1876 replies to this topic

[Pite]

For me, Tea Party showed that Americans aren't just idle people glued to their televisions and ignoring the world around them. Sadly though they are not going the direction of meaningful change as it used to be back in the 60s or even during the Revolution.

[Sakura Blossoms]

For me, Tea Party showed that Americans aren't just idle people glued to their televisions and ignoring the world around them. Sadly though they are not going the direction of meaningful change as it used to be back in the 60s or even during the Revolution.

What's your impression of the Democrat's answer to the Tea Party? The Coffee Party.

[Pite]

Same, I heard about them but nothing else. I really hope that they won't stoop down to the level of some Tea Partyers and won't just be there to complain without doing much. I just hope that all this political activism will lead to some meaningful debate about the current state of the US and its future. Because in the recent times there was a lack of thereof and that's harmful for democracies.

[Insurrection]

Check this out.

http://www.huffingto...e_n_516300.html

Edited by Insurrection, 28 March 2010 - 06:20 PM.

[Nate River]

For me, Tea Party showed that Americans aren't just idle people glued to their televisions and ignoring the world around them. Sadly though they are not going the direction of meaningful change as it used to be back in the 60s or even during the Revolution.

You'll have to define meaningful change.

Check this out.

http://www.huffingto...e_n_516300.html

Behold:

http://pajamasmedia....tapundit/96352/

The Huffington Post is a notorious liberal blog, while instapundit is full-blown conservative. Two completely different takes on what happened. It's up to you to decide which is the best interpretation.

[Pite]

Meaningful change - Not uneducated masses that walk around with signs that show that know nothing about whatever they are protesting ("Don't touch my Medicare" etc.). That's just harmful since they listen to fallacies such as the Palin lies on death panels.

Meaningful change is an educated push for a better world for all of us. Not distorted by politics or lies.

[Insurrection]

From my take on the huffpost blog it just seemed as if the screaming guy spat when he talked, but notice we don't see the mouth when the event occured so someone from one side can make it into an arguement. In either event the tea party still looks like a bunch of old white people.

Also Pite, I agree but to believe that is an actual chance for such is naive. Politics and Lies are part of the process.

Edited by Insurrection, 28 March 2010 - 11:45 PM.

[ciardha]

World Economic Forum has released it's annual Global Gender Gap results, US falls from 2008's rank of 27 back to 2007's 31 rank, far below 2006's 23 (when some last echoes of the 1990's efforts to close the gender gap were still present)

Iceland takes over the number 1 spot, but other Scandinavian countries still predominate in the top spots, along with the also unsurprising New Zealand.


http://www.weforum.o...ankings2009.pdf

Edited by ciardha, 29 March 2010 - 12:13 AM.

[Nate River]

Meaningful change - Not uneducated masses that walk around with signs that show that know nothing about whatever they are protesting ("Don't touch my Medicare" etc.). That's just harmful since they listen to fallacies such as the Palin lies on death panels.

Meaningful change is an educated push for a better world for all of us. Not distorted by politics or lies.

A non-answer.

What is "an educated push"? If such a thing were obvious or easily attainable, then bipartisanship would be incredibly easy. Actually, it is obvious to any spouting off their views. Most people think their views are educated and that everyone else is the idiot. In fact, their are a large number of posts in this that are a standing testament to that.

Without a way of determining a universal definition of what constitutes educated, your definition has no meaning, which is why I call it a non-answer.

So, I'll be more specific: What policies should the Tea Party protest? Obviously not the health care bill, because their opposition is "uneducated," right?

[Pite]

A non-answer.

What is "an educated push"? If such a thing were obvious or easily attainable, then bipartisanship would be incredibly easy. Actually, it is obvious to any spouting off their views. Most people think their views are educated and that everyone else is the idiot. In fact, their are a large number of posts in this that are a standing testament to that.

Without a way of determining a universal definition of what constitutes educated, your definition has no meaning, which is why I call it a non-answer.

