with the public, we may elect republicans who WILL cut spending. (Democrats are genetically incapable of cutting spending.)
There is hope. It is not yet a surety, but at least we can see it is possible.
-
OMG, Jfruser. That was brilliant! I needed that.
-
I don't have reason to believe that the GOP would do any of these things with a supermajority.
I completely agree. Now I think way too many people are reading way too much into this. This MA election was between a liberal republican who didn't act like an elitist and a liberal dem who did.
Furhermore it occurred in a state that already has near universal healthcare. I think it's hard to draw the MA voter opinion about national healthcare, given this fact.
It's great that the repubs can potentially filibuster major issues in congress. It is certainly news-worthy that MA elected a R, regardless of his views. Is this some sort of indication that people are waking up? I don't know, but I really doubt it.
If anything this will convince the GOP that the big tent philosphy is the way to go. I expect more liberal/left R's to run, giving future voters a choice between socialist/marxist and socialist-light (or whatever is one step to the right of leftist dems).
The R's won't have a true filibuster-proof membership, until the left-leaning R's are gone or more true conservatives are elected. IMO, electing true conservatives (regardless of what label they choose) will be the only way to fix some of the problems we have.
-
I just read that Sarah Palin will be out stumping for John McCain... :mad:
Will they never learn?
-
I hope that is not how it turns out, last election I felt like I had to choose which side of the turd sandwich I wanted to take a big bite from.
-
I completely agree. Now I think way too many people are reading way too much into this. This MA election was between a liberal republican who didn't act like an elitist and a liberal dem who did.
Furhermore it occurred in a state that already has near universal healthcare. I think it's hard to draw the MA voter opinion about national healthcare, given this fact.
It's great that the repubs can potentially filibuster major issues in congress. It is certainly news-worthy that MA elected a R, regardless of his views. Is this some sort of indication that people are waking up? I don't know, but I really doubt it.
If anything this will convince the GOP that the big tent philosphy is the way to go. I expect more liberal/left R's to run, giving future voters a choice between socialist/marxist and socialist-light (or whatever is one step to the right of leftist dems).
The R's won't have a true filibuster-proof membership, until the left-leaning R's are gone or more true conservatives are elected. IMO, electing true conservatives (regardless of what label they choose) will be the only way to fix some of the problems we have.
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.faniq.com%2Fimages%2Fblog%2Fb7ad4c44ad56c5526e36282167a467f6.jpg&hash=511fe4ec846e38812250f6308b9bc7d942c7712e)
No way. Not on Armed Polite Society. Take it to PM if you must, but leave it off the forum.
-
LOL, nice. I don't even know how to respond to that. Should it be in the form of a question?
-
I just read that Sarah Palin will be out stumping for John McCain... :mad:
For what? Not for president, surely. ??? I can't see the point of doing that, even as a gesture. She must know he'll never win. Why would she go anywhere near him again?
I'll believe it when I see it.
-
George Soros Learns About Brown Victory
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c4aQCiRjvZY&feature=player_embedded
This video is evergreen.
Brilliant dialogue.
-
If anything this will convince the GOP that the big tent philosphy is the way to go. I expect more liberal/left R's to run, giving future voters a choice between socialist/marxist and socialist-light (or whatever is one step to the right of leftist dems).
This is indeed the danger.
-
Brilliant dialogue.
Laughed my ankles off.
-
For what? Not for president, surely. ??? I can't see the point of doing that, even as a gesture. She must know he'll never win. Why would she go anywhere near him again?
I'll believe it when I see it.
His senate seat is up for reelection this year. Dunno why he'd need her support, though supposedly they are on friendly terms so I'd guess that's why she'd stump for him. Last time around he won with something like >70% of the vote. I tossed a protest vote to his Libertarian challanger in 2004, along with, seemingly, about 8 other Arizonans.
-
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fchicagoboyz.net%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2Fbrown-change.jpg&hash=cc79ded054e94dd3e75b5b1309ff418ae8085330)
http://chicagoboyz.net/
-
I want gridlock. I want the government STOPPED.
No, I want rollback.
-
For Massachusetts, Brown is pretty conservative. Small town roots, National Guard, deployed in Afghanistan, voted for a local cap and trade bill but later apologized for his vote, opposed same-sex marriage, and was publicly attacked for his opposition but didn't back down.
