TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Specter switches sides... Dems have 59, soon 60...
Pages (2): [1] 2 »
Specter switches sides... Dems have 59, soon 60...
Be careful what you wish for.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Shakka Be careful what you wish for. |
glee 
first Murphy won the symbolic house seat in a district with significantly more republican voters.
Sen. John Cornyn already said it was going to be real hard to stop dems from reaching 60 in the midterms. even when its usually the party in power that looses seats
it was only a matter of time but to happen like this with Specter has to rattle republican cages that have already been rattled plenty.
the economy will recover, regardless of Obama's initiatives, but dems will still get the credit. come midterms republicans will be an afterthought
its the new world order and proof positive the age of reagan is over. lets hope they dont fuck it up like the last guy
| quote: |
| Originally posted by josh4 its the new world order |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On Oh, now you've done it. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by josh4 it was only a matter of time but to happen like this with Specter has to rattle republican cages that have already been rattled plenty. the economy will recover, regardless of Obama's initiatives, but dems will still get the credit. come midterms republicans will be an afterthought its the new world order and proof positive the age of reagan is over. lets hope they dont fuck it up like the last guy |
| quote: |
| I am staying a Republican because I think I have an important role, a more important role, to play there. The United States very desperately needs a two-party system. That�s the basis of politics in America. I�m afraid we are becoming a one-party system, with Republicans becoming just a regional party with so little representation of the northeast or in the middle atlantic. I think as a governmental matter, it is very important to have a check and balance. That�s a very important principle in the operation of our government. In the constitution on Separation of powers. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by The17sss haha... fuck Specter. He is a excellent example of political expediency and what he's doing is an obvious play at self preservation. |
He basically said he was doing it because he didn't think he could get re-elected as a Republican, so you have to ask yourself--is it because he wants to keep the power or because he thinks the right has drifted too far? Maybe some of both, but clearly a large part of it is simply because he can't live with the idea of losing, whether or not he really has his constituents' best interests at heart.
Considering he voted down the union bill a few weeks ago I'm curious if he'll be pressured to tow the party line now and flip flop in favor of it. Pennsylvania is a heavy union state.
Why do guys like this keep hanging on? The guy is almost 80, adn a 5 time senator.
Retire for fuck sakes!
Why the need to pull these stunts just to stay in power like this? Sure, he might say he's doig it for country or his constituents, but geez, like someone else have a go at it.
He wrote part of the warren commission ffs!!
Take your cushy government pension and retire. I hear property is cheap now!
| quote: |
| Originally posted by pmoisse Why the need to pull these stunts just to stay in power like this? |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by The17sss The argument of course is that people who identify themselves as Republicans has shrunk in numbers |
| quote: |
| "You know, either you�re with us or against us. It�s not understanding that political diversity makes a party stronger." Olympia J. Snowe of Maine http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/balance...big-tent-g.html |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by jerZ07002 Let's say you think you're about to get fired from your job. Would you do whatever you could to put yourself in a better position to keep your job? why do we expect senators to act differently? the man's a fuckin' politician, of course everything he does is going to be for political reasons! His party affiliation is not the relevant issue; it's whether he's an effective senator. If he is ineffective, then the people of pennsylvania will have their opportunity to fire him. People who are outraged about him changing his party affiliation are just as bi-partisan and political as he is. At the end of the day, the real difference is who is funding his campaign. Sure, he will get some dems that wouldn't have voted for him otherwise. At the same time, however, he is losing some republicans who would have voted for him had he still a republican. Nevertheless, if a better candidate runs against him he will lose the election, whether it be in the primary or the general election. This really isn't a big deal. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by The17sss we aren't getting the true pulse of Americans' feelings. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by josh4 if republicans want to remain viable they have to embrace a more open-arms policy and be more welcoming of gays and immigrants which of course will never happen |
I think the party has done a far better job of that itself, if this last election is any indication.
The real problem with the Republican party of the United States is that it is fucking hitched to the Evengelical church. All other issues seem to stem from this. Conservative values aren't really all that disagreeable from a philosophical or even a fiscal point of view - but joining in on the enormous fucking Jesus cult that Conservativism in America has become is pushing people away from it, and rightfully so. Or perhaps it's drawing the wrong ones in. Take your pick, I suppose.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by The17sss Welcoming of gays? You mean gay marriage? The majority of the public doesn't believe in it. Only 33% of people in CA were for it but it became legal because judges decided against the popular majority that they knew better, and legalized it. That's not democracy, that's legislating from the bench. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by The17sss Republicans are not "anit-immigrant" man, that's a fallacy. What they stand for, unless you're McCain or Lindsay Ghramnesty, is having them follow the legal process in achieving citizenship or being a guest worker, whatever. We have laws in place regarding entry into this country, and they need to be enforced... otherwise, what's the point of having those laws? The Dems have just been really successful in painting Republicans as immigrant haters and pandering for those votes. |
Sending 6-8 million people, most of whom are great people who do the dirty work that keeps our country moving, back to their country is NOT a realistic solution. Furthermore, many illegals have children who are US citizens. Deporting the parents even though the children are natural born citizens is just morally wrong. I couldn't give a fuck about party affiliation. It's about having a heart. I agree that immigrants need to follow laws. however, that's not the situation we are currently facing. Too many have already broken the law, and they are living here and contributing enormously to our society. We need to be adaptive so that we can come up with a better solution. I understand blanket amnesty is too much to ask, but a modified amnesty program, in which illegals can come out of hiding and work towards permanent residency, is absolutely necessary.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On I think the party has done a far better job of that itself, if this last election is any indication. The real problem with the Republican party of the United States is that it is fucking hitched to the Evengelical church. All other issues seem to stem from this. Conservative values aren't really all that disagreeable from a philosophical or even a fiscal point of view - but joining in on the enormous fucking Jesus cult that Conservativism in America has become is pushing people away from it, and rightfully so. Or perhaps it's drawing the wrong ones in. Take your pick, I suppose. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by The17sss When the Dems overreach, they are going to own all consequences. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by jerZ07002 If you want to talk about following the law, how about starting with the constitution? I hate the words "legislating from the bench." Instead of enacting a law that prohibits gays from marrying, how about modifying the state constitution that provides for equal rights to all citizens? Personally, i don't give a shit about the gay rights issue. But, it is inaccurate to say a judge is conducting legislation from the bench when the judge rules that equal protection means gays are protected as equals. Judges aren't supposed to rule based on the popular opinion of the issue, as you implied. The republican tag line, legislating from the bench, is getting old. The job of a judge is to interpret the law. A guaranteed consequence of the nature of the job is that some people will disagree with the judge's interpretation of the law. Just because you don't agree with an interpretation doesn't mean it is legislation. |
| quote: |
| You're right, republican's aren't anti-immigration. Republican's are cold-hearted pieces of shit without realistic solutions to a very real problem Sending 6-8 million people, most of whom are great people who do the dirty work that keeps our country moving, back to their country is NOT a realistic solution. Furthermore, many illegals have children who are US citizens. Deporting the parents even though the children are natural born citizens is just morally wrong. I couldn't give a fuck about party affiliation. It's about having a heart. I agree that immigrants need to follow laws. however, that's not the situation we are currently facing. We need to be adaptive so that we can come up with a better solution. I understand blanket amnesty is too much to ask, but a modified amnesty program, in which illegals can come out of hiding and work towards permanent residency, is absolutely necessary. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Clovis That would be a welcome change from the amnesiac filled republican party of today. |
| quote: |
| Nancy Pelosi is "pushing back" against charges that she was aware of -- and acquiesced in -- the CIA's harsh interrogations of terrorist detainees nearly from the moment the practice began, reports the Politico Web site. Maybe she's suffering from amnesia. Maybe, for instance, the speaker doesn't remember that in September 2002, as ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, she was one of four members of Congress who were briefed by the CIA about the interrogation methods the agency was using on leading detainees. "For more than an hour," the Washington Post reported in 2007, "the bipartisan group . . . was given a virtual tour of the CIA's overseas detention sites and the harsh techniques interrogators had devised to try to make their prisoners talk. "Among the techniques described," the story continued, "was waterboarding, a practice that years later would be condemned as torture by Democrats and some Republicans on Capitol Hill. But on that day, no objections were raised. Instead, at least two lawmakers in the room asked the CIA to push harder." Or maybe the speaker never heard what some of her Democratic colleagues were saying about legal niceties getting in the way of an effective counterterrorism strategy. "Unfortunately, we are not living in times in which lawyers can say no to an operation just to play it safe," said Democrat Bob Graham, chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence during the 2002 confirmation hearing of Scott Muller to be the CIA's general counsel. "We need excellent, aggressive lawyers who give sound, accurate legal advice, not lawyers who say no to an otherwise legal opinion just because it is easier to put on the brakes." Or maybe the speaker forgot that after 9/11, the operative question among Americans, including various media paladins, wasn't whether the Bush administration had gone overboard. On the contrary: "I asked the president whether he and the country had done enough for the war on terror," writes Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward in his book "Bush at War." "The possibility of another major attack still loomed. . . . Was it not possible that he had undermobilized given the threat and the devastation of September 11?" (My emphases.) Or maybe the speaker missed what former CIA Director (and Bill Clinton appointee) George Tenet writes in his memoir, "At the Center of the Storm," about the CIA interrogation of 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed: "I believe none of these successes [in foiling terrorist plots] would have happened if we had had to treat KSM like a white-collar criminal -- read him his Miranda rights and get him a lawyer who surely would have insisted his client simply shut up. In his initial interrogation by CIA officers, KSM was defiant. 