You Repuplicans Counting On Filibuster

[editec]

You want to burn more coal?

Put scrubbers on the stacks.

 

[DiamondDave]

You want the underachievers, those that have failed, and the 'poor' to have more money.. tell them to earn it

 

[Caligirl]

Are we really arguing about whether the dems will pick up seats in races where the challengers haven't even been named yet?

Orange Juice, how young are you? Do you not remember 1980, 1992, 1994, 2002? 2006?

 

[Silence]

Are we really arguing about whether the dems will pick up seats in races where the challengers haven't even been named yet?

Orange Juice, how young are you? Do you not remember 1980, 1992, 1994, 2002? 2006?

I think OJs point wasn't to argue but rather to speculate how cooperative the Republicans who will be up for re-election in 2010 might be in order to keep their jobs.

I think it's a logical assumption that they'll find themselves being a lot more cooperative with the new administration than they would've otherwise been.

 

[WillowTree]

I think OJs point wasn't to argue but rather to speculate how cooperative the Republicans who will be up for re-election in 2010 might be in order to keep their jobs.

I think it's a logical assumption that they'll find themselves being a lot more cooperative with the new administration than they would've otherwise been.

we can only hope that the Republicans are cooperative to the exact same degree that the Dems have been. That's my sincerest wish.

 

[glockmail]

Obama has been sucking pretty hard on Liebermann. I wonder if it will continue if the dems do indeed get their 60.

It doesn't matter. Everyone is assuming that the GOP will vote in lock-step like the Democrats. Historically that's almost never the case. There are plenty of lily livered Republicans in the Senate to vote with the Democrats, give a filibuster proof majority, or to present such a weak filibuster to cause only a minor delay.

 

[Murf76]

Most of the members of your party on this board stated they only voted for McCain as a knee jerk reaction to vote against Democrats. They never liked McCain, couldn't articulate or defend his policies, and the only reason republicans have even voted in the last three presidential elections was to record a knee jerk reaction against the Democratic nominee.

I, for one, grew very fond of McCain over the course of the election. And while I certainly didn't agree with all his policies... I believed he was genuine in his desire to "reach across the aisle", find bipartisan solutions, and put "Country First". I kind of liked that. At the minimum, it was an honorable thing.

Obama, on the other hand, merely gave lip-service to bipartisanship. It was an obvious 'wink-wink, nod-nod' proposition. Because no one with even a scrap of intellect could possibly have taken him seriously. Afterall, he'd never displayed any "bipartisanship" before, not on anything difficult, that is.

There's a lesson to be had here in the 2008 election. And I sincerely hope that our Republican leaders are paying attention....

For the second time in his life... John McCain underestimated his enemies. He believed that we're all still "Americans" at heart, that we'll all still stand up for Liberty. He believed his opposition was misguided on the issues but otherwise honorable. He probably still does. It's a blind-spot of his, I think, to not question another man's honor.

In this, he was wrong. The battle is a simpler one than he understood... Collectivism as opposed to Individualism (Liberty). And there's no room for COMPROMISE on that. There's no "reaching across the aisle" if in the end it is of benefit to socialist policy. To do so, renegs upon the promise of Liberty and thus... American Exceptionalism. We become just another European-styled socialist country, and not a very good one at that.

I kind of hope the Dems get their majority. It would further serve to illustrate their current brand of tyranny if they have no Republican standing in their way to pin their failure on. They'll raise our taxes, drive small business to ruination, drive up unemployment and inflation, wreck our volunteer military, and then inevitably try to blame the previous administration. But... without any effective Republican opposition in their way, who'd be stupid enough to believe them?

Let 'em cheat, lie, and steal their way to victory. In 2010 and 2012, Republicans will be waiting... with a clear alternative to their collectivist policies.

 

[Shogun]

who the fuck cheated, lied or stole this election, dude? Take your bitter fucking tears with you on your way out the fucking door.

 

[rayboyusmc]

Once you take out the people that voted for him specifically because he was black (and don't even try saying there weren't any), and the people that vote Democrat straight ticket, even though they have NO idea what they're voting for, what do you really have left?

Whiney loser Republicans?

I'm so glad no one votes the straight Repub ticket. They all thought that Palin was just superqualified to be president.

