Jump to content

Home

Fillibuster-proof majority


Achilles
 Share

Recommended Posts

Wow, talk about unexpected.

 

Today, Senator Arlen Specter announced that he is now a Democrat. Which shocks the hell out of me, because yesterday I heard him pretty much blow off speculation that he would be changing parties for next year's election (Link).

 

With a 58-seat majority, the addition of Arlen Specter makes 59. And when all this bull**** with Norm Coleman finally blows over, Al Franken will make 60. So much for Karl Rove's "Permanent Republican Majority". Here's to hoping that the Dems don't make the same mistake.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Upside for the opposition: if/when the economy implodes, dems can't put blame on reps w/o looking really stupid (not that they won't try).

 

downside for opposition: if they succeed, they'll have a shot at at least 4 more years and then some in order to achieve their goals. If spectre of PA gets elected as a dem (as if he weren't that all along anyway :rolleyes: ), that will only solidify dem majority.

 

@mimartin--nice cartoon and good point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yay, Just what this country needs. Pure partisans voting along party lines.
:eyeraise:

 

Where were you in 1996-2006? Your attempts at sarcastic banter might have more credibility had you been toeing that same line when the GOP was running this country into the ground. As is it, your rhetoric makes you sound like a party hack. Enjoy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I'm reading his post correctly, Tommy's just saying the same thing that I've been saying, namely that he believes that neither party has the nation's best interests at heart. IMO, they're both determined to run the country into ground; they just have different methods of doing so.

 

Wanting to find a solution that's somewhere in the middle instead of going to these opposite extremes every few years is hardly what I'd call sounding like a party hack.

 

Oh, yeah: and I'm betting that Al Franken sucks as much as a senator as he did as a comedian.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I'm reading his post correctly, Tommy's just saying the same thing that I've been saying, namely that he believes that neither party has the nation's best interests at heart.
Both you and Tommy are welcome to your opinions. However, to complain about "Democratic party line voting" seems to completely ignore what "Republican party line" voting has given us.

 

IMO, they're both determined to run the country into ground; they just have different methods of doing so.
How'd the economy look when Clinton left office? Explain to me again how "both" parties want to run the country into the ground?

 

Wanting to find a solution that's somewhere in the middle instead of going to these opposite extremes every few years is hardly what I'd call sounding like a party hack.
Is that what his post was trying to accomplish? :rolleyes:
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Republican majority at the end of the Clinton era.

 

No, I'm not saying that it's bad because it's Dems. Quite frankly I could easily say the same for the Republicans through the Clinton and Bush years. I think I said quite a great deal even during teh election I would rather have congress and the president unable to push through party agendas regardless of affiliation. I agree with some Republican and some Democrat policies, but I don't like either one to get full control. That's what led to the bad legislation that got through during Bush. When partisans are allowed full control regardless of party affiliation it is bad for the country.

 

edit: Funny how I'm a partisan hack when I make a negative remark about partisanship.

Edited by Tommycat
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Republican majority at the end of the Clinton era.
So?

 

The argument was that both parties equally want to ruin ****. When we had Dem in office (a Dem that could veto Rep initiatives), we had a good economy. No one jockying to take everyone's rights away ala Patriot Act, MCA, etc (remember FMLA?).

 

So no, I don't buy the argument that both parties are just looking to shotgun a sixer and park the country in a ditch somewhere. Sorry.

 

No, I'm not saying that it's bad because it's Dems. Quite frankly I could easily say the same for the Republicans through the Clinton and Bush years.
But did you? No, you opted to speak up here and now. And now you want me to accept that it's just an unfortunate coincidence.

 

Nevermind. Lemme go look for my button again.

 

I think I said quite a great deal even during teh election I would rather have congress and the president unable to push through party agendas regardless of affiliation.
Oh, you prefer your politics partisan and ineffective? Well that makes sense.