Wisconsin, Illinois, Minnesota, Michigan, Nebraska and a host of other states can't boast of having a senator that conservative. I'd say this is a huge move for Massachusetts.
If the administration and Democrat leaders persist in seeing this as a Massachusetts quirk, they're going to get a shellacking in November. MA hasn't elected a Republican to congress since 1973. It was the only state McGovern won. If a population that liberal rejects Obamacare, cap and trade, and other Obama initiatives, what will the rest of the country do?
Chris Matthews, Olberman, the NY Times, WA Post, LA Times and other elitist mouthpieces can be in denial all they want, but it would appear that the American people will accept a certain amount of socialism, and perhaps only the amount that we have now.
The American people rejected nationalized health care in 1994. They're rejecting it now. No matter what proponents call it, or how they try to package it, Americans don't want it, and they don't want anyone shoving it down their throats.
I've been really frightened about the direction the country has been moving the last twelve months. This election gives me hope, and not the Obama kind of "hope."
-
No, I want rollback.
What, specifically?
What do you want to repeal?
If you are politically active, you need a goal. You need to be able to express that goal in simple sound bite phrases.
Like "I want the bailouts rolled back."
or "I want Social Security ended."
or "<enter your own goal>"
-
What, specifically?
What do you want to repeal?
If you are politically active, you need a goal. You need to be able to express that goal in simple sound bite phrases.
Like "I want the bailouts rolled back."
or "I want Social Security ended."
or "<enter your own goal>"
Let's start with the 17th amendment, killing social security, and replacing the income tax with a national sales tax. After that I'm sure we'll find something else to kill.
-
This is a public forum, lest we forget, Harold. Converted to link:
http://premium1.uploadit.org/docZox//*derogatory term deleted*.jpg
-
His senate seat is up for reelection this year.
Oooooh, how silly of me not to think of that.
Dunno why he'd need her support, though supposedly they are on friendly terms so I'd guess that's why she'd stump for him. Last time around he won with something like >70% of the vote.
He needs her for the same reason he needed her in '08 - to shore up his support among Americans (you call them conservatives). And keep in mind that '04 was a good year to be a Republican, even a squishy moderate like Bush or McCain. The atmosphere is a little less kind to RINO's these days.
-
I just hope we don't over-react.
The last thing I want is a Republican supermajority and a Republican president in 2012. This has already been bad enough. Imagine what a Stupid Party supermajority would do to police powers domestically.
I love it like in 1994, when the FedGov shuts down and no one can agree on anything. No spending. No intrusive programs.
I want gridlock. I want the government STOPPED.
Status quo is better than Obama-_______ (Care, Energy, Stimulus, Taxing, Spending) but status quo is unsustainable. Something has to be done about entitlement spending and it must be done soon. It will collapse on itself within the next generation.
However, I don't know how we roll things back without a supermajority, though. I don't know how Social Security and Medicare are "fixed" (I'd prefer "ended") without that.
I don't have reason to believe that the GOP would do any of these things [“rolling things back”] with a supermajority.
Two years ago, when the Rs had both houses and the White House, there were folks clamoring on THR and TFL for voting for Hillary to achieve “gridlock”. At the time I pointed out that was ridiculous because there was no guarantee that the Rs would hang onto control of Congress. I still feel that way; the best way to keep the Ds from controlling both houses and the White House is to vote them out of both Congress and the White House. When you think you’re achieving gridlock by voting the Rs “partly” out of control, you’re at risk of losing all control because you can’t guarantee the other half of the deal. Just look at 2008 if you need an example. “Yay, gridlock ! The Rs no longer are in the Whie House ! Oops; the Rs no longer control the House or Senate, either. Gee, we didn’t think of that …” Think of it now.
The Rs might not roll things back if they get back in control, as stated above, but I have more confidence that they won’t be in as big a rush to make things worse as the Ds will. I fully expect the Ds will try to ram through more gun control in the next three years. If the Rs were back in control, I have more confidence that they would NOT initiate a new AWB. I’m ecstatic that the Rs now have a chance to fillibuster.
Looking back at the previous eight years, we didn’t make a lot of progress on a federal level, but we did make some. We allowed the AWB to expire, we passed a law protecting gun manufacturers from nuisance lawsuits, and we replaced two Supreme Court justices with conservatives. My guess is that NONE of those things would have happened with eight years of Gore or Kerry.
