2010 PA Senate Run: Specter vs. Matthews?

[5stringJeff]

The real question here is which one of the two is more liberal.


Specter Prepared for 2010 if Opponent is Chris Matthews or Not
Email
Share

November 30, 2008 3:17 PM

ABC News' Tahman Bradley Reports: Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Penn., declined to comment on reports that MSNBC pundit Chris Matthews is considering launching a bid for his U.S. Senate seat in 2010. Whether Matthews enters the fray or not, Specter told CNN he will be ready for a tough re-election battle.

"I long ago adopted the philosophy of Satchel Paige, the old pitcher, and that is I never look over my shoulder, never look behind. Somebody may be gaining on me. I run with blinders," Specter said on the program "Late Edition".

Specter, seeking a sixth term, noted that he must first survive the Republican primary in 2010 before he worries about a Democratic opponent.

"I'll be prepared, whoever my opponents are."

Speculation about a Matthews bid grew last week after reports that the "Hardball" host met with Pennsylvania Democratic Party leaders about a possible run and had started hiring staff. A Matthews spokesperson, however, told Politico the report that he's staffed up is "absolutely not true."

Matthews is a Philadelphia native who was an aide to former House Speaker Tip O'Neill and a presidential speech writer in the Carter Administration. His contract with MSNBC reportedly expires in June.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/11/specter-prepare.html

[Yurt]

specter is right about one thing...he has blinders on

[retiredman]

Specter is Pennsylvania's male version of Maine's Oly Snowe or Susie Collins...

If I lived in PA, I'd never vote for him, but would not be at all disappointed if he were reelected.

Having said that, I do hope that Matthews kicks his ass and gives Obama 60 senators for the second half of his first term so he can really get some stuff accomplished without having to worry about republicans standing in his way.

[Yurt]

it is interesting how obama followers have begun the blame/excuse game when he isn't even the PE or President :laugh2:

[retiredman]

no excuses...simply reality, yurt. without sixty votes in the senate, republicans like you, who value party over country, can, and no doubt WILL stop many of Obama's initiatives from becoming law. We knew that going in... and if Obama can make the case to the American people that it is the handful of party-first republicans (like you are) in the senate who are standing in the way of progress, then 2010 will be an even more disasterous year for your pathetic party than 2008 was. Either get with the program or spiral down into irrelevancy... you guys are on the cusp of being the modern day Whigs.:lol:

[stephanie]

:lol:

you can bet your ass I'll be fighting tooth and nail to prevent the little Marxist from implementing all his Socialist programs he has in store for us..

and where are those liberals today that were screaming about those CHECKS AND BALANCES they said wasn't in the Bush administration..

and where is the cries of RUBBER STAMPING that you now all think is ok by getting a 60 seat majority so the Republicans can't have a say in anything..

oh that's right..........that is only screeched about when it's a Republican administration..

[Yurt]

party over country....this from the guy who goes ballistic when others call him that...some things never change

i am so party over country that in this thread i put down a republican :poke:

just because i think obama is harmful to this country does not mean i am party over country, that is a fact. you are already trying to blame republicans for his failures. that is a fact. that is all you dems do, blame, blame, blame anybody but you. sad really.

i have not said the repubs are guiltless, quite the opposite and quite unlike you in your blind devotion to your messiah. the difference between you and i is that i will call republicans out while you keep silent. obama wasn't even your first choice, yet you voted for him because he has a D...and yet you talk to me about party over country....get over yourself

[Yurt]

:lol:

you can bet your ass I'll be fighting tooth and nail to prevent the little Marxist from implementing all his Socialist programs he has in store for us..

and where are those liberals today that were screaming about those CHECKS AND BALANCES they said wasn't in the Bush administration..

and where is the cries of RUBBER STAMPING that you now all think is ok by getting a 60 seat majority so the Republicans can't have a say in anything..

oh that's right..........that is only screeched about when it's a Republican administration..

very true steph. now that they have finally beaten bush for the whitehouse, that is what the race was truly about despite bush not running, they no longer care about minority rights. screw that, now if you don't vote and support obama's and the dem's party line you are unpatriotic and are only about party over country. its like watching a train filled with pure hatred steaming full speed ahead, only the train doesn't know the tracks are not finished and the fall is huge

[stephanie]

Liberals are nothing but.........party and power over country and people..

scratch a liberal find a fascist..

[retiredman]

party over country....this from the guy who goes ballistic when others call him that...some things never change

i am so party over country that in this thread i put down a republican :poke:

just because i think obama is harmful to this country does not mean i am party over country, that is a fact. you are already trying to blame republicans for his failures. that is a fact. that is all you dems do, blame, blame, blame anybody but you. sad really.

i have not said the repubs are guiltless, quite the opposite and quite unlike you in your blind devotion to your messiah. the difference between you and i is that i will call republicans out while you keep silent. obama wasn't even your first choice, yet you voted for him because he has a D...and yet you talk to me about party over country....get over yourself

I voted for him because I thought he would stand on a more palatable platform that McCain. Why would I abandon the principles that I hold dear and vote for someone who shares NONE of them simply because my first choice did not get the nomination? you need to grow up and get real.

I think that the country spoke clearly and stated that they, too, want to see the principles of the democratic party enacted. But folks like you, who do not love your country anywhere near as much as some of us do, would rather see the will of the people thwarted for your own political party's gain.

Like I said...get with the program or spiral into irrelevancy.

[stephanie]

I voted for him because I thought he would stand on a more palatable platform that McCain. He would I abandon the principles that I hold dear and vote for someone who shares NONE of them simply because my first choice did not get the nomination? you need to grow up and get real.

I think that the country spoke clearly and stated that they, too, want to see the principles of the democratic party enacted. But folks like you, who do not love your country anywhere near as much as some of us do, would rather see the will of the people thwarted for your own political party's gain.

Like I said...get with the program or spiral into irrelevancy.

your little Marxist didn't win by much, so that doesn't say anything about all the people wanting to see the Socialist programs that you and your Democrat party want to try and force on this country...

sorry to burst your little balloon..but we will fight against your little Marxist..bet on it..

[Yurt]

I voted for him because I thought he would stand on a more palatable platform that McCain. Why would I abandon the principles that I hold dear and vote for someone who shares NONE of them simply because my first choice did not get the nomination? you need to grow up and get real.

I think that the country spoke clearly and stated that they, too, want to see the principles of the democratic party enacted. But folks like you, who do not love your country anywhere near as much as some of us do, would rather see the will of the people thwarted for your own political party's gain.

Like I said...get with the program or spiral into irrelevancy.

twit, if you can call me party over country, then swallow that little pill beeyotch...i don't support obama because i don't support virtually anything he stands for, yet you call me party over country and you now call me unpatriotic because i don't support obama's policies :laugh2:

you whined about that very behavior of some repubs who said the same thing, now you are doing it, you are hypocrite and are most likely drunk on some binge after you gave a bullshit sermon today

loser

[Yurt]

your little Marxist didn't win by much, so that doesn't say anything about all the people wanting to see the Socialist programs that you and your Democrat party want to try and force on this country...

sorry to burst your little balloon..but we will fight against your little Marxist..bet on it..

get used to his mindless drivel. he is completely about party over country, else why would he go off about how the republicans are dead and that if we don't get with the democratic platform, we will be irrelevent and unpatriotic. as if the democratic platform is the only platform for the good of this country. he is an intellectual weakling who comes here solely to start crap, and i for one am guilty of letting it happen, but it doesn't hurt to be reminded. let's not forget Reagan. that happened after carter and reagan won huge, both times.

whether the party itself dies or not is not truly relevent, but to a party freak like mfm, it is the only thing that matters. conservatism is not going away, republicans failed to live up to that, they have gotten spanked badly for it. it will come back, trust me.

