Specter Becomes Democrat, A Triumph for Pennsyltucky!

[GabonX]

I have someone to vote for now, not Specter!

I was really worried before, knew I couldn't vote for Specter, but did not have an alternative.. Now I do!

An added bonus is that PA can't possibly get an anti gun senator in the next election as Specter is Pro Second Ammendment and his new Republican contender almost certainly will be as well..

..Gabon wins!

[Night Strike]

..Gabon wins!

But how many will you lose before that election due to the new Democratic super-majority??

[GabonX]

..Gabon wins!

But how many will you lose before that election due to the new Democratic super-majority??

I'm worried, but not overly so. These Democrats are at least as dysfunctional as the Republicans under Bush, probably more so..

Anyhow, I'm not saying the political landscape is great, just that this one thing which looks bad actually isn't. I don't expect Specter to vote on party lines for either party. He's more pragmatic than that.

[pimpdave]

The Democrats will squash you like the gnats you are. Republicans are always buzzing around getting all in a flap about something stupid, like flag burning or destroying the 1st and 4th amendments, torturing people, placing policy before science, and getting rich off blatant malfeasance.

Go home, tend to your farms. Forget this war, you've lost.

[john9blue]

The Democrats will squash you like the gnats you are. Republicans are always buzzing around getting all in a flap about something stupid, like flag burning or destroying the 1st and 4th amendments, torturing people, placing policy before science, and getting rich off blatant malfeasance.

Go home, tend to your farms. Forget this war, you've lost.

Yow. Even if I was a Dem or a Rep, I'd still think it would be healthy for the other side to at least be there to preserve some sort of balance and keep us away from oligarchy. No light without darkness.

[GabonX]

The Democrats will squash you like the gnats you are. Republicans are always buzzing around getting all in a flap about something stupid, like flag burning or destroying the 1st and 4th amendments, torturing people, placing policy before science, and getting rich off blatant malfeasance.

Go home, tend to your farms. Forget this war, you've lost.

Oh Dave, it's well known that politics in this country has a cyclical nature. In the last election the public chose to vote for the more extreme candidate as opposed to the moderate. The ensuing conservative backlash that will come in 4, 8, or maybe even 12 years (probably sooner) is going to be far worse than anything which occurred under Bush..think Reagan on steroids. The swing will be as dramatic, if not more so, as the switch from Bush to Obama. It will be more terrible than anything you or I can imagine

Also, I'm not too worried about your the democrats. The first 100 days have demonstrated that Obama is too weak and tepid to be an affective leader. So long as we remain firm in our resolve he will continue to claim that it is too "politically difficult" (ie "please don't shoot me!) to do anything that would really upset the fringe of the right wing which is getting a scary amount of support as a direct result of his presidency! Not even I'm happy about that..

Also, in terms of infringing on constitutional rights, it's always been the Democrats that try to limit freedom of speech. Anything which does not coincide with their world view is "insensitive" (even if it's true), not politically correct, a stereo type, or is branded as "hate speech" which is in reality a concerted legal effort to ban free speech.

Also, this administration has not relinquished any of Bush's controversial surveillance methods. In fact, last month the NSA went over their legal limit of how much media they were allowed monitor..

[got tonkaed]

The Democrats will squash you like the gnats you are. Republicans are always buzzing around getting all in a flap about something stupid, like flag burning or destroying the 1st and 4th amendments, torturing people, placing policy before science, and getting rich off blatant malfeasance.

Go home, tend to your farms. Forget this war, you've lost.

Yow. Even if I was a Dem or a Rep, I'd still think it would be healthy for the other side to at least be there to preserve some sort of balance and keep us away from oligarchy. No light without darkness.

This is interesting to me. Lets say under the current system, with the assumption that elections are more honest than not, and open to the vast majority if not almost all voters who are interested in voting, you would really want balance in terms of the congress? I find it hard to believe that even with something like a 90-10 vote in either direction of the senate they would pass a law saying you can now only vote for democrats or republicans.

[thegreekdog]

The Democrats will squash you like the gnats you are. Republicans are always buzzing around getting all in a flap about something stupid, like flag burning or destroying the 1st and 4th amendments, torturing people, placing policy before science, and getting rich off blatant malfeasance.

Go home, tend to your farms. Forget this war, you've lost.

Yow. Even if I was a Dem or a Rep, I'd still think it would be healthy for the other side to at least be there to preserve some sort of balance and keep us away from oligarchy. No light without darkness.

This is interesting to me. Lets say under the current system, with the assumption that elections are more honest than not, and open to the vast majority if not almost all voters who are interested in voting, you would really want balance in terms of the congress? I find it hard to believe that even with something like a 90-10 vote in either direction of the senate they would pass a law saying you can now only vote for democrats or republicans.