So, I'll be more specific: What policies should the Tea Party protest? Obviously not the health care bill, because their opposition is "uneducated," right?

Look, by educated I mean people who know what in the world they are talking about. Not the "death panelists" not the "Government don't touch my Medicare" type of people. Those people don't even bother to see the fallacies of their own actions. That's is my goddamn definition.

Educated Push - People who know what in the world they are talking about. I would respect the Tea Party more if they showed more intelligent rhethoric. Unlike "Don't pull the plug on grandma" or "This is Soviet Russia!" type of spew. I would respect them if they told the truth that this health care reform's CBO number's are based upon shaky estimates and horrible accounting.

Tea Party should be protesting and the Coffee Party should be countering them but please don't let it go down to symantics and lies to push their agenda.

PS.-Educated, telling the truth. Not spewing lies.

[Insurrection]

I know it's liberal for a source but this was too good to pass up. http://www.huffingto...c_n_516903.html but it looks like the original source was Tucker Carlson.

And here's this. http://politicaltick...bid=1qn73SNZsAS

Edited by Insurrection, 30 March 2010 - 12:13 AM.

[RyrineaHaruno]

I know it's liberal for a source but this was too good to pass up. http://www.huffingto...c_n_516903.html

And here's this. http://politicaltick...bid=1qn73SNZsAS

Oh god that funny! They say the democrats were the big spenders

[Sakura Blossoms]

An arrest has been made over threats expressed against a Republican...not a Democrat:

http://news.yahoo.co...congress_threat

[Insurrection]

Just another wacko on wacko day.

[Hopestar]

Like I told you guys days ago...

The republican are contend of becoming worse & worse.

Hey did you guys know that John McCain actually allow Sarah Palin to speak at his campaign for remaining senator. Is he nuts?! Dude, I have respect for you and all but don't you recall that the woman was part of the reason why you lost 2008 presidential election?

[Insurrection]

I still think the Voyeur story is funny though.

[Nick Soapdish]

Sour grapes:

David Frum got fired shortly after saying something similar.

He also called the bill the Republicans' Waterloo while noting that if they'd been willing to compromise at all, they could've avoided some of the more less conservative friendly provisions. After all, the bill is basically just like Romney's.

It's also worth noting that most of the bill's provisions were originally in a proposal from the Heritage Foundation, including the mandate to buy coverage.

That's simply not true. The Health Care Summit is a case in point. They explained their opposition extensively. They have offered alterntives. The trope about them just saying no and offering nothing is pure garbage.



That's a good one. Seriously, it is. A significant number of liberals still haven't gotten over 2000 election or George W. Bush, and yet, here they are.

I don't know who this guy is. But if he is a Democrat or liberal, then it is the dispensing of advice from someone who obviously doesn't have your best interest at heart. I'd be like Barack Obama asking for re-election advice from Karl Rove.

Same thing if he supported the bill.

Saying "start it over" repeatedly isn't explaining their opposition extensively. It's just saying it repeatedly. They offered a few alternatives, but the Democrats basically started with a Republican bill. Telling them to start over after spending a nearly a year on debate (despite complaining all along that there wasn't any debate) isn't likely to be looked on with warmth.

Back in October, Boehner listed four things that the bill needed in order to be acceptable to Republicans.

1. Allow families to buy insurance across state lines.
   Done - provided their state allows it.
2. Allow families to buy insurance in groups like corporations can.
   Done. That's the insurance exchanges.
3. Allow states to innovate and try out other things.
   It's also in there - although the states have to show that it works.
4. Tort reform.
   Again, it's included. But it's relegated to the state's.

Maybe Boehner doesn't like that two of these are left up to the states.


