Ned Locke, Sayer of Soothes

[Ned Locke]

Well the General Election is over. As predicted and as the recent Stimulus Bill amply demonstrates, the Democrats have an effectively filibuster proof majority.


The Republicons tried to hold the line, attempting to vote en banc but with their ever-decreasing numbers any defections would be fatal and those defections occurred.


The problem for the Con Party is that they have lost scores of incumbent senators in the last two election cycles to both election defeat and retirement. They are facing an economic mess the country lays squarely at their "Tax Cut, Outsourcing and Deregulation" feet and they are trying to run an "Obstructionist Strategy" at a time when the vast majority of Americans desperately want Government Action on jobs, the economy and health care.


They are facing the Perfect Political Storm and the only way for them to survive in their small boat is to put on the life preservers being offered to them by Obama and their Democratic colleagues.


Three put on the life vest in this recent brouhaha and you can expect more to put it on as the administration's policy changes come to vote. It's come down to either don the life vest or drown in the icy waters of the election booth. Some will go down with the U.S.S. Republicon Fraud, but many Republicons will be motivated by self-preservation. Don't expect the obstructionist policies to continue, especially as they pertain to health care reform. Those Senators and members of the House that attempt to obstruct will face the cold waters soon enough.

Soon, the moral of the story

http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showpost.php?p=514516&postcount=1

[Tom]

Neither party is worth saving.
No one in government is worth saving.
We need to completely dismantle our government, end the union, and start from scratch. Our run as a super power is over. Our run as a great nation is over.

[Marshall Bennett]

Why would the republicans ( those with half a brain ) want to stamp their names on a bill supporting a package that is bound to crash and burn , and along with it .... the democratic party . Fools !! They formulated the bait and then took it themselves , hook , line , and sinker . Its about as dumb as it gets . :lol:

[HUSKER55]

BO maybe the president but I bet the next senate elections will result in new faces. The house isn't immune either.

[rastajenk]

Only twice since Lincoln has the party of the President not lost seats in off-year elections, or some such dominating stat. History is not on the side of the Dems, especially after their historically large something-for-everyone giveaway just completed. Things will even out soon, as they always do.

[PaceAdvantage]

at a time when the vast majority of Americans desperately want Government Action on jobs, the economy and health care.Really? Since when has Government EVER run a successful jobs program, or a successful health care program, or had a hand in running a successful economy for any length of time?

Let's go over some history, shall we?

[Secretariat]

Really? Since when has Government EVER run a successful jobs program, or a successful health care program, or had a hand in running a successful economy for any length of time?

Let's go over some history, shall we?

Well, it's been running a great jobs program for decades called the American military. As an employer they offer Health care and retirement. Try getting that in today's private sector.

It's interesting that Republican Lindsey Graham is now even saying "nationalizing banks" shoudl be on the table. Is this the new Republican socialism?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/15/graham-nationalizing-bank_n_167048.html

"In a gloomy segment about the financial sector on ABC'S This Week, two self-avowed fiscal conservatives said that the U.S. Government should at least consider nationalizing the country's banking system as a means of moving beyond the current lending crisis.

"This idea of nationalizing banks is not comfortable," said Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC). "But I think we've got so many toxic assets spread throughout the banking and financial community, throughout the world, that we're going to have to do something that no one ever envisioned a year ago, no one likes. To me, banking and housing are the root cause of this problem. I'm very much afraid any program to salvage the banks is going to require the government... I would not take off the idea of nationalizing the banks."

[PaceAdvantage]

Please Sec...stop quoting these "Republicans" as if that is supposed to hold some weight with me at this point.

As I said in that post to Suff, if the Republican party as it now stands must die so that a stronger, much more traditional-conservative party will rise in its ashes, then so be it. Only when that happens will you start to see all the (D)s removed from office.

I'm old enough to remember when LIBERAL was a dirty word...you remember those days too...back when Ronald Reagan was swept into office.

It seems the tide has turned...bravo to you and MoveOn...you guys sure grabbed the bull by the horns, took all that Soros money and really pulled one helluva PR coup...of course having the media in your back pocket didn't help. Of course, Bush did his part as well.

Now Republicans and Conservatives are in the position where Democrats and LIBERALS were 25+ years ago. Of course, no matter what the left thinks, this won't last forever, and hopefully it will lead to a rebirth of the Republican party (or a suitable replacement, if it comes to that).

[JustRalph]

Well, it's been running a great jobs program for decades called the American military.


Wow! A liberal finds a use for the U.S. Military?

Even though it is a specious reason to bolster his argument that is totally foreign to the concept being discussed.

[delayjf]

Well, it's been running a great jobs program for decades called the American military. As an employer they offer Health care and retirement. Try getting that in today's private sector
Because if the private sectored tried that it would go broke, the military doesn't have to turn a profit to survive. It's no comparison.

[Suff]

As I said in that post to Suff, if the Republican party as it now stands must die so that a stronger, much more traditional-conservative party will rise in its ashes, then so be it. Only when that happens will you start to see all the (D)s removed from office.




What your experiencing is not the natural swing of the countries taste buds. Its runs deeper.

America is not interested in most of what your laying down. Don't be hurt, even less are interested in what I'm laying down. In an election your likely to beat me two to one. But in terms of what your talking about? A true conservative party rising from the ashes? Mike there is no appetite for that, and if and when America becomes contrarian, what you describe won't be relevant. It will be part of history.

Fiscally conservative, pro-business, those messages will get people's attention. This "traditional conservative" term sends people running for hills.

The republicans have to minimize the religious zealots or they are deader than dead.

[Tom]

No, you are wrong.
Sorry, thank you for playing.
We gave your home version of our game to some poor kid in the Bronx who
lost all his monopoly money.

[ArlJim78]

some people have no clue. if religious zealots were so harmful, shouldn't the good reverend Wright, the worst of the worst in terms of religious zealots, have really harmed Obama?

[Secretariat]

The republicans have to minimize the religious zealots or they are deader than dead.

Amen to that.

[Valuist]

Really? Since when has Government EVER run a successful jobs program, or a successful health care program, or had a hand in running a successful economy for any length of time?

Let's go over some history, shall we?

Well put. The government needs to back off and let markets heal themselves. It may be rough for awhile but we'll get out of it quicker than all these foolish band-aid solutions that the government keeps trying to push on us.

[PaceAdvantage]

Fiscally conservative, pro-business, those messages will get people's attention. This "traditional conservative" term sends people running for hills.This is what I'm talking about. This religion aspect never even entered my head when I wrote "traditional-conservative."

What is it with you left-of-center folks and your obsession with religion?

[PaceAdvantage]

Seriously, I think the far-left is 100x more obsessed with religion than the far-right.

[raybo]

Seriously, I think the far-left is 100x more obsessed with religion than the far-right.

So, are you suggesting that the majority of Dems are "far left" and the majority of Reps are "far right"? If so, then heaven help us.

Personally, I think the majority of both parties are much closer to the middle and, as it should be, might ought to think about working together, for a change.

Putting labels on people just because they fall into one camp or the other is not going to help our country get out of the mess we are facing. Strong actions are necessary, even if some of those actions turn out to be less than optimum. We have to start somewhere or we are doomed.

I seriously doubt that either of the 2 parties has the optimum solution to our present situation. But, between the 2 of them, and also, those not affiliated with either, there is the possibility of determining a solution that will work, over time. Will, we miss the boat initially? Maybe, maybe even, probably. But, it's not going to happen overnight. And anyone who thinks it will, or should, obviously doesn't understand the gravity or complexity of the problems.

[Bubba X]

Seriously, I think the far-left is 100x more obsessed with religion than the far-right.

Uh, no.

The religous right, AKA Moral Majority (term courtesy of that great American, Jerry Falwell), is pretty benign and impotent to anyone other than themselves.

EXCEPT, of course, for a few months during every presidential election cycle when they somehow indelibly influence the Republican primary process. The sad fact is a Repub presidential candidate cannot win without passing muster with the religous right. Too much money flows through there.

I'll never forget that moment in history at a Republican presidential candidate You, sir, tell me what other constituency has that kind of influence on the debate when the candidates had to RAISE THEIR HANDS TO SHOW THEIR COMMITMENT TO ABOLISHING ROE V WADE ?

Again, what other interest group can exert that kind of power turning a presidential debate into a third grade exercise?

How the hell do you think someone like Giuliani got washed out early in the primary season? Or how Huckabee came from nowhere to run so strongly?

The GOP better start figuring how to get their money to their candidates, especially in national elections, without it flowing through the religous right.

In your slanted opinion, that no doubt makes me obsessed. Color me unsurprised.

[PaceAdvantage]

So, are you suggesting that the majority of Dems are "far left" and the majority of Reps are "far right"?I really don't know how my statement led you to this question. It makes no sense.

[PaceAdvantage]

The GOP better start figuring how to get their money to their candidates, especially in national elections, without it flowing through the religous right.

In your slanted opinion, that no doubt makes me obsessed. Color me unsurprised.Why? The Democrats weren't penalized for getting their money to their candidates, all the while not letting us know where in the hell it "flowed through."

How much Obama money flowed through terrorist-sympathizers, anti-religious, anti-American, or anti-Military groups and/or persons? When you let me know that, then you can grandstand about religion and the Republican party.

Since Obama ran on the "transparency" message, I'm sure the data on "money flow" will be easy to come by...but then again...probably not.

[Floyd]

How much Obama money flowed through terrorist-sympathizers, anti-religious, anti-American, or anti-Military groups and/or persons? When you let me know that, then you can grandstand about religion and the Republican party.

That would depend on who defines "terrorist-sympathizers, anti-religious, anti-American, or anti-Military groups." If you or some other extreme right wing fascists are doing the defining, the answer would be "all" by the simple fact that you would consider anyone who would support Obama to fit that definition. On the other hand, if a reasonable human being made the assessment the results would differ.

[PaceAdvantage]

Now I'm an extreme right wing fascist? Are you joking?