I don't think that's what john9blue's reference was. In many other countries there are more than two viable political parties that hold elective office. In the US there are only two. I don't think Congress would need to vote to cement two political parties; therefore they won't do it. The Democrats and Republicans can continue to control the purse strings and media outlets without letting a third (or fourth or fifth) party in the door. Ideally, I would love there to be 4 political parties - the Social Liberal Fiscal Conservative Party, the Social Liberal Fiscal Liberal Party, the Social Conservative Fiscal Liberal Party, and the Social Conservative Fiscal Conservative Party. In any event, if the Republican Party continues to concentrate on social issues to the detriment of fiscal issues, there may be a breakoff of a fiscally conservative, socially moderate party.

[MeDeFe]

The Democrats will squash you like the gnats you are. Republicans are always buzzing around getting all in a flap about something stupid, like flag burning or destroying the 1st and 4th amendments, torturing people, placing policy before science, and getting rich off blatant malfeasance.

Go home, tend to your farms. Forget this war, you've lost.

Yow. Even if I was a Dem or a Rep, I'd still think it would be healthy for the other side to at least be there to preserve some sort of balance and keep us away from oligarchy. No light without darkness.

This is interesting to me. Lets say under the current system, with the assumption that elections are more honest than not, and open to the vast majority if not almost all voters who are interested in voting, you would really want balance in terms of the congress? I find it hard to believe that even with something like a 90-10 vote in either direction of the senate they would pass a law saying you can now only vote for democrats or republicans.

I don't think that's what john9blue's reference was. In many other countries there are more than two viable political parties that hold elective office. In the US there are only two. I don't think Congress would need to vote to cement two political parties; therefore they won't do it. The Democrats and Republicans can continue to control the purse strings and media outlets without letting a third (or fourth or fifth) party in the door. Ideally, I would love there to be 4 political parties - the Social Liberal Fiscal Conservative Party, the Social Liberal Fiscal Liberal Party, the Social Conservative Fiscal Liberal Party, and the Social Conservative Fiscal Conservative Party. In any event, if the Republican Party continues to concentrate on social issues to the detriment of fiscal issues, there may be a breakoff of a fiscally conservative, socially moderate party.

Also a green party, a civil liberties party and a communist party.

[Nobunaga]

... Though Specter's switch hurts on the large scale his defection may assist the Republicans on one front.

... The opening in the Supreme Court, Specter is on the Judicial Committee. For nominees to progress past committee level for a general vote they must be voted on in committee. Those 10 votes must include at least one vote from the "minority party".

... Specter guaranteed that needed vote for passing nominees. That guarantee is gone now.

... But we'll have to wait and see I suppose.

... Speaking of the opening in the court, I actually got an idiot at work to bet me on it. If it's a white male, he gets 50 dollars. If it's anything else, I get $10.

... Anybody think I'm going to lose?

...

[thegreekdog]

Also a green party, a civil liberties party and a communist party.

I don't think the Republicans (or Democrats) would break into a green party or communist party because I think they already exist in the United States. Maybe some Republicans or Democrats would join those parties, but I don't know.

[PLAYER57832]

Oh Dave, it's well known that politics in this country has a cyclical nature. In the last election the public chose to vote for the more extreme candidate as opposed to the moderate. The ensuing conservative backlash that will come in 4, 8, or maybe even 12 years (probably sooner) is going to be far worse than anything which occurred under Bush..think Reagan on steroids. The swing will be as dramatic, if not more so, as the switch from Bush to Obama. It will be more terrible than anything you or I can imagine

You have a strange definition of extreme. Are you seriously suggesting that Sarah Palin was NOT from the FAR right? McCain was fairly moderate, but chose Sarah Pallin to appease the far right members of the party.

Spector was correct in saying that the Republicans have been moving further and further to the right. Spector is not liberal. HE has not changed, it is his party that changed and left him behind.

Also, in terms of infringing on constitutional rights, it's always been the Democrats that try to limit freedom of speech. Anything which does not coincide with their world view is "insensitive" (even if it's true), not politically correct, a stereo type, or is branded as "hate speech" which is in reality a concerted legal effort to ban free speech.

As opposed to circumventing those inconvenient rules about wire tapping citizens, telling government scientists that they were not to publish or talk about scientific findings that did not agree with Bush's personal opinions, etc. etc. etc.

Also, this administration has not relinquished any of Bush's controversial surveillance methods. In fact, last month the NSA went over their legal limit of how much media they were allowed monitor..