If he is able to make the change he wants, he will get another 4 years in office and will win by an even bigger margin. Tuff shanuggies righties.

 

[Murf76]

who the fuck cheated, lied or stole this election, dude? Take your bitter fucking tears with you on your way out the fucking door.

Was all that just for little ole' me? ....how utterly charming.

 

[rayboyusmc]

Again for the slow or stupid. Obama has stated PUBLICLY that he intends to bankrupt coal fired electrical plants with regulations

More bullcrap from retired. He called for clean coal technology.

You can have clean coal without bankrupting them. Sound bite. Sound bite.

BP met all the so called regulations and increased its profit. It's the same thing. It can be done and they won't go broke.

We could be getting 50 mpg right now if they hadn't listened to your nay saying back in 72 and maybe we wouldn't be bailing out the auto industry.

 

[jillian]

I, for one, grew very fond of McCain over the course of the election. And while I certainly didn't agree with all his policies... I believed he was genuine in his desire to "reach across the aisle", find bipartisan solutions, and put "Country First". I kind of liked that. At the minimum, it was an honorable thing.

Obama, on the other hand, merely gave lip-service to bipartisanship. It was an obvious 'wink-wink, nod-nod' proposition. Because no one with even a scrap of intellect could possibly have taken him seriously. Afterall, he'd never displayed any "bipartisanship" before, not on anything difficult, that is.

There's a lesson to be had here in the 2008 election. And I sincerely hope that our Republican leaders are paying attention....

For the second time in his life... John McCain underestimated his enemies. He believed that we're all still "Americans" at heart, that we'll all still stand up for Liberty. He believed his opposition was misguided on the issues but otherwise honorable. He probably still does. It's a blind-spot of his, I think, to not question another man's honor.

In this, he was wrong. The battle is a simpler one than he understood... Collectivism as opposed to Individualism (Liberty). And there's no room for COMPROMISE on that. There's no "reaching across the aisle" if in the end it is of benefit to socialist policy. To do so, renegs upon the promise of Liberty and thus... American Exceptionalism. We become just another European-styled socialist country, and not a very good one at that.

I kind of hope the Dems get their majority. It would further serve to illustrate their current brand of tyranny if they have no Republican standing in their way to pin their failure on. They'll raise our taxes, drive small business to ruination, drive up unemployment and inflation, wreck our volunteer military, and then inevitably try to blame the previous administration. But... without any effective Republican opposition in their way, who'd be stupid enough to believe them?

Let 'em cheat, lie, and steal their way to victory. In 2010 and 2012, Republicans will be waiting... with a clear alternative to their collectivist policies.

You wingers still don't get it. You didn't lose because of "cheating or lying"... that would be how you won in 2000 and 2004. So don't project. You don't get more than 350 electoral votes by cheating.

Two... you didn't lose because McCain was too bi-partisan, you lost because at a time when people needed to hear that their candidate was in control and understood the economic issues, your candidate's pick for VP was out playing rogue by saying the smart guy in the room was "pallin' around with terrorists".

You tried to run a Karl Rove "base" campaign in a non-base year. Now, had McCain chosen someone smart for his VP pick and not made the mistake of "the fundamentals of our economy are strong"; or his pretend campaign suspension, it is very likely that he'd have won.

But the wingnuts don't get it and they think the nutters should be more extreme.

Please, keep feeling that way. It does a heart good.

 

[jillian]

we can only hope that the Republicans are cooperative to the exact same degree that the Dems have been. That's my sincerest wish.

What on earth are you talking about??? RAFLMAO!!

Nutcases... the repubs spent six years not putting a matter on the floor unless they didn't need a single dem vote to pass it.

Keep living in your little fantasy world.

 

[Tech_Esq]

You wingers still don't get it. You didn't lose because of "cheating or lying"... that would be how you won in 2000 and 2004. So don't project. You don't get more than 350 electoral votes by cheating.

Two... you didn't lose because McCain was too bi-partisan, you lost because at a time when people needed to hear that their candidate was in control and understood the economic issues, your candidate's pick for VP was out playing rogue by saying the smart guy in the room was "pallin' around with terrorists".