[stephanie]

and how funny is it that the Democrats don't think a thing about a comedian running, or a talking head of some fake new channel running for a seat in Congress, yet they yelled about a woman Governor running as Vp as not having enough experience...

what a joke watching them get behind all these losers..

[Yurt]

and how funny is it that the Democrats don't think a thing about a comedian running, or a talking head of some fake new channel running for a seat in Congress, yet they yelled about a woman Governor running as Vp as not having enough experience...

what a joke watching them get behind all these losers..

of course, they are party over country. it is why mfm, nor any other liberal could ever answere why obama was more experienced that palin...to answer would be to admit that obama is not more qualified than palin, it is why obama had to use his ""experience"" running for office to make himself more experienced and qualified for high office. how many threads and chances were given to them, but not a word, not a peep. because obama was a democrat and that is all that mattered.

[DragonStryk72]

no excuses...simply reality, yurt. without sixty votes in the senate, republicans like you, who value party over country, can, and no doubt WILL stop many of Obama's initiatives from becoming law. We knew that going in... and if Obama can make the case to the American people that it is the handful of party-first republicans (like you are) in the senate who are standing in the way of progress, then 2010 will be an even more disasterous year for your pathetic party than 2008 was. Either get with the program or spiral down into irrelevancy... you guys are on the cusp of being the modern day Whigs.:lol:

MFM, I want you to look at the beginning sentence of this little run, and tell at just what point you made yourself a hypocrite. According to your supposition, without 60 seats of people automatically voting in his favor (Dems, as you've, since apparently, no Dem can vote against a bill that the other Dems voted for), and thus, in order for Obama to win, the Dems on his "team" have to put on their own blinders, voting for whatever the president says to.

You judge, and so you are being judged. I see that as fair.

[retiredman]

MFM, I want you to look at the beginning sentence of this little run, and tell at just what point you made yourself a hypocrite. According to your supposition, without 60 seats of people automatically voting in his favor (Dems, as you've, since apparently, no Dem can vote against a bill that the other Dems voted for), and thus, in order for Obama to win, the Dems on his "team" have to put on their own blinders, voting for whatever the president says to.

You judge, and so you are being judged. I see that as fair.

according to me, without sixty senate seats, it becomes infinitely more difficult for any president to move his agenda forward without the cooperation of the opposition party. Clearly, republicans are in no mood to be cooperative. Without their cooperation, Obama's accomplishments will be less sweeping.

And as to your suggestion that democrats need to put on "blinders"... I disagree. If Obama were to try to advance legislation that did NOT conform to the principles of the democratic party platform, I would have absolutely no problem with democratic senators refusing to support that legislation.

[retiredman]

twit, if you can call me party over country, then swallow that little pill beeyotch...i don't support obama because i don't support virtually anything he stands for, yet you call me party over country and you now call me unpatriotic because i don't support obama's policies :laugh2:

you whined about that very behavior of some repubs who said the same thing, now you are doing it, you are hypocrite and are most likely drunk on some binge after you gave a bullshit sermon today

loser


if you can suggest that I value party over country, you need to be ready to accept that same criticism when it fits...as it does now.

As for my sermon yesterday, you can judge it for yourself. I would recommend you do so before criticizing it.

[retiredman]

your little Marxist didn't win by much, so that doesn't say anything about all the people wanting to see the Socialist programs that you and your Democrat party want to try and force on this country...

sorry to burst your little balloon..but we will fight against your little Marxist..bet on it..

didn't win by MUCH?????

365 to 173... an ass whupping.:laugh2:

[red states rule]

didn't win by MUCH?????

365 to 173... an ass whupping.:laugh2:

Obama won with 52% of the vote - not a huge win

[red states rule]

Matthews's Senate run was a topic on Fox News

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/MuBajNhPb2c&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en&feature=player_embedded&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/MuBajNhPb2c&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en&feature=player_embedded&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[retiredman]

Obama won with 52% of the vote - not a huge win

we both know that the popular vote means nothing.


365 to 173 is an ass whupping and shows support across the spectrum.

[red states rule]

we both know that the popular vote means nothing.


365 to 173 is an ass whupping and shows support across the spectrum.

Go ahead and cherrypick your facts as you always do

Nearly half the country voted against Obama - and you will ignore that fact

[retiredman]

Go ahead and cherrypick your facts as you always do

Nearly half the country voted against Obama - and you will ignore that fact


cherrypick?

Obama received a majority of the votes, even with Nader on the ballot.... no democrat has done that in a long time. He kicked McCain's ass in the electoral college which, as we both know, is the only vote total that really means anything.

Denial ain't no river in Egypt, RSR. Your side lost.

Oh...and who did YOU vote for for President, BTW?

[red states rule]

cherrypick?

Obama received a majority of the votes, even with Nader on the ballot.... no democrat has done that in a long time. He kicked McCain's ass in the electoral college which, as we both know, is the only vote total that really means anything.

Denial ain't no river in Egypt, RSR. Your side lost.

Oh...and who did YOU vote for for President, BTW?

Yet win Pres Bush wn in 2004 with 51% (with Nader on the ballot) Dems said it was not a mandate - and would have to work with the minority party

As usal, when Dems are in power they expect nobody to stand in their way and simply roll over

[retiredman]

Yet win Pres Bush wn in 2004 with 51% (with Nader on the ballot) Dems said it was not a mandate - and would have to work with the minority party

As usal, when Dems are in power they expect nobody to stand in their way and simply roll over

not so. I have absolutely zero expectations that republicans will be cooperative in any way.

[red states rule]

not so. I have absolutely zero expectations that republicans will be cooperative in any way.

So are you saying the liberal media and Dems did NOT talk about Pres Bush's "small" win in 2004?

I am sure the way Obama is flip flopping on key issues he will get support from Republicans

I have even commended him on coming to his senses on taxes, Iraq, Gitmo, and national security issues

[retiredman]

So are you saying the liberal media and Dems did NOT talk about Pres Bush's "small" win in 2004?

I am sure the way Obama is flip flopping on key issues he will get support from Republicans

I have even commended him on coming to his senses on taxes, Iraq, Gitmo, and national security issues

286-252 IS a small win.

365-173 is NOT.

:laugh2:

[red states rule]

286-252 IS a small win.

365-173 is NOT.

:laugh2:

52% of the vote is a small win - and his flip flopping on his campaign promises shows he knows his win was a small one

[retiredman]

52% of the vote is a small win - and his flip flopping on his campaign promises shows he knows his win was a small one

spin it anyway you want, RSR....your side lost... and the electoral college count was a blow out.

and you never did tell us who YOU voted for for President.:lol:

[red states rule]

spin it anyway you want, RSR....your side lost... and the electoral college count was a blow out.

and you never did tell us who YOU voted for for President.:lol:

Keep changing the subject while ignoring the facts Virgil - it is what you do best when the tidees go against you

[retiredman]

Keep changing the subject while ignoring the facts Virgil - it is what you do best when the tidees go against you

go against ME???? :lol:

who won the election? Who won our bet?

and WHO did you vote for for president, RSR? Why are you so afraid to tell us?

As I said earlier... I have very little problem with Arlen Specter. If he prevails in 2010, that will not be a horrid thing. If Matthews wins, it will be better.

[red states rule]

go against ME???? :lol:

who won the election? Who won our bet?

and WHO did you vote for for president, RSR? Why are you so afraid to tell us?

As I said earlier... I have very little problem with Arlen Specter. If he prevails in 2010, that will not be a horrid thing. If Matthews wins, it will be better.