Actually, the court already ruled on it and Bush already had to backtrack on the wiretapping issues. Not sure what you mean by "exceeding legal limit of how much media they are allowed to monitor". You will have to clarify what you mean there.

[PLAYER57832]

I don't think that's what john9blue's reference was. In many other countries there are more than two viable political parties that hold elective office. In the US there are only two. I don't think Congress would need to vote to cement two political parties; therefore they won't do it. The Democrats and Republicans can continue to control the purse strings and media outlets without letting a third (or fourth or fifth) party in the door. Ideally, I would love there to be 4 political parties - the Social Liberal Fiscal Conservative Party, the Social Liberal Fiscal Liberal Party, the Social Conservative Fiscal Liberal Party, and the Social Conservative Fiscal Conservative Party. In any event, if the Republican Party continues to concentrate on social issues to the detriment of fiscal issues, there may be a breakoff of a fiscally conservative, socially moderate party.

It is true that other countries have more parties, but most of those countries have different forms of representation all around... you often don't just vote for local candidates.

But, keep in mind too, that many of those countries are smaller than most US states. (not all, but many).

[thegreekdog]

It is true that other countries have more parties, but most of those countries have different forms of representation all around... you often don't just vote for local candidates.

But, keep in mind too, that many of those countries are smaller than most US states. (not all, but many).

I understand that, and it makes some sense as to why we don't have more viable political parties. However, unfortunately I think the Democrats and Republicans, because they control the government, have the power to (and have used the power to) entrench themselves.

An unrelated example - The Libertarian Party presidential candidate in the last election is hardly known. So was the Green Party candidate. Why? Some might say it's because no one will vote for those people. However, the Libertarian Party candidate requested to be included in all debates between Obama and McCain, but was not included. Why not? It's not like the Libertarian Party (or the Green Party) is going to be ridiculous or disrupt the debate.

[PLAYER57832]

It is true that other countries have more parties, but most of those countries have different forms of representation all around... you often don't just vote for local candidates.

But, keep in mind too, that many of those countries are smaller than most US states. (not all, but many).

I understand that, and it makes some sense as to why we don't have more viable political parties. However, unfortunately I think the Democrats and Republicans, because they control the government, have the power to (and have used the power to) entrench themselves.

An unrelated example - The Libertarian Party presidential candidate in the last election is hardly known. So was the Green Party candidate. Why? Some might say it's because no one will vote for those people. However, the Libertarian Party candidate requested to be included in all debates between Obama and McCain, but was not included. Why not? It's not like the Libertarian Party (or the Green Party) is going to be ridiculous or disrupt the debate.

The Liberaterian Party was not included for a few reasons. Money, the fact that a three way debate is harder to control, more easily heads off into tangents. Also, they just don't have the voter base that either of the 2 other parties.

IN the US, it is the parties themselves that shift, rather than new parties springing up. Spector was correct when he said that the Republican party is moving further and further to the right. So have the Democrats, just not quite as far as the Republicans (thankfully).

[strike wolf]

I like how Jon Stewart described it. "the I want to get reelected policy"

[SultanOfSurreal]

Oh Dave, it's well known that politics in this country has a cyclical nature. In the last election the public chose to vote for the more extreme candidate as opposed to the moderate.

i love how insanely far to the right america's idea of "moderate" has become. but even by american standards, mccain went waaaay off to the right during the general campaign.

meanwhile obama has governed from the center or even right of center and his positions on a wide variety of specific issues are surprisingly (and troublingly, for me) conservative, from killing those pirates to his refusal to end extraordinary rendition to his wishy-washy stance on prosecutions for torturers. and yes, also on the nsa wiretapping, which you mentioned.

look i know the dude is a darkie and he's a secret HALF-MUSLIN and those guys with teabags say he's a socialist but take a real look at how he's governing and ask yourself if he's actually a liberal bastion

The ensuing conservative backlash that will come in 4, 8, or maybe even 12 years (probably sooner) is going to be far worse than anything which occurred under Bush..think Reagan on steroids. The swing will be as dramatic, if not more so, as the switch from Bush to Obama. It will be more terrible than anything you or I can imagine

yeah you just keep jerking off to that fantasy of yours

meanwhile back in reality we will continue to laugh at how the republican party has neutered itself, and will laugh all the way to the time when they are either forced to adopt sane social platforms to become competitive on a national stage again, or splinter off into third-party factions

Also, in terms of infringing on constitutional rights, it's always been the Democrats that try to limit freedom of speech. Anything which does not coincide with their world view is "insensitive" (even if it's true), not politically correct, a stereo type, or is branded as "hate speech" which is in reality a concerted legal effort to ban free speech.

i'm sorry, you enormous moron, but could you provide a single example of democrats attempting to outlaw free speech? because i could show you plenty of republicans who tried to do the same.

actually, let me rephrase. an example of liberals trying to outlaw free speech. because there ARE plenty of redneck dixiecrat dems who forgot to switch parties and still think it's 1960. they are just as awful as the most conservative republican shitstain in the congress.

so where are the liberals trying to outlaw protected speech? put up or shut up, hotshot.