Keep your “gridlock”.
-
LOL, nice. I don't even know how to respond to that.
No need to, and I wouldn't honor it with a response, anyway.
Edited for lack of civility, even under the guise of a famous SNL Jeopardy/Sean Connery skit.
We can do better, folks - even if we disagree with a given viewpoint. Honest. =|
-
I love watching the socialists cry:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7518713 (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7518713)
=D
-
Some people describe America as a car driving towards a cliff.
But a more potent metaphor is one I heard from Yaron Brook, head of the Ayn Rand Institute. His is the view that America is more like a raft sailing towards a waterfall, and the democrats are rowing downstream, hard.
But you can't save it just by putting down the oars.
-
Some people describe America as a car driving towards a cliff.
But a more potent metaphor is one I heard from Yaron Brook, head of the Ayn Rand Institute. His is the view that America is more like a raft sailing towards a waterfall, and the democrats are rowing downstream, hard.
But you can't save it just by putting down the oars.
True. For the time being, though, it's a start.
As I said, I know our current status quo is unsustainable. We may have to get closer to the waterfall before we can actually paddle away, though. (Hopefully it won't be too late.)
At least, maybe, we can stop paddling towards it in the meantime.
-
Some people describe America as a car driving towards a cliff.
But a more potent metaphor is one I heard from Yaron Brook, head of the Ayn Rand Institute. His is the view that America is more like a raft sailing towards a waterfall, and the democrats are rowing downstream, hard.
But you can't save it just by putting down the oars.
Nobody is proposing that we "put the oars down". We're proposing to eliminate the people paddling downstream. Even if many of us are paddling upstream, it does no good when half of the people are still paddling down, thus canceling out the effect of the "upstreamers".
You're never going to make any progress paddling upstream so long as there are a significant number of downstreamers. Progress will be made by kicking the downstreamers out of the boat, or at the very least getting them to put their oars down. That will tip the balance back in our favor and allow us to start making progress.
-
Yes but it isn't as easy as it sounds.
You kick one of the downstreamers out, another will come in. Trying to convince them to change direction is asking them to redefine what they believe in.
Personally I question some of the downstreamers' agenda. I think some of them know what the result of their actions is, but some think they will somehow benefit when the raft does go off the waterfall.
Then there will be the people claiming that moving towards to waterfall is progress, because we have already been where the upstreamers want to go.
-
but some think they will somehow benefit when the raft does go off the waterfall.
I wish I was artistically inclined because I would love to make a political cartoon out of this analogy.
Imagine our raft as we've described it, heading towards the waterfall. People in the back paddling upstream, people in the front paddling towards the waterfall. A thought baloon emanates from the heads of the downstreamers, they are envisioning the raft sprouting wings as it goes over the falls, and flying them off into the clouds.
Put BHO at the front, pointing the way into the clouds. He is clutching a map labeled "Health Care Bill". Write "debt" on the waterfall
-
I wish I was artistically inclined because I would love to make a political cartoon out of this analogy.
Imagine our raft as we've described it, heading towards the waterfall. People in the back paddling upstream, people in the front paddling towards the waterfall. A thought baloon emanates from the heads of the downstreamers, they are envisioning the raft sprouting wings as it goes over the falls, and flying them off into the clouds.
Put BHO at the front, pointing the way into the clouds. He is clutching a map labeled "Health Care Bill". Write "debt" on the waterfall
I get the cartoons in my head as well, but have little artistic talent to do anything creative with it. Don't be surprised if Harold Tuttle comes up with some Photochop.
-
Nobody is proposing that we "put the oars down". We're proposing to eliminate the people paddling downstream. Even if many of us are paddling upstream, it does no good when half of the people are still paddling down, thus canceling out the effect of the "upstreamers".
You're never going to make any progress paddling upstream so long as there are a significant number of downstreamers. Progress will be made by kicking the downstreamers out of the boat, or at the very least getting them to put their oars down. That will tip the balance back in our favor and allow us to start making progress.
This is what "gridlock" is, though.
Gridlock is a situation where we are not paddling.
BUT WE ARE STILL GOING TOWARDS THE WATERFALL.