You tried to run a Karl Rove "base" campaign in a non-base year. Now, had McCain chosen someone smart for his VP pick and not made the mistake of "the fundamentals of our economy are strong"; or his pretend campaign suspension, it is very likely that he'd have won.

But the wingnuts don't get it and they think the nutters should be more extreme.

Please, keep feeling that way. It does a heart good.

Good Christ Jillian get another tune, this one is gettin' OLD! Nobody votes for president on the basis of their vice presidential pick. If that were true there would have been a President Dukakis. Bush's pick was poor and Dukakis' pick excellent. Bottom line, it just doesn't matter. If you get a percentage point one way or the other, it would be a lot.

So, you can drink some more Haterade and attack Sarah Palin all you want, but your argument is L-A-M-E. I'm beginning to think you are just afraid of strong women.

 

[Murf76]

You wingers still don't get it. You didn't lose because of "cheating or lying"... that would be how you won in 2000 and 2004. So don't project. You don't get more than 350 electoral votes by cheating.

Electoral votes are hardly a gauge of American sentiment.
48% of this country stands against you. That's not quite the "mandate" libs want to make believe they have.

Two... you didn't lose because McCain was too bi-partisan, you lost because at a time when people needed to hear that their candidate was in control and understood the economic issues, your candidate's pick for VP was out playing rogue by saying the smart guy in the room was "pallin' around with terrorists".

You tried to run a Karl Rove "base" campaign in a non-base year. Now, had McCain chosen someone smart for his VP pick and not made the mistake of "the fundamentals of our economy are strong"; or his pretend campaign suspension, it is very likely that he'd have won.

If the criteria for winning was an 'understanding of economic issues'... then by all means, please explain your guy's win. He's never run so much as a hot dog stand.

Nope. This election was more or less an indictment of G.W. Bush. Your messiah's message of "four more years" was able to stick. And the reason it did, is that Bush was NOT a good Republican in a whole lot of ways. It was his "compassionate conservatism" that hung his ass... on BOTH sides of the aisle.

What we've learned now though... is that you can't 'out-liberal' a liberal. In a choice between a faux leftist and a leftist, the real one will inevitably be victorious.

And the job before us is clear at this point... to provide a clear alternative to government tyranny and collectivist policy, to stand once more for freedom of the individual citizen.

 

[CockySOB]

Considering most people that voted for Obama had NO IDEA what he stood for other the fleeting "Change" I suspect a lot of Independents are gonna wake up to his destruction of the electrical grid, the gas wars and his trillions in new debt and say " Damn, I did not know he was gonna do that". Again the press did us NO favors by not vetting him and not publishing things like his little " I will bankrupt the coal fired plant" comments.

When the majority of teh working class which voted for Obama realize that THEY will be paying the price for his promises, I expect them to swing back to the Republican party (and capitalism).

 

[Toro]

People seem to forget that there are 4-6 Democrats who are fairly conservative. They will vote against the Democrats if they lean too far left.

 

[glockmail]

People seem to forget that there are 4-6 Democrats who are fairly conservative. They will vote against the Democrats if they lean too far left.

Not if they want any committee appointments.

 

[Silence]

we can only hope that the Republicans are cooperative to the exact same degree that the Dems have been. That's my sincerest wish.

Mine too Willow... then in 2010 there really will be a sweeping out of the Cons in Washington

you see how their antics have helped them so far don't you? keep wishing for their continued bad behavior... it only works in the Dems favor

eta:

48% of this country stands against you. That's not quite the "mandate" libs want to make believe they have.

Hey Murf...maybe you didn't get the memo but Obama won with 53% of the popular vote. If Bush's victory with barely 1% in 2004 was a mandate then I sure as shit would consider an almost 7% victory a mandate.

 

[WillowTree]

Mine too Willow... then in 2010 there really will be a sweeping out of the Cons in Washington

you see how their antics have helped them so far don't you? keep wishing for their continued bad behavior... it only works in the Dems favor

eta:




Hey Murf...maybe you didn't get the memo but Obama won with 53% of the popular vote. If Bush's victory with barely 1% in 2004 was a mandate then I sure as shit would consider an almost 7% victory a mandate.

did you just admit to me that you want the Republicans to be as cooperative as the Dems were???? Is that what you just said????