Obama is flipping on his major campaign promises, the left wing bloggers are upset over his cabinet picks, and he is talking like McCain and Pres Bush on the major issues

Obama won with 52% of the vote, and understands, unlike you Virgil, he can't follow through with all his handouts, tax increases, and appeasing of terrorists

Seems you will have alot of spinning to do as he backtracks on what he said he was going to do, as he seems to whant to give us Pres Bush's third term on many issues

I said many times who I voted for Virgil - you are trying to change the subject once again

[retiredman]

Obama is flipping on his major campaign promises, the left wing bloggers are upset over his cabinet picks, and he is talking like McCain and Pres Bush on the major issues

Obama won with 52% of the vote, and understands, unlike you Virgil, he can't follow through with all his handouts, tax increases, and appeasing of terrorists

Seems you will have alot of spinning to do as he backtracks on what he said he was going to do, as he seems to whant to give us Pres Bush's third term on many issues

I said many times who I voted for Virgil - you are trying to change the subject once again

so you DID vote for McCain after promising the board that you absolutely would NOT do so? I KNEW you were a liar and a hypocrite. Thanks for proving it.

In 2004, Bush won with 53% of the electoral college and claimed that he had plenty of political capital to spend. I don't recall you disagreeing with him.

In 2008, Obama won with 68% of the electoral college. I'd say he's got some capital....wouldn't you?

[red states rule]

so you DID vote for McCain after promising the board that you absolutely would NOT do so? I KNEW you were a liar and a hypocrite. Thanks for proving it.

In 2004, Bush won with 53% of the electoral college and claimed that he had plenty of political capital to spend. I don't recall you disagreeing with him.

In 2008, Obama won with 68% of the electoral college. I'd say he's got some capital....wouldn't you?

I said many times Virgil I was voting for Gov Palin

It seems Obama is now moving to the right on taxes and terrorism. Something that should bother you if you were a true liberal

Or will you ignore that and blame Pres Bush and Republicans for his flip flops? :laugh2:

[retiredman]

I said many times Virgil I was voting for Gov Palin

It seems Obama is now moving to the right on taxes and terrorism. Something that should bother you if you were a true liberal

Or will you ignore that and blame Pres Bush and Republicans for his flip flops? :laugh2:

Governor Palin was not on the ballot for PRESIDENT. YOU voted for McCain even though you swore you would not. You are a liar and a hypocrite.... but who is really surpised about that?:lol:

And I don't see any change in his position on terrorism... he is certainly smart enough to know that he needs to fix the freefalling economy and the timing of his tax cuts to the middle class will most likely precede the sunsetting of the Bush tax cuts to millionaires.

[red states rule]

Governor Palin was not on the ballot for PRESIDENT. YOU voted for McCain even though you swore you would not. You are a liar and a hypocrite.... but who is really surpised about that?:lol:

And I don't see any change in his position on terrorism... he is certainly smart enough to know that he needs to fix the freefalling economy and the timing of his tax cuts to the middle class will most likely precede the sunsetting of the Bush tax cuts to millionaires.

Obama is flipping on his promise to pull out of Iraq as soon as he takes office, the shut down of Gitmo, and his staff is tlaking about leaving FISA alone

What tax cuts? He was talking about giving tax cuts to people who do not pay taxes

Now he is saying how he will NOT raise taxes since tax increases would hurt the economy

[red states rule]

and now big time liberals who constantly give glowing coverage to Obama are saying this about PE Obama

"Enough with the Lincoln analogies; Reagan is the president that Barack Obama is most closely modeling himself after. Ronald Reagan inherited stagflation, a defeat abroad and a nation at its nadir in morale. Through the sheer force of his personality as much as his policies, four years later, it was "Morning in America," the theme of his 1984 re-election campaign when he won 49 states. Obama isn't president yet, but his determined calm and orderly transition pace appear to be soothing the financial markets, producing the first sustained gain in stocks since the mid-September meltdown."
http://www.newsweek.com/id/171127

Now Obama is being compared to Pres Reagan by the left

How is that going to play in Liberalville?

[retiredman]

Obama is flipping on his promise to pull out of Iraq as soon as he takes office, the shut down of Gitmo, and his staff is tlaking about leaving FISA alone

What tax cuts? He was talking about giving tax cuts to people who do not pay taxes

Now he is saying how he will NOT raise taxes since tax increases would hurt the economy

Obama said he would start getting out of Iraq as soon as he took office and would have the bulk of our combat troops redeployed within 16 months. He has not flipped on that at all. He has not flipped on Gitmo and he has not flipped on FISA. He is going to give tax cuts to the middle class. He may do that before he rolls back the Bush tax cuts for millionaires.

[red states rule]

Obama said he would start getting out of Iraq as soon as he took office and would have the bulk of our combat troops redeployed within 16 months. He has not flipped on that at all. He has not flipped on Gitmo and he has not flipped on FISA. He is going to give tax cuts to the middle class. He may do that before he rolls back the Bush tax cuts for millionaires.

Oh really?

http://sec.online.wsj.com/article/SB122636726473415991.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/15/washington/15gitmo.html?ref=nationalspecial3

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/23/obama-considering-to-delay-tax-increase/

[Yurt]

get used to his mindless drivel. he is completely about party over country, else why would he go off about how the republicans are dead and that if we don't get with the democratic platform, we will be irrelevent and unpatriotic. as if the democratic platform is the only platform for the good of this country. he is an intellectual weakling who comes here solely to start crap, and i for one am guilty of letting it happen, but it doesn't hurt to be reminded. let's not forget Reagan. that happened after carter and reagan won huge, both times.

whether the party itself dies or not is not truly relevent, but to a party freak like mfm, it is the only thing that matters. conservatism is not going away, republicans failed to live up to that, they have gotten spanked badly for it. it will come back, trust me.


of course, they are party over country. it is why mfm, nor any other liberal could ever answere why obama was more experienced that palin...to answer would be to admit that obama is not more qualified than palin, it is why obama had to use his ""experience"" running for office to make himself more experienced and qualified for high office. how many threads and chances were given to them, but not a word, not a peep. because obama was a democrat and that is all that mattered.



party over country fits you buddy boy, you got nothing on me that shows party over country, whereas it is unequivocally clear that all you care about is the democratic party and will vote for a dem even if that dem is bad for the country. you want the destruction of the repub party and claim that if the repubs don't vote dem repubs will die or be irrelevent.

you convict yourself with your own words. nice job.

[5stringJeff]

Anything that Obama, McCain, or anyone else said about Iraq during the campaign has been overcome by events. The new security agreement that Iraq ratified and America signed is the 'law of the land,' as it were. And it mostly does what Obama wanted to do anyway: all combat troops out by summer 2010, and all troops out by the end of 2011.

[retiredman]

party over country fits you buddy boy, you got nothing on me that shows party over country, whereas it is unequivocally clear that all you care about is the democratic party and will vote for a dem even if that dem is bad for the country. you want the destruction of the repub party and claim that if the repubs don't vote dem repubs will die or be irrelevent.

you convict yourself with your own words. nice job.


I "convict myself"? bullshit.

I would NEVER vote for ANY politician that was bad for the country. To say otherwise is a flat out lie.