You have just proven yourself to be as shallow as a puddle of piss with this incredibly ignorant reply.

And for the record, you're wrong about your assumption that I believe anyone who supports Obama would fall into any or all of the categories I listed above.

[Floyd]

Now I'm an extreme right wing fascist? Are you joking?
What, you're insulted? I thought you'd take it it as a compliment.

You have just proven yourself to be as shallow as a puddle of piss with this incredibly ignorant reply.
Maybe yes, maybe no. How deep is the puddle?

And for the record, you're wrong about your assumption that I believe anyone who supports Obama would fall into any or all of the categories I listed above.
Do I sense a subtle shift in your political opinions? Or is that just gas?

[PaceAdvantage]

Do I sense a subtle shift in your political opinions? Or is that just gas?What you sense is the fact that you were clueless about me to begin with...

Note that I have not made any assumptions about you, other than the fact that you aren't very complicated, nor do you make an effort to be...otherwise, you wouldn't have made so many wrong judgement calls about what I believe....calling me a fascist...you should be ashamed of yourself.

Then again, perhaps you have no idea what the word means...

[Floyd]

What you sense is the fact that you were clueless about me to begin with...

Note that I have not made any assumptions about you, other than the fact that you aren't very complicated, nor do you make an effort to be...otherwise, you wouldn't have made so many wrong judgement calls about what I believe....calling me a fascist...you should be ashamed of yourself.

Then again, perhaps you have no idea what the word means...

I only know you through what you advocate in this forum, if your politics are not fascist maybe you aren't communicating that effectively.
Here's the Wikipedia definition, let's take a look:

Fascism is an authoritarian nationalist ideology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism) focused on solving economic, political, and social problems that its supporters see as causing national decline or decadence.
Does that fit?

Fascist movements promote violent conflict between nations, political factions, and races as part of a social Darwinist view that conflict between these groups is natural and a part of evolution.
Sound familiar?

Fascist movements oppose any ideology or political system that gives direct political power to people as individuals rather than as a collective through the state (liberalism, democracy, individualism); that is deemed detrimental to national identity and unity (class conflict, communism, internationalism, laissez-faire capitalism); that protects and enhances the power of "weak" people rather than promoting "strong" people (egalitarianism); that may oppose major changes to institutions and cultural values that it proposes (conservatism) and that undermine the military strength and military ambitions of the nation.
Is that close to what you believe? Really, if you're going to call people "extreme left wing," "communist," "socialist," and use the word "liberal" as a pejorative term, I'm surprised that you would take offense when it's pointed out that your own beliefs are so extreme.

[PaceAdvantage]

Is that close to what you believe? Really, if you're going to call people "extreme left wing," "communist," "socialist," and use the word "liberal" as a pejorative term, I'm surprised that you would take offense when it's pointed out that your own beliefs are so extreme.Please link to a post where I call a member of this board a communist or a socialist. You won't find it I believe.

I advocate violent conflict between races? Are you daft? That's a serious question. I advocate violent conflict between liberals and conservatives?

Yes, I backed the invasion of Iraq, but if that's all it takes to earn me the fascist label, then I think you need to reread your definitions.

Here's the real definition of fascism, and it sounds nothing like me or anything I believe in:

1often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition

Good night.

[rastajenk]

Floyd and anyone who thinks the photo of Michelle Malkin in the other thread (with a guy with a swatstika) is offensive has to read Goldberg's Liberal Fascism.
Floyd's definitions, above, are accurate enough, but they describe the leftoids of this planet a lot more than the Right thinkers:


Fascism is an authoritarian nationalist ideology focused on solving economic, political, and social problems that its supporters see as causing national decline or decadence - check

Fascist movements promote violent conflict between nations, political factions, and races - check

Fascist movements oppose any ideology or political system that gives direct political power to people as individuals rather than as a collective through the state - check
Sounds like the guys in charge now.

[Floyd]

Please link to a post where I call a member of this board a communist or a socialist. You won't find it I believe.

I advocate violent conflict between races? Are you daft? That's a serious question. I advocate violent conflict between liberals and conservatives?

Yes, I backed the invasion of Iraq, but if that's all it takes to earn me the fascist label, then I think you need to reread your definitions.

Here's the real definition of fascism, and it sounds nothing like me or anything I believe in:



Good night.

Hey, when you find the perfect descriptive definition, you stick with it...

[lsbets]

Floyd and anyone who thinks the photo of Michelle Malkin in the other thread (with a guy with a swatstika) is offensive has to read Goldberg's Liberal Fascism.
Floyd's definitions, above, are accurate enough, but they describe the leftoids of this planet a lot more than the Right thinkers:


Fascism is an authoritarian nationalist ideology focused on solving economic, political, and social problems that its supporters see as causing national decline or decadence - check

Fascist movements promote violent conflict between nations, political factions, and races - check

Fascist movements oppose any ideology or political system that gives direct political power to people as individuals rather than as a collective through the state - check
Sounds like the guys in charge now.


Bingo!