 

I agree with some Republican and some Democrat policies, but I don't like either one to get full control.
And normally I would be right there with you, however I actually pay attention to what Republicans say and the less they are able to keep Dems from getting things done, the better. Now is not the time for the little ****-**** games that particular party likes to play.

 

That's what led to the bad legislation that got through during Bush.
Because partisanship is evil or because the neo-con republicans are? Let's not confuse cause and effect, shall we?

 

When partisans are allowed full control regardless of party affiliation it is bad for the country.
I'm going to give you an opportunity to revise your statement before I proceed to point out all the flaws with it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well seeing as how I only joined this site in 07... Kinda hard for me to go back in time to 1996 and point out the bad policies I was criticizing then. Or how much I disliked the Republicans up until late 01 in which I simply shut my mouth for the most part. In 2000 I didn't want Bush because congress was Republican controlled. I voted for Gore. But I'm just a partisan hack. In 04 I wanted the dems to give us a good candidate to vote for. They instead opted for someone that I couldn't get behind.

 

First off the economy was starting to decline as early as March of 2000. Clinton's economic team did not adjust for the change in growth. So the economy looked better than it was.

Nasdaq2.png

actually the NASDAQ looked better coming out of 08 than it did coming out of 2000.

 

I think it's obvious who the partisan hack is in this thread. It isn't me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Both you and Tommy are welcome to your opinions. However, to complain about "Democratic party line voting" seems to completely ignore what "Republican party line" voting has given us.

That was not my intention. We both know how Republican control over Congress and the Executive Branch led to disaster. I can't speak for Tommy, but it is my belief that similar Democratic control will lead to similar disaster in the form of a bigger, even more corrupt government and reduced freedoms.

 

I hope that this is not the case, and it appears that your party now its chance to prove itself. I wish it luck, but I can't help but think that it will trip over it's own self-defeating corruption and fall flat on its face just like the Republican Party did, which will, of course, lead to a massive shift to the right at the voting booth and start the whole wasteful cycle of gridlock over again.

How'd the economy look when Clinton left office? Explain to me again how "both" parties want to run the country into the ground?

It was certainly in better shape than it is now, yes. I've never suggested that it wasn't, especially when compared to when Bush II left, but his solutions were short-term, and with nasty consequences that we are now having to deal with. He sold us out to the Chinese and began the crippling of our manufacturing base and the attendant job loss through outsourcing as well as our almost total reliance on cheap foreign consumer goods produced by near-slave labor, but I'd be fooling myself if I were to believe that a Republican administration wouldn't have done exactly the same thing.

 

Like I said: neither party has the nation's best interests at heart.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

which subject? You accused me of being a party hack. You went on a tangent.
No tangent. Unlike what you're doing, I actually addressed the points that were raised. I tend to quote the points that I'm addressing in my response to help alleviate any potential sources of confusion, yet here you are.

 

I pointed out the failure in your logic of assuming that I somehow just now started disliking partisan politics just because it's democratic control.
On the contrary, you posted some claims. Unfortunately for me they are claims that I have no way to disprove. However because I don't trust you any further than I could throw you, I don't accept them either.

 

Claims don't = "pointing out failure of logic", nor do they = refutation of my points. Yes, it's possible that what you said regarding your voting history is true, but dispite what you might think, that doesn't change anything about what happens today. Nor would it make any impact on the argument that Democratic controlled government is just as bad as Republican controlled government, if that is in fact what you offering, per Q's interpretation.

 

So that leaves us right where we were: My unaddressed points in post #11 and your attempts to change the subject in post #12.

 

I can't speak for Tommy, but it is my belief that similar Democratic control will lead to similar disaster in the form of a bigger, even more corrupt government and reduced freedoms.
Okay. Like what?

 

I hope that this is not the case, and it appears that your party now its chance to prove itself.
Technically, I'm an Independent :)

 

I wish it luck, but I can't help but think that it will trip over it's own self-defeating corruption and fall flat on its face just like the Republican Party did, which will, of course, lead to a massive shift to the right at the voting booth and start the whole wasteful cycle of gridlock over again.
Of course that's possible, however there's a huge difference between "possible" and "likely". You seem to feel that the latter is more appropriate. I'm just trying to understand why.