And I do not desire the destruction of the republican party at all... I just do not happen to believe in their philosophy of governance so I am happy to see them in the minority where they will be be unable to enact that philosophy. It is my belief that the nation is hungering for change right now and, my opinion is, that if the republican party is seen as standing in the way of that much wanted change, that the nation will send them even further into the minority wilderness,

[retiredman]

why IS it that RSR seems to avoid this?:lol:


Governor Palin was not on the ballot for PRESIDENT. YOU voted for McCain even though you swore you would not. You are a liar and a hypocrite.... but who is really surpised about that?:lol:

[retiredman]

Anything that Obama, McCain, or anyone else said about Iraq during the campaign has been overcome by events. The new security agreement that Iraq ratified and America signed is the 'law of the land,' as it were. And it mostly does what Obama wanted to do anyway: all combat troops out by summer 2010, and all troops out by the end of 2011.


bingo

[red states rule]

bingo

Hey Virgil, Obama says his commanders on the ground will also have a say. If you and Obama had your way the surge never would have taken place

[Yurt]

no excuses...simply reality, yurt. without sixty votes in the senate, republicans like you, who value party over country, can, and no doubt WILL stop many of Obama's initiatives from becoming law. We knew that going in... and if Obama can make the case to the American people that it is the handful of party-first republicans (like you are) in the senate who are standing in the way of progress, then 2010 will be an even more disasterous year for your pathetic party than 2008 was. Either get with the program or spiral down into irrelevancy... you guys are on the cusp of being the modern day Whigs.:lol:


I "convict myself"? bullshit.

I would NEVER vote for ANY politician that was bad for the country. To say otherwise is a flat out lie.

And I do not desire the destruction of the republican party at all... I just do not happen to believe in their philosophy of governance so I am happy to see them in the minority where they will be be unable to enact that philosophy. It is my belief that the nation is hungering for change right now and, my opinion is, that if the republican party is seen as standing in the way of that much wanted change, that the nation will send them even further into the minority wilderness,

you AGAIN convict yourself with your own words. i don't even have to argue with you, you do a wonderful proving yourself wrong time and again :clap:

a good portion of the country does not want your change, you need to accept that reality. and don't be surprised to see the pendulum swing back to conservativism....even bush admits that most people voted for obama because they don't like him. hell, obama's main point against mccain was that mccain is really bush. whoooopeee.

oooh, if we don't get with your marxist programs we are going down....big threats from a little man who wants the worst for this country by votign for inexperienced obama.

[red states rule]

you AGAIN convict yourself with your own words. i don't even have to argue with you, you do a wonderful proving yourself wrong time and again :clap:

a good portion of the country does not want your change, you need to accept that reality. and don't be surprised to see the pendulum swing back to conservativism....even bush admits that most people voted for obama because they don't like him. hell, obama's main point against mccain was that mccain is really bush. whoooopeee.

and when Dems were the ones losing elections, I do not remember Virgil saying how the Dems need to change their message; or change their beliefs

[manu1959]

Anything that Obama, McCain, or anyone else said about Iraq during the campaign has been overcome by events. The new security agreement that Iraq ratified and America signed is the 'law of the land,' as it were. And it mostly does what Obama wanted to do anyway: all combat troops out by summer 2010, and all troops out by the end of 2011.

so bush beat him to it.....the difference is obama wants to wage war in the mountains of afganistan where no western nation has ever won a war.......

[Yurt]

Anything that Obama, McCain, or anyone else said about Iraq during the campaign has been overcome by events. The new security agreement that Iraq ratified and America signed is the 'law of the land,' as it were. And it mostly does what Obama wanted to do anyway: all combat troops out by summer 2010, and all troops out by the end of 2011.

ok...so then obama did not go back on his promise during the campaign before this events took place? i guess you are saying that his doing so is irrelevent given teh current events...so he can break his promise...get lucky that events on the ground change (mccain/bush) and "now" he is keeping his promise...

interesting

[Yurt]

and when Dems were the ones losing elections, I do not remember Virgil saying how the Dems need to change their message; or change their beliefs

EXACTLY!

he, like the otehr dems, did nothing but plan their revenge, now they have it, claim to want unity, but only if we agree with them. the hypocrisy is so blatent i have to tell you that it is making me lose interest in politics. i never was in to politics before graduating lawschool and i can't help but wonder if the repubs have done this same thing. if now, we are to have 4 or 8 years of dems and then back to repubs and the repubs claiming a mandate.

[red states rule]

EXACTLY!

he, like the otehr dems, did nothing but plan their revenge, now they have it, claim to want unity, but only if we agree with them. the hypocrisy is so blatent i have to tell you that it is making me lose interest in politics. i never was in to politics before graduating lawschool and i can't help but wonder if the repubs have done this same thing. if now, we are to have 4 or 8 years of dems and then back to repubs and the repubs claiming a mandate.

Either Virgil gets his marching orders from Chris Matthews, or Chris gets them from Virgil


Matthews Panel Frets GOP Will Fight Obama’s ‘Great Things,’ But ‘Thoughtful’ Repubs Will Cooperate
By Brad Wilmouth (Bio | Archive)
December 1, 2008 - 20:02 ET

On Sunday’s Chris Matthews Show, host Matthews led the panel in a discussion over whether conservatives would choose to cooperate with the Obama administration in making "historic changes" to repair the economy, rather than stand in opposition to his programs. The premise of the discussion seemed to be that times are too serious for conservatives to dare dissent from Obama’s plans. At one point, David Ignatius of the Washington Post suggested that "thoughtful" Republicans will work with Obama as he referred to John McCain’s concession speech. Ignatius: "I thought that John McCain set the tone for thoughtful Republicans in his concession speech election night, where he reached out to Obama. He was remarkably generous. One of the best speeches he's ever made, in my book."

As he teased the show, Matthews seemed to wonder if Republicans would try to stand in the way of Obama accomplishing "great things," or if they would see the light and cooperate. Matthews: "Will the mountain of crises our country faces make Barack Obama do great things? And with all the crises, will even Republicans see historic steps are required?"

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brad-wilmouth/2008/12/01/matthews-panel-frets-gop-will-fight-obama-s-great-things-thoughtful-r


I guess Virgil and Chris want to forget how cooperative Dems were from Jan 2001 to Jan 2007 when Republicans were running Congress and George Bush was President

[retiredman]

you AGAIN convict yourself with your own words. i don't even have to argue with you, you do a wonderful proving yourself wrong time and again :clap:

a good portion of the country does not want your change, you need to accept that reality. and don't be surprised to see the pendulum swing back to conservativism....even bush admits that most people voted for obama because they don't like him. hell, obama's main point against mccain was that mccain is really bush. whoooopeee.

oooh, if we don't get with your marxist programs we are going down....big threats from a little man who wants the worst for this country by votign for inexperienced obama.

no. I don't. A majority of the country DOES want change. And, as I said, if the republicans are seen as standing in the way of that change, IMO, they will be sent even further into the wilderness of the minority.

I want the best for my country by voting for Obama whose judgment and vision are far superior to McCain's. If I had thought otherwise, I wouldn't have voted for him.

and they aren't THREATS yurt.... you like to misuse and overuse that word, don't you?.... they are merely my predictions.

[retiredman]

EXACTLY!

he, like the otehr dems, did nothing but plan their revenge, now they have it, claim to want unity, but only if we agree with them. the hypocrisy is so blatent i have to tell you that it is making me lose interest in politics. i never was in to politics before graduating lawschool and i can't help but wonder if the repubs have done this same thing. if now, we are to have 4 or 8 years of dems and then back to repubs and the repubs claiming a mandate.

I have never said that I sought unity. I think that the country seeks it, as a whole, but I am perfectly aware that republicans and democrats will never unify around anything. As I said, if the republicans are seen as obstructing the Obama administration, I believe that the voters will further marginalize them in future elections.... but that is just my opinion. time will obviously tell.

[Yurt]

no. I don't. A majority of the country DOES want change. And, as I said, if the republicans are seen as standing in the way of that change, IMO, they will be sent even further into the wilderness of the minority.

I want the best for my country by voting for Obama whose judgment and vision are far superior to McCain's. If I had thought otherwise, I wouldn't have voted for him.

and they aren't THREATS yurt.... you like to misuse and overuse that word, don't you?.... they are merely my predictions.

no i don't...lol...you're such a child


Either get with the program or spiral down into irrelevancy... you guys are on the cusp of being the modern day Whigs

so either get with the program or our party is toast...nope, no threat there

you are so full of partisan bs it is disgusting. when the majority of the country in 2000, 2004 etc...wanted repubs you NEVER EVER said what you are saying now. you are party over country, simple as that.

[red states rule]

I have never said that I sought unity. I think that the country seeks it, as a whole, but I am perfectly aware that republicans and democrats will never unify around anything. As I said, if the republicans are seen as obstructing the Obama administration, I believe that the voters will further marginalize them in future elections.... but that is just my opinion. time will obviously tell.

So you are for unity when Dems are in power, but when Dems are out of party; screw getting things done - it might hurt Dems politically

Again 48% of voters voted against Obama = but to you that is a mere detail

[stephanie]

I have never said that I sought unity. I think that the country seeks it, as a whole, but I am perfectly aware that republicans and democrats will never unify around anything. As I said, if the republicans are seen as obstructing the Obama administration, I believe that the voters will further marginalize them in future elections.... but that is just my opinion. time will obviously tell.

so if the Republicans are seen as obstructing they will go down, but it was all fine and dandy when it was the Democrats doing it for the eight yrs that President Bush was in office...

you people are a joke...don't even think we are just going to roll over, your alls threats don't mean shit..

aint happening

[retiredman]

no i don't...lol...you're such a child



so either get with the program or our party is toast...nope, no threat there

you are so full of partisan bs it is disgusting. when the majority of the country in 2000, 2004 etc...wanted repubs you NEVER EVER said what you are saying now. you are party over country, simple as that.

no. it is NOT a threat. It is a prediction. And lets not forget that, in 2000, a majority of the country did NOT want Bush... and let's not forget that I was FULLY supportive of President Bush in the early months of his presidency and especially in the aftermath of 9/11. I volunteered to go back on active duty to help him fight islamic extremists... I have NEVER placed my party over my country. I happen to fervently believe that my party's platform is better for my country than your party's platform is.

[Yurt]

so if the Republicans are seen as obstructing they will go down, but it was all fine and dandy when it was the Democrats doing it for the eight yrs that President Bush was in office...

you people are a joke...don't even think we are just going to roll over, your alls threats don't mean shit..

aint happening

:clap:

[red states rule]

so if the Republicans are seen as obstructing they will go down, but it was all fine and dandy when it was the Democrats doing it for the eight yrs that President Bush was in office...

you people are a joke...don't even think we are just going to roll over, your alls threats don't mean shit..

aint happening

For 8 years liberals screamed how dissent was patriotic - now that Pbama is President libs say dissent is obstructing :laugh2:

[Yurt]

no. it is NOT a threat. It is a prediction. And lets not forget that, in 2000, a majority of the country did NOT want Bush... and let's not forget that I was FULLY supportive of President Bush in the early months of his presidency and especially in the aftermath of 9/11. I volunteered to go back on active duty to help him fight islamic extremists... I have NEVER placed my party over my country. I happen to fervently believe that my party's platform is better for my country than your party's platform is.

:lol:


we both know that the popular vote means nothing.

you again convict yourself...its so easy

and when the majority in 2004 wanted him, you were supportive right, you got out of the way of his policies because that is what the country wanted....bullcowpie hypocrite

[retiredman]

So you are for unity when Dems are in power, but when Dems are out of party; screw getting things done - it might hurt Dems politically

Again 48% of voters voted against Obama = but to you that is a mere detail

last I checked, 48 was less than 52. Majority rules. sorry.

Hey...you guys can be as obstructionist as you want to be... from my perspective, you'll only be shooting yourselves in the foot... which is fine by me.

[red states rule]

last I checked, 48 was less than 52. Majority rules. sorry.

Hey...you guys can be as obstructionist as you want to be... from my perspective, you'll only be shooting yourselves in the foot... which is fine by me.

You must be ignoring this Virgil.

Either Virgil gets his marching orders from Chris Matthews, or Chris gets them from Virgil


Matthews Panel Frets GOP Will Fight Obama’s ‘Great Things,’ But ‘Thoughtful’ Repubs Will Cooperate
By Brad Wilmouth (Bio | Archive)
December 1, 2008 - 20:02 ET

On Sunday’s Chris Matthews Show, host Matthews led the panel in a discussion over whether conservatives would choose to cooperate with the Obama administration in making "historic changes" to repair the economy, rather than stand in opposition to his programs. The premise of the discussion seemed to be that times are too serious for conservatives to dare dissent from Obama’s plans. At one point, David Ignatius of the Washington Post suggested that "thoughtful" Republicans will work with Obama as he referred to John McCain’s concession speech. Ignatius: "I thought that John McCain set the tone for thoughtful Republicans in his concession speech election night, where he reached out to Obama. He was remarkably generous. One of the best speeches he's ever made, in my book."

As he teased the show, Matthews seemed to wonder if Republicans would try to stand in the way of Obama accomplishing "great things," or if they would see the light and cooperate. Matthews: "Will the mountain of crises our country faces make Barack Obama do great things? And with all the crises, will even Republicans see historic steps are required?"

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brad-wi...s-thoughtful-r


I guess Virgil and Chris want to forget how cooperative Dems were from Jan 2001 to Jan 2007 when Republicans were running Congress and George Bush was President

[red states rule]

:lol:



you again convict yourself...its so easy

and when the majority in 2004 wanted him, you were supportive right, you got out of the way of his policies because that is what the country wanted....bullcowpie hypocrite

Please Yurt, do not confuse Virgil with facts. His head will explode :laugh2:

[retiredman]

:lol:



you again convict yourself...its so easy

and when the majority in 2004 wanted him, you were supportive right, you got out of the way of his policies because that is what the country wanted....bullcowpie hypocrite

not in the least. By 2004, Bush had lost all of my support. By 2004, I was convinced that he was driving the ship of state onto the rocks and shoals and hoped that democrats in congress could forestall the wreck until the 2008 elections.

and I don't convict myself at all you little twit.... I merely corrected an erroneous statement on YOUR part.

[stephanie]

:lol:

we've learned how by watching your party..

I notice you all still have your feet..

[Yurt]

last I checked, 48 was less than 52. Majority rules. sorry.

Hey...you guys can be as obstructionist as you want to be... from my perspective, you'll only be shooting yourselves in the foot... which is fine by me.

yes i am quite sure that you would have accepted that advice sitting down from a republican in 2005....you are a hypocrite of the worst kind, party over country

[red states rule]

not in the least. By 2004, Bush had lost all of my support. By 2004, I was convinced that he was driving the ship of state onto the rocks and shoals and hoped that democrats in congress could forestall the wreck until the 2008 elections.

and I don't convict myself at all you little twit.... I merely corrected an erroneous statement on YOUR part.

He lost all your support simply because he had an "R" at the end of his name

[retiredman]

You must be ignoring this Virgil.

Either Virgil gets his marching orders from Chris Matthews, or Chris gets them from Virgil

I guess Virgil and Chris want to forget how cooperative Dems were from Jan 2001 to Jan 2007 when Republicans were running Congress and George Bush was President

As I have said on countless occasions, I was fully supportive of President Bush from his inauguration right through to the point where he lost focus on fighting Al Qaeda and decided to invade, conquer and occupy a country that had nothing to do with the attacks of 9/11 while the organization that DID attack us remained relatively unscathed, and whose leadership remained untouched. From that point, I saw any attempts by democrats in congress to slow down the trainwreck of Bush foreign policy as good for America.