(and look, i know you hate it when people chastise you for going off about all those lazy goddamn niggers but to my knowledge it's still perfectly legal to be a regressive, ignorant caveman. otherwise you would have probably gotten the chair years ago)

[thegreekdog]

What the hell is wrong with you Sultan? I think you have an anger issue. Perhaps you should consider therapy?

[SultanOfSurreal]

What the hell is wrong with you Sultan? I think you have an anger issue. Perhaps you should consider therapy?

i am not angry, i am casually dismissive

[thegreekdog]

What the hell is wrong with you Sultan? I think you have an anger issue. Perhaps you should consider therapy?

i am not angry, i am casually dismissive

Nothing really casual about this stuff:

i'm sorry, you enormous moron,

yeah you just keep jerking off to that fantasy of yours

put up or shut up, hotshot.

(and look, i know you hate it when people chastise you for going off about all those lazy goddamn niggers but to my knowledge it's still perfectly legal to be a regressive, ignorant caveman. otherwise you would have probably gotten the chair years ago)

[john9blue]

Yeah, Sultan, you're a douche...

[SultanOfSurreal]

What the hell is wrong with you Sultan? I think you have an anger issue. Perhaps you should consider therapy?

i am not angry, i am casually dismissive

Nothing really casual about this stuff:

i'm sorry, you enormous moron,

yeah you just keep jerking off to that fantasy of yours

put up or shut up, hotshot.

(and look, i know you hate it when people chastise you for going off about all those lazy goddamn niggers but to my knowledge it's still perfectly legal to be a regressive, ignorant caveman. otherwise you would have probably gotten the chair years ago)

just because it's not polite doesn't mean i'm frothing at the mouth. have you ever heard of hyperbole perchance? (probably not)

there's a reason i use the punctuation, capitalization, and grammar i do, and it is to convey a certain tone. it is not an angry tone, it is a mocking one

[PLAYER57832]

I don't agree with sultan's tone, either. However, he is correct that Obama is pretty conservative.

[thegreekdog]

just because it's not polite doesn't mean i'm frothing at the mouth. have you ever heard of hyperbole perchance? (probably not)

there's a reason i use the punctuation, capitalization, and grammar i do, and it is to convey a certain tone. it is not an angry tone, it is a mocking one

Yeah, but I've successfully mocked you in a couple of posts without using LANGUAGE (not punctuation, not capitalization, not grammar... language) that exhibits a sort of anger. Perhaps you should read the words you are actually using. There's no need, for example, to use the word "retard" or the "n-word." It's not hyperbole, it's either anger or used for shock value. Either way, it's not impressive.

Look, I appreciate your use of punctuation, capitalization and grammar. Sometimes tou seem like an intelligent person (I think). But, sometimes you also seem like a 14 year old, angry kid with a computer and a thesaurus.

And yes, President Obama is not as liberal as he's made out to be. And I find much of the conservative criticism of him is about what he will do, not what he's already done.

[F1fth]

just because it's not polite doesn't mean i'm frothing at the mouth. have you ever heard of hyperbole perchance? (probably not)

there's a reason i use the punctuation, capitalization, and grammar i do, and it is to convey a certain tone. it is not an angry tone, it is a mocking one

Yeah, but I've successfully mocked you in a couple of posts without using LANGUAGE (not punctuation, not capitalization, not grammar... language) that exhibits a sort of anger. Perhaps you should read the words you are actually using. There's no need, for example, to use the word "retard" or the "n-word." It's not hyperbole, it's either anger or used for shock value. Either way, it's not impressive.

Look, I appreciate your use of punctuation, capitalization and grammar. Sometimes tou seem like an intelligent person (I think). But, sometimes you also seem like a 14 year old, angry kid with a computer and a thesaurus.

And yes, President Obama is not as liberal as he's made out to be. And I find much of the conservative criticism of him is about what he will do, not what he's already done.

I think it's more of a issue of "What you say" vs. "How you say it." Contentwise, I think he makes some good points. Does the meaning reconcile with the language he uses? Meh, perhaps, perhaps not. It's definitely not what I would say, but then again this is the internet and I've seen worse.

I guess I'd rather people saying meaningful things in a rude way than pointless things in a polite way, if that makes any sense.