I'm not saying that I like the bill. It's too weak, but it's the best that we're likely to get. But I'm tired of hearing Republicans complain about how they never had a say. McCain says that reconciliation should never be used when budgets affect entitlement programs. Except that he voted in favor of those four times previously. Obama's has had barely any nominees make it through the Senate, even when they get a Republican sponsor. And of course, Boehner's two-faced whining. I know that it's their job as politicians, but I'd expect them to be a little more grown up about it.

I've voted for Republicans in the past - including Jeb. But when they're this incapable of compromise and working across the aisle, it's not going to happen again for a long time.

And let's chalk up one more 'government takeover' from the Obama Administration. Honestly I can understand why so many Republicans are running scared from this Administration, even though a lot of their fears tend to be quite a bit misplaced. Obama and the Democratic-majority government *does* seem to be taking over everything little by little:

http://www.npr.org/t...p...ft=1&f=1001

Government takeover? It's the government's money. The government gives banks money to lend to students, lets them charge the interest and handling fees and then takes the fall if the students don't pay it back. The banks don't usually take much of an interest in getting it paid back so the government loses money there.

Well, you're right. I've never heard of any of this before reported by the media.

The attack on Cantor got published a lot. I'm surprised that it didn't make it here.

However, it was not his office that was shot at. It was a conference room inside the same building that his office is in - and a room that his staff occasionally use. There aren't any signs outside that indicate that it's used by him and it's not listed on his website. You can find it out from the internet, but it takes a bit of trouble. And the bullet wasn't fired at the building. It was fired up and came down on the building at a sharp angle - through the window.

There's also that other nut that was threatening Cantor. He's also threatened Obama, Pelosi and I'm not sure who else. He was an Obama supporter so I'm guessing that he was expecting change right away. I dunno why he didn't just do it himself since he says that he's God.

Like I told you guys days ago...

The republican are contend of becoming worse & worse.

Hey did you guys know that John McCain actually allow Sarah Palin to speak at his campaign for remaining senator. Is he nuts?! Dude, I have respect for you and all but don't you recall that the woman was part of the reason why you lost 2008 presidential election?

He needs the name recognition.

Kaylie Chriss, a registered Republican, said she remained undecided about who to vote for in the primary election but felt Palin's appearance would boost McCain.

"It definitely helps him," she said. "It gets him a lot more support from people who may not have heard of him."

He's been their senator for 24 years and just ran for President and he needs help because people haven't heard of him?!

Edited by Nick Soapdish, 30 March 2010 - 05:17 AM.

[Hopestar]

In Arizona he should have been well known by now especially with the presidential election.

This year elections can go either way but I know that the democrats will remain in majority up to 2012. Plus all the things Obama has been doing I won't be surprise if we are still in a democratic government until 2014 or 2016.

[Nate River]

In Arizona he should have been well known by now especially with the presidential election.

This year elections can go either way but I know that the democrats will remain in majority up to 2012. Plus all the things Obama has been doing I won't be surprise if we are still in a democratic government until 2014 or 2016.

He's getting challenged from the right not the left. That's why he wants Sarah Palin. It's not about name recognition. It's probably about his "conservative credentials." Being a maverick might help him state wide, but it won't help him in a primary, especially in a year like this.

Convential wisdom, for what its worth, seems to be that there is a respectable chance of them losing the House, but probably not the Senate, though Republicans are expected to make significant gains at the moment.

As far as 2014/2016, I have doubts. Modern political history seems to suggest that it unlikely. The six years of Republican government (2000-2006) is the longest of single party rule in quite some time, with modern politics tending toward divided control (Reagan had predominently Democratic Congresses and Clinton had predominately Republican ones, for example).

[Nick Soapdish]

Nate Silver estimates that the Dems will lose between 15 and 55 seats. However, most of the first twenty seats are Blue Dogs and aren't particularly strong support for the Democratic agenda (such as it is). Even so, losing control of the House seems fairly likely. Their chances of losing the Senate are about as good as their chances of getting back to 60 (for all the good that it does them). They'll probably have between 53 and 55 Senators (including Lieberman and Sanders).