'I'll talk to you guys,' he said, 'after I get to New York and see my lawyer.' Apparently he thought he would be immediately shipped to the United States and indicted in the Southern District of New York. Had that happened, I am confident that we would have obtained none of the information he had in his head about imminent threats to the American people." Mr. Tenet continues: "From our interrogation of KSM and other senior al Qaeda members . . . we learned many things -- not just tactical information leading to the next capture. For example, more than 20 plots had been put in motion by al Qaeda against U.S. infrastructure targets, including communications nodes, nuclear power plants, dams, bridges and tunnels." Maybe, too, the speaker no longer recalls what she knew, and when, about the Bush administration's other much-reviled counterterrorist program, the warrantless wiretaps. "Within weeks of the program's inception," writes Mr. Tenet, "senior congressional leaders were called to the White House and briefed on it. . . . At one point in 2004 there was even a discussion with the congressional leadership in the White House Situation Room with regard to whether new legislation should be introduced to amend the FISA statute, to put the program on a broader legal foundation. The view that day on the part of members of Congress was that this could not be done without jeopardizing the program." , finally, the speaker has forgotten the role that previous grand congressional inquisitions played in gutting U.S. intelligence. "After the Watergate era," the bipartisan 9/11 Commission reported, "Congress established oversight committees to ensure that the CIA did not undertake covert action contrary to basic American law. . . . During the 1990s, tension sometimes arose, as it did in the effort against al Qaeda, between policy makers who wanted the CIA to undertake more aggressive covert action and wary CIA leaders who counseled prudence and making sure that the legal basis and presidential authorization for their actions were undeniably clear." The speaker and her partisans are the current beneficiaries of this politics of amnesia. It won't be so forever. And when the time comes to pay the price for their forgetfulness, it will not be small. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by The17sss dammit... I hate it when you get all legal on me. lol. Seriously though, regarding CA there was a "Proposition" that was voted on, and the people voted to turn down gay marriage. Then a judge reversed what the people voted on. That's not a problem, and doesn't set a dangerous precident? Judges are becoming social activists man, admit it. I'm not an "equal protection" savant... but how is not allowing the term "marriage" as defined legally refusing equal protection, when they can still have "civil unions" and/or set up legal documents with attorneys concerning matters of their assets and so forth that married couples have? Is it that they just don't get the same benefits on their income tax returns as "married" couples? |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by The17sss I don't want to get into the whole immigration debate. I'll just say this: What if I came to you as a client with 400 billable hours and said, "Come on man, I lost my job, my wife left me, I'm sinking under my mortgage... lets call that bill all square. Have a heart for someone who's in a difficult situation." What would you say? Our pathetic lack of enforcing the law got us to where we are now... I just don't believe it's justification for allowing the rest of the slippery slope to fall through and allow amnesty. The Republican answer isn't "Send 'em all back!" Some people shout that, but that's not a political solution on the table for consideration. There are plenty of guest worker and path to citizenship strategies. All I ask, and what you should agree with as a lawyer no less, is that the law be followed and enforced. I am particularly sensitive to this because my wife had to go through the process legally, which has been time consuming and cost at least $10,000 out of our own pockets to get from point A to point B. So, yeah it pisses me off when people break soverign laws and then cry for the same entitlements as U.S. citizens. It's not cold hearted to say, "they knew the risk they were taking by breaking our laws and getting their children into this mess," it's reality. And as much as those situations suck, it's sucks even more to see our healthcare and education systems being overburdened as they are forced to provide for them. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by The17sss Welcoming of gays? You mean gay marriage? The majority of the public doesn't believe in it. Only 33% of people in CA were for it but it became legal because judges decided against the popular majority that they knew better, and legalized it. That's not democracy, that's legislating from the bench. Republicans are not "anit-immigrant" man, that's a fallacy. What they stand for, unless you're McCain or Lindsay Ghramnesty, is having them follow the legal process in achieving citizenship or being a guest worker, whatever. We have laws in place regarding entry into this country, and they need to be enforced... otherwise, what's the point of having those laws? The Dems have just been really successful in painting Republicans as immigrant haters and pandering for those votes. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by josh4 as usual you miss the point completely. unless republicans advance past being the party of old white men they will continue to become marginalized as the rest of the country moves on without them. that's all. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by jerZ07002 Here is a simplified heirarchy of the authority accorded to laws within a state: |
| quote: |
| i said in my previous post that i think immigrants need to follow the law. however, having bitter feelings towards people because they didn't follow the same route you did is not a solution to the problem. as for your comment that you don't want to send them back, then what would you do with the 6-8 million illegals here now that are in violation of immigration laws? doesn't the law provide that they should be sent back to their home country? strictly following the law is calling for their deportation. that's just not a realistic solution. |
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.