[retiredman]

He lost all your support simply because he had an "R" at the end of his name


liar. I was fully supportive of Bush right up until he forgot about Al Qaeda and started rattling his sabre in prepartion for invading Iraq.

[Yurt]

not in the least. By 2004, Bush had lost all of my support. By 2004, I was convinced that he was driving the ship of state onto the rocks and shoals and hoped that democrats in congress could forestall the wreck until the 2008 elections.

and I don't convict myself at all you little twit.... I merely corrected an erroneous statement on YOUR part.

eh, WRONG

you said popular vote means shit....i said bush one the majority...what is erroneous about that genius, givne that the popular vote means shit

so easy

[red states rule]

As I have said on countless occasions, I was fully supportive of President Bush from his inauguration right through to the point where he lost focus on fighting Al Qaeda and decided to invade, conquer and occupy a country that had nothing to do with the attacks of 9/11 while the organization that DID attack us remained relatively unscathed, and whose leadership remained untouched. From that point, I saw any attempts by democrats in congress to slow down the trainwreck of Bush foreign policy as good for America.

Like most Dems, when you saw you might score political points by losing in Iraq and appeasment you decided to crew the troops over and push for surrender

Makes sense to me

Now do you want to comment on the rest of my post about how to libs dissent was patriotic then, and now it is obstructing?

[red states rule]

liar. I was fully supportive of Bush right up until he forgot about Al Qaeda and started rattling his sabre in prepartion for invading Iraq.

Virgil, you have zero credibility. If it means more power for your party, you would sell out the troops, the country, and anyone neccessary to get that power

[Yurt]

As I have said on countless occasions, I was fully supportive of President Bush from his inauguration right through to the point where he lost focus on fighting Al Qaeda and decided to invade, conquer and occupy a country that had nothing to do with the attacks of 9/11 while the organization that DID attack us remained relatively unscathed, and whose leadership remained untouched. From that point, I saw any attempts by democrats in congress to slow down the trainwreck of Bush foreign policy as good for America.

obama's votes in the senate, words on the campaign trail, etc.. have convinced me that he is dangerous to this country's ideals. i don't need him to do anything further to believe that any derailing of his policies is GOOD FOR AMERICA.

it is that simple. you can't have it both ways, else you are a hypocrite and are beign intellectual dishonest.

[retiredman]

yes i am quite sure that you would have accepted that advice sitting down from a republican in 2005....you are a hypocrite of the worst kind, party over country

I would NOT have accepted that advice because I firmly believed, in 2005, that Bush was steering the ship of state into danger. As it turns out, by 2008, the majority of Americans came to think the same thing. As a matter of fact, I hope that the republican party DOES attempt to obstruct the Obama administration. I hope that your party does NOT take any advice I, or any other democrat, gives them about helping to positively change our course as a country.

[red states rule]

I would NOT have accepted that advice because I firmly believed, in 2005, that Bush was steering the ship of state into danger. As it turns out, by 2008, the majority of Americans came to think the same thing. As a matter of fact, I hope that the republican party DOES attempt to obstruct the Obama administration. I hope that your party does NOT take any advice I, or any other democrat, gives them about helping to positively change our course as a country.

You are power hungry. It is always party over country with you everytime

[retiredman]

eh, WRONG

you said popular vote means shit....i said bush one the majority...what is erroneous about that genius, givne that the popular vote means shit

so easy


you said:

"when the majority of the country in 2000, 2004 etc...wanted repubs"

a majority of the COUNTRY did not want Bush in 2000.


so easy.

[red states rule]

you said:

"when the majority of the country in 2000, 2004 etc...wanted repubs"

a majority of the COUNTRY did not want Bush in 2000.


so easy.

Yet with Obama you said the only thing that mattered was the Electoral College

Damn, once again thsoe pesky facts get in the way of the debate

So easy :laugh2:

[retiredman]

obama's votes in the senate, words on the campaign trail, etc.. have convinced me that he is dangerous to this country's ideals. i don't need him to do anything further to believe that any derailing of his policies is GOOD FOR AMERICA.

it is that simple. you can't have it both ways, else you are a hypocrite and are beign intellectual dishonest.

if that is how you truly feel, then, by all means, yurt.... you should do everything in your power to stop Obama from enacting any of the measures he ran on and that a majority of America voted for.... and you should, by all means, try to convince as many republicans in congress to see it your way. really.

[retiredman]

Virgil, you have zero credibility. If it means more power for your party, you would sell out the troops, the country, and anyone neccessary to get that power

that's a lie...and I really could give a flying FUCK what a moronic cut and paste spambot like YOU thinks of my credibility. You really need to understand that.

[stephanie]

I would NOT have accepted that advice because I firmly believed, in 2005, that Bush was steering the ship of state into danger. As it turns out, by 2008, the majority of Americans came to think the same thing. As a matter of fact, I hope that the republican party DOES attempt to obstruct the Obama administration. I hope that your party does NOT take any advice I, or any other democrat, gives them about helping to positively change our course as a country.

we don't need to "CHANGE OUR COUNTRY"..

not in the way you Socialist and Commies want to see it..

[red states rule]

if that is how you truly feel, then, by all means, yurt.... you should do everything in your power to stop Obama from enacting any of the measures he ran on and that a majority of America voted for.... and you should, by all means, try to convince as many republicans in congress to see it your way. really.

Obama is flipping on what he ran on Virgil. Now he may not raise taxes, he may not close Gitmo, he may not cut and run from Iraq, and may not repeal FISA

Why would Republicans oppose him on those?

Dems may be another story however :laugh2:

[retiredman]

Yet with Obama you said the only thing that mattered was the Electoral College

Damn, once again thsoe pesky facts get in the way of the debate

So easy :laugh2:


Not at all. the only thing that DOES matter is the electoral college. Bush won that by supreme court fiat in 200 by a whisker...even though a majority of the country did NOT vote for him. Contrast that to 2008, where Obama won a clear majority of the popular vote and kicked McCain's ass - McCain...who YOU voted for even though you said you wouldn't - in the all important electoral college.

so easy. so boring.

getting into a battle of words with you, RSR, is like shooting an unarmed man. I sometimes even feel guilty about it.

[red states rule]

Not at all. the only thing that DOES matter is the electoral college. Bush won that by supreme court fiat in 200 by a whisker...even though a majority of the country did NOT vote for him. Contrast that to 2008, where Obama won a clear majority of the popular vote and kicked McCain's ass - McCain...who YOU voted for even though you said you wouldn't - in the all important electoral college.

so easy. so boring.

getting into a battle of words with you, RSR, is like shooting an unarmed man. I sometimes even feel guilty about it.

No, Pres Bush won because he won Fl. Even the liberal media's own recount confirmed it

Get over it Virgil, and for once try to be somewhat consistnent in your talking point posts

[retiredman]

we don't need to "CHANGE OUR COUNTRY"..

not in the way you Socialist and Commies want to see it..

that's your opinion, steph...and I would certainly never try to disabuse you of it.

[Yurt]

you said:

"when the majority of the country in 2000, 2004 etc...wanted repubs"

a majority of the COUNTRY did not want Bush in 2000.


so easy.

yes, how was i erroneous...? the majority of the country, via the electorate, voted him in...the popular vote means shit...you can't now argue that the majority did not want him when he got the majority electoral vote when the popular vote means shit...you are arguing against yourself :laugh2:

[retiredman]

No, Pres Bush won because he won Fl. Even the liberal media's own recount confirmed it

Get over it Virgil, and for once try to be somewhat consistnent in your talking point posts

the facts remain: Bush won the electoral college by a whisker in 2000 and LOST the popular vote. Obama won the popular vote by a clear and convincing margin and KICKED ASS in the electoral college.

sorry.

[Yurt]

if that is how you truly feel, then, by all means, yurt.... you should do everything in your power to stop Obama from enacting any of the measures he ran on and that a majority of America voted for.... and you should, by all means, try to convince as many republicans in congress to see it your way. really.

good for you. then i expect not to hear anything about i am unpatriotic or doing this country harm by getting in obama's way.

see, i knew you would eventually stop arguing with yourself and see my way.

[red states rule]

the facts remain: Bush won the electoral college by a whisker in 2000 and LOST the popular vote. Obama won the popular vote by a clear and convincing margin and KICKED ASS in the electoral college.

sorry.

A 4 point popular vote win is now convincing???

Obama scored a narrow win in the popular vote - that is a fact. In your world those 48% should shut up and not say a word no matter what Obama wants to do

Problem is, your guy may be moving to the right on key issues, and it may your own base that will be speaking up

[retiredman]

yes, how was i erroneous...? the majority of the country, via the electorate, voted him in...the popular vote means shit...you can't now argue that the majority did not want him when he got the majority electoral vote when the popular vote means shit...you are arguing against yourself :laugh2:


the electoral college does not represent the majority of the country, and it never has pretended to.... if it did, then each state would have two less electoral votes.

Bush definitely won the electoral college - by a whisker - but the majority of Americans who voted did NOT want him to be president.

Contrast that to Obama in 2008.

sorry.

[red states rule]

the electoral college does not represent the majority of the country, and it never has pretended to.... if it did, then each state would have two less electoral votes.

Bush definitely won the electoral college - by a whisker - but the majority of Americans who voted did NOT want him to be president.

Contrast that to Obama in 2008.

sorry.

I get it now, With Virgil when it is a Repubican wins, the popular vote counts and the Electoral College does not matter

When a Dem wins, the popular vote does not count, and only the Electoral College matters

[retiredman]

A 4 point popular vote win is now convincing???

Obama scored a narrow win in the popular vote - that is a fact. In your world those 48% should shut up and not say a word no matter what Obama wants to do

Prioblem is, your guy may be moving to the right on key issues, and it may your own base that will be speaking up

4% is more than a narrow win. and the electoral college score showed just how broad his support really was.

I am part of Obama's base. And I am not a member of the kook left, who may be speaking up, but are not his base... and he has no real worries of losing them regardless of what he does. Where would they go? to YOUR side????:lol:

[retiredman]

I get it now, With Virgil when it is a Repubican wins, the popular vote counts and the Electoral College does not matter

When a Dem wins, the popular vote does not count, and only the Electoral College matters


not at all. the popular vote does not elect the president, and I never said it did.

[red states rule]

4% is more than a narrow win. and the electoral college score showed just how broad his support really was.

I am part of Obama's base. And I am not a member of the kook left, who may be speaking up, but are not his base... and he has no real worries of losing them regardless of what he does. Where would they go? to YOUR side????:lol:

How typical of you. When you need their vote you suck up to the far left - after the election, you could not care less about them

BTW, you are a proud member of the kook left. You would feel right at home with the Daily Kos and Dem Underground crowd

[Yurt]

the electoral college does not represent the majority of the country, and it never has pretended to.... if it did, then each state would have two less electoral votes.

Bush definitely won the electoral college - by a whisker - but the majority of Americans who voted did NOT want him to be president.

Contrast that to Obama in 2008.

sorry.


i'll just let you argue with yourself, its getting boring



Obama won with 52% of the vote - not a huge win


we both know that the popular vote means nothing.


365 to 173 is an ass whupping and shows support across the spectrum.


cherrypick?

Obama received a majority of the votes, even with Nader on the ballot.... no democrat has done that in a long time. He kicked McCain's ass in the electoral college which, as we both know, is the only vote total that really means anything.
Denial ain't no river in Egypt, RSR. Your side lost.

Oh...and who did YOU vote for for President, BTW?


spin it anyway you want, RSR....your side lost... and the electoral college count was a blow out.

and you never did tell us who YOU voted for for President.:lol:


so you DID vote for McCain after promising the board that you absolutely would NOT do so? I KNEW you were a liar and a hypocrite. Thanks for proving it.

In 2004, Bush won with 53% of the electoral college and claimed that he had plenty of political capital to spend. I don't recall you disagreeing with him.

In 2008, Obama won with 68% of the electoral college. I'd say he's got some capital....wouldn't you?


:lol:

[retiredman]

good for you. then i expect not to hear anything about i am unpatriotic or doing this country harm by getting in obama's way.

see, i knew you would eventually stop arguing with yourself and see my way.

I can certainly think that you are doing the country harm by getting in Obama's way. Did you NOT claim that I was putting party over country for opposing Bush?

But regardless.... you can go ahead and put your party's interests above those of the country all you want... that is your right, yurt, and I would never try to take that away from you.

[red states rule]

I can certainly think that you are doing the country harm by getting in Obama's way. Did you NOT claim that I was putting party over country for opposing Bush?

But regardless.... you can go ahead and put your party's interests above those of the country all you want... that is your right, yurt, and I would never try to take that away from you.

So now it is only patriotic when Dems oppose Republican Presidents???

You must write Chris Matthews scripts

[stephanie]

and he has no real worries of losing them regardless of what he does. Where would they go? to YOUR side????:lol:

well........they came to OUR SIDE after your beloved Carter got done with us...

remember the Reagan revolution...

the same is going to happen after this little Marxist is in office for a couple of years...the buyers remorse will be so bad, you will be able to cut it with a knife..:dance:

[Yurt]

I can certainly think that you are doing the country harm by getting in Obama's way. Did you NOT claim that I was putting party over country for opposing Bush?

But regardless.... you can go ahead and put your party's interests above those of the country all you want... that is your right, yurt, and I would never try to take that away from you.

liar...i never said my party...like i said, i am done with you, it is too easy and you are boring me now

have fun!

[retiredman]

i'll just let you argue with yourself, its getting boring


yurt. you need to slow down little man....

I know which vote tally elects the president. I know that Bush won that tally in 2000. I also know that the electoral college was never designed to reflect the will of the majority of voters, but to reflect the will of the republic of states. The fact remains..in 2000 a majority of the people who voted for president voted against Bush, yet he won the electoral college and thus the presidency. The fact remains, a convincing majority of the people who voted for president in 2008 voted for Obama and his broad support across the republic of states gave him a whopping 68% majority in the all important electoral college. Do you honestly care to dispute any of that?

[retiredman]

well........they came to OUR SIDE after your beloved Carter got done with us...

remember the Reagan revolution...



the reagan revolution never got the kook left to vote for Reagan....

do you even know what the term "reagan democrat" refers to??:lol:

[Kathianne]

the reagan revolution never got the kook left to vote for Reagan....

do you even know what the term "reagan democrat" refers to??:lol:

Are you or Obama rather, proud to own the 'kook left?'

[red states rule]

the reagan revolution never got the kook left to vote for Reagan....

do you even know what the term "reagan democrat" refers to??:lol:

Oh really?

1980 Electoral College

http://www.presidentelect.org/images/e1980_ecmap.GIF

and in 1984 it was

http://www.presidentelect.org/images/e1984_ecmap.GIF

[retiredman]

Oh really?



yeah....really.

Reagan NEVER got the far left wing of the democratic party. He got Reagan democrats. Do YOU know what that term means?

"Reagan Democrat is an American political term used by political analysts to denote traditionally Democratic voters, especially white working-class Northerners, who defected from their party to support Republican President Ronald Reagan in both the 1980 and 1984 elections. It is also used to refer to the smaller but still substantial number of Democrats who voted for George H. W. Bush in the 1988 election. The term can also be used to describe moderate Democrats who are more conservative than liberal on certain issues like national security and immigration"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reagan_Democrat

[retiredman]

Are you or Obama rather, proud to own the 'kook left?'

"proud"? The word does not apply. I acknowledge that they are out there...they have issues that I do not agree with... they have the right to vote for somebody and it certainly does not make any sense for the far left to vote for someone even further to the right than a moderate democrat.

[red states rule]

yeah....really.

Reagan NEVER got the far left wing of the democratic party. He got Reagan democrats. Do YOU know what that term means?

"Reagan Democrat is an American political term used by political analysts to denote traditionally Democratic voters, especially white working-class Northerners, who defected from their party to support Republican President Ronald Reagan in both the 1980 and 1984 elections. It is also used to refer to the smaller but still substantial number of Democrats who voted for George H. W. Bush in the 1988 election. The term can also be used to describe moderate Democrats who are more conservative than liberal on certain issues like national security and immigration"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reagan_Democrat

Those 44 and 49 state wins by Pres Reagan shows what a lair and/or fool you really are Virgil

Those elections were over by 9PM East coast time.

I also remember Dems saying their polices were not rejected - the voters fell for "slick marketing and packaging :laugh2:

and I bet you voted for Carter and Mondale

[red states rule]

"proud"? The word does not apply. I acknowledge that they are out there...they have issues that I do not agree with... they have the right to vote for somebody and it certainly does not make any sense for the far left to vote for someone even further to the right than a moderate democrat.

Why would you not agree with them? Not liberal enough for you?

[retiredman]

Those 44 and 49 state wins by Pres Reagan shows what a lair and/or fool you really are Virgil

Those elections were over by 9PM East coast time.

I also remember Dems saying their polices were not rejected - the voters fell for "slick marketing and packaging :laugh2:

and I bet you voted for Carter and Mondale

RSR... face it...the hard core lefties NEVER voted for Reagan....just damned near everyone else.

I did vote for Carter in 80. I did not vote for Mondale.... I voted for Anderson in 84

[red states rule]

RSR... face it...the hard core lefties NEVER voted for Reagan....just damned near everyone else.

I did vote for Carter in 80. I did not vote for Mondale.... I voted for Anderson in 84

Why am I not surprised you did not vote for Pres Reagan

BYT Pres Reagan won by nearly 18 points in 1984. It is safe to say the kook left were in that margin of victory Virgil

[Yurt]

Those 44 and 49 state wins by Pres Reagan shows what a lair and/or fool you really are Virgil

Those elections were over by 9PM East coast time.

I also remember Dems saying their polices were not rejected - the voters fell for "slick marketing and packaging :laugh2:

and I bet you voted for Carter and Mondale

betcha he did....the majority of the dems saw their party going down the toobs and voted for country over party unlike mfm :laugh2:

[red states rule]

RSR... face it...the hard core lefties NEVER voted for Reagan....just damned near everyone else.

I did vote for Carter in 80. I did not vote for Mondale.... I voted for Anderson in 84

So you voted for Carter despite his economy? Are you saying you did not want change?

Yet you screamed how you wanted change with the Bush economy?

The Carter economy was much worse then what we have now

Amazing

[manu1959]

we got change....we are changing back to the clinton era.....all the interns will be issued a blue dress and a cigar.....

[Kathianne]

we got change....we are changing back to the clinton era.....all the interns will be issued a blue dress and a cigar.....

I think Obama loves his wife. Yet the recession is his, he owns it.

[retiredman]

So you voted for Carter despite his economy? Are you saying you did not want change?

Yet you screamed how you wanted change with the Bush economy?

The Carter economy was much worse then what we have now

Amazing

The Bush economy was not the reason I wanted him gone. My primary issues with Bush were always concerning foreign policy.

[retiredman]

I think Obama loves his wife. Yet the recession is his, he owns it.
Bush gave it to him... and he'll have to deal with it. I am sure he'll do better than McCain could have.

[red states rule]

The Bush economy was not the reason I wanted him gone. My primary issues with Bush were always concerning foreign policy.

and I remember what a foreign policy success Carter was :laugh2:

So why did you vote for Carter given what a failure he was? Could it be that he had a "D" at then end of his name?

[retiredman]

Why am I not surprised you did not vote for Pres Reagan

BYT Pres Reagan won by nearly 18 points in 1984. It is safe to say the kook left were in that margin of victory Virgil

What percentage of the democratic party do you think falls into the "kook left"?

[red states rule]

Bush gave it to him... and he'll have to deal with it. I am sure he'll do better than McCain could have.

Obama is talking about doing most of the things McCain said he was going to do to help the economy

[retiredman]

and I remember what a foreign policy success Carter was :laugh2:

So why did you vote for Carter given what a failure he was? Could it be that he had a "D" at then end of his name?


I didn't think he was a failure. I voted for him because he was an Annapolis grad and because I didn't like the policy positions of Reagan... AND because Carter was a democrat who ran on the platform of ideas and policies that I believed in. The republican party philosophy is far too mean spirited for my tastes.

Tell us again why you lied to us all and proclaimed earlier that you would NOT vote for McCain, and then turned around and did precisely that? Wasn't it because he had an "R" after HIS name?:laugh2:

[retiredman]

:: crickets chirping ::

[red states rule]

I didn't think he was a failure. I voted for him because he was an Annapolis grad and because I didn't like the policy positions of Reagan... AND because Carter was a democrat who ran on the platform of ideas and policies that I believed in. The republican party philosophy is far too mean spirited for my tastes.

Tell us again why you lied to us all and proclaimed earlier that you would NOT vote for McCain, and then turned around and did precisely that? Wasn't it because he had an "R" after HIS name?:laugh2:

So in your world, double digit inflation, a prime rate of 21%, near double digit unemployment, gas lines around the block, Americans held hostage, and Russia invading another country are all good things? Carter's economy was so bad the Misery Index was created to track the success of those policies you believed in :laugh2:

Vorgil, I posted many times i was voting for Gov Palin

[red states rule]

**crickets chirping*** :laugh2::laugh2:

What's the matter Virgil? Computer down, power failure, or facts preventing you from responding????

[Yurt]

**crickets chirping*** :laugh2::laugh2:

What's the matter Virgil? Computer down, power failure, or facts preventing you from responding????

nah, he just likes to complain when others don't answer his posts but when others ask him to answer thier posts that he "misses" he says that he has no time to look at all our posts...basically, he is more important than us, so of course he naturally misses our posts, but if we should miss one of his....holy lord

[red states rule]

nah, he just likes to complain when others don't answer his posts but when others ask him to answer thier posts that he "misses" he says that he has no time to look at all our posts...basically, he is more important than us, so of course he naturally misses our posts, but if we should miss one of his....holy lord

Yurt the ONLY good thing about Virgil being on the board is that is it is so good when he logs off

He is like a small child throwing a tantrum because he is so desperate for attention

[LOki]

http://2k3hd.com/nucleus/media/1/20070828-Phil%20Spector.jpg VS http://blogs.sfweekly.com/shookdown/davematthews.jpg
The real question here is which one of the two is more liberal.What's the point in guessing? You know which one you'd rather vote for.

[5stringJeff]

http://2k3hd.com/nucleus/media/1/20070828-Phil%20Spector.jpg VS http://blogs.sfweekly.com/shookdown/davematthews.jpgWhat's the point in guessing? You know which one you'd rather vote for.

Nice! :thumb:

But, regarding the election, were I a Pennsylvanian (and I'm not), I'd vote for the Libertarian candidate.