 

It was certainly in better shape than it is now, yes. I've never suggested that it wasn't, especially when compared to when Bush II left, but his solutions were short-term, and with nasty consequences that we are now having to deal with.
By "his" I'm assuming that you're referring to Clinton?

 

How do factor out the last 8 years in that analysis?

 

He sold us out to the Chinese and began the crippling of our manufacturing base and the attendant job loss through outsourcing as well as our almost total reliance on cheap foreign consumer goods produced by near-slave labor, but I'd be fooling myself if I were to believe that a Republican administration wouldn't have done exactly the same thing.
He did that huh?

 

Here I thought businesses were private in our free market economy and CEOs reported to boards rather than the Executive branch ;)

 

Perhaps I'll go through some of my old business books and find case studies about companies were chomping at the bit to get a piece of the new China market.

 

Like I said: neither party has the nation's best interests at heart.
Again, I'll have to hear your arguments before I'll be able to see where you're coming from. Edited by Achilles
Response for Qliveur
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Really, you don’t want to go with who left the economy in better shape between George W Bush and Bill Clinton. Do you? Seriously one is normal business cycle and the other is looking more and more like an implosion. Even Carter left the economy in better shape than George W Bush. I’d consider finding another line of reasoning, because of just going by debt and consumer credit anyone can prove the economy Bush inherited was extremely better than the economy he left behind.

 

The money never trickled down; maybe if we gave Bush another 8 years he would have succeeded. :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please specify which points I did not address.. Bullet points preferably. Your Proof by Innundation™ make it very difficult to address all points.

 

Really, you don’t want to go with who left the economy in better shape between George W Bush and Bill Clinton. Do you? Seriously one is normal business cycle and the other is looking more and more like an implosion. Even Carter left the economy in better shape than George W Bush. I’d consider finding another line of reasoning, because of just going by debt and consumer credit anyone can prove the economy Bush inherited was extremely better than the economy he left behind.

 

The money never trickled down; maybe if we gave Bush another 8 years he would have succeeded. :rolleyes:

Actually a better indicator would be the DOW since it encompasses a greater range of companies. That definitely shows a worse situation now than at the end of the Clinton years. And honestly we can't just point at one party and say "It's all your fault" because the reality is it's both their fault. And again, as I have said before, the economy does better when congress and the president are at odds with eachother. IE Clinton years as opposed to Bush years.

Edited by Tommycat
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Really, you don’t want to go with who left the economy in better shape between George W Bush and Bill Clinton. Do you?
And if you are, don't hinge your argument on one index :rolleyes:

 

Please specify which points I did not address.. Bullet points preferably. Your Proof by Innundation™ make it very difficult to address all points.
Nope,sorry. This isn't kindergarten. I'm not going to hold your hand.

 

I responded to your points. If you find that overwhelming, then perhaps you should try to fashion a more efficient argument. Gotta tell ya though, cramming a page with words then accusing me of being verbose for responding to them is a very classy move :thumbsup:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where, Tommy? Please don't direct me to post #12 again. I already pointed out how it's mostly non-sequitur in post #16.

 

If you don't have anything, then let's just move along.

 

Unless you tell me the points I missed, I can only see post 12 as the answer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As per Post #16, post #12 makes some claims that cannot be verified and address none of the points raised in post #11.

 

I think the first paragraph is an attempt to address post #7, but as I have already pointed out, your lack of credibility makes even that a stretch.

 

The second paragraph tries to address the third sentence of post #11. The rest of the post isn't addressed at all.

 

So post 12 tried to address one sentence in post 11 and didn't even succeed. One sentence. Please try again.

 

Off-topic: Either you really want me to buy the act or there is no act. Which is it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...