Desipio Message Board

Quote from: Brownie on September 30, 2009, 09:10:36 AM

Quote from: Fork on September 30, 2009, 08:59:43 AM

I like how people on the far right can somehow talk about Obama's "Change" mockingly, as if nothing has changed, while simultaneously complain that America is being rendered unrecognizable.

All in 8 months.

Guys like me on the far right mock Obama's "Change" for the same reason we might mock Hendry's vision of change. The Cubs were embarrassed in the playoffs, so things were going to have to change around Clark and Addison. Change they did indeed.



(However, if anyone needed any proof that Newsmax is off its rocker and no other evidence was convincing, this would be all you need. Ho. Lee. Shit.)

But isn't this situation more like Lou taking over from Dusty?   

Obama promised change, and he's a Democrat. So it shouldn't be a surprise that his change is stuff Republicans don't like.

McCain trying to be the "Change" candidate was one of the 3 things that cost him the election last year (the others being the Wall St. meltdown and Palin).

2010 (This has become the GOP's rallying cry) is a pretty big pipe dream for the GOP, considering that just for the Senate, they need to hold every seat they have, and pick up 11 Democratic seats. They need to pick up 40 seats in Congress.

Unlike 1994, there's no legislative agenda (like the "Contract With America"), and a larger proportion on nonwhite voters.

George W. Bush's most lasting contribution to the United States, like it or not, will be at least a decade of the Democrats running Congress, and at least 7 1/4 more years of a Democrat getting his mail at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

Quote from: air2300 on September 30, 2009, 09:16:00 AM

Quote from: Brownie on September 30, 2009, 09:10:36 AM

Quote from: Fork on September 30, 2009, 08:59:43 AM

I like how people on the far right can somehow talk about Obama's "Change" mockingly, as if nothing has changed, while simultaneously complain that America is being rendered unrecognizable.

All in 8 months.

Guys like me on the far right mock Obama's "Change" for the same reason we might mock Hendry's vision of change. The Cubs were embarrassed in the playoffs, so things were going to have to change around Clark and Addison. Change they did indeed.



(However, if anyone needed any proof that Newsmax is off its rocker and no other evidence was convincing, this would be all you need. Ho. Lee. Shit.)

But isn't this situation more like Lou taking over from Dusty?   

Or is it like Don Baylor taking over for Riggleman or Kimm taking over for Baylor or Baker taking over for Baylor/Kimm or Bill Cartwright taking over for Floyd?

Quote from: Fork on September 30, 2009, 09:19:55 AM

Obama promised change, and he's a Democrat. So it shouldn't be a surprise that his change is stuff Republicans don't like.

McCain trying to be the "Change" candidate was one of the 3 things that cost him the election last year (the others being the Wall St. meltdown and Palin).

2010 (This has become the GOP's rallying cry) is a pretty big pipe dream for the GOP, considering that just for the Senate, they need to hold every seat they have, and pick up 11 Democratic seats. They need to pick up 40 seats in Congress.

Unlike 1994, there's no legislative agenda (like the "Contract With America"), and a larger proportion on nonwhite voters.

George W. Bush's most lasting contribution to the United States, like it or not, will be at least a decade of the Democrats running Congress, and at least 7 1/4 more years of a Democrat getting his mail at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

But, if Chris Christie is ahead in New Jersey and Bob McDonnell is ahead in Virginia, that cannot be a great omen for the Democrats, especially given that the label "Obama Democrat" appears to be more toxic than the "Bush Republican" label.

As for the absence of the "Contract With America," let's note that such a document didn't surface until late September 1994.

Quote from: Brownie on September 30, 2009, 10:01:08 AM
But, if Chris Christie is ahead in New Jersey and Bob McDonnell is ahead in Virginia, that cannot be a great omen for the Democrats, especially given that the label "Obama Democrat" appears to be more toxic than the "Bush Republican" label.

I'm not sure that the labels you site are the problem.  It's possible the label "incumbent" is more the problem.  Given the economy right now and what's going on with budget deficits due to tax receipts falling, people are going to vote for change more often than not.

I'm pretty sure I'm done voting.

Quote from: Gil Gunderson on September 29, 2009, 07:08:00 PM
Here's my question.  Is there this much anger and vitriol and Dolchstoßlegende just because the president is black or because the president is a Democrat?

Apparently this John L. Perry character is a former Democratic veteran of the Johnson and Carter administrations and, before that, press secretary to Democratic Florida governor LeRoy Collins.

He describes himself as an "unreconstructed Adlai Stevenson liberal" and laments "the 8-year-long Bill Clinton nightmare."

I'm getting a solid whiff of Solid South Democrat off of him.

As for the wider insanity, if I were to venture a guess, I'd say a little from column A, a little from column B.

The full-throated crazy seems to have gone much more widespread much faster than during the Clinton years.

In part, I'd suspect this has more than a little to do with Obama being so conspicuously "other." At the same time, you can't really discount the gaping GOP leadership vacuum that has managed to cede its agenda to the Glenn Becks of the insane right.

Quote from: Trinew: The Boiler on September 29, 2009, 07:50:43 PM
That's the same question I have.

I also enjoy that every time I go home I get to hear a not-so-thinly veiled jab at Obama ruining the country from my parents. Each and every time.

Ever listen to Michael Savage?

That's my dad's question as I'm leaving to head back to the city.

Facepalm.

I shudder to imagine the conversations I might have had with my dad were he still around to see Our Black President.

Quote from: Waco Kid on September 30, 2009, 08:55:17 AM
Well I can think of no better way to preserve democracy than a military coup followed by some sort of military run government, be it dictatorship, oligarchy, or whatever.

Hey... If you can think of any alternative, non-violent solution to the problem of a President who threatens our national survival by trampling the Constitution beside a "civilized" military putsch, I'm all ears.

Quote from: Trinew: The Boiler on September 30, 2009, 10:12:02 AM
I'm pretty sure I'm done voting.

That's the spirit! That'll learn that Michael Savage asshole but good.

Quote from: Trinew: The Boiler on September 30, 2009, 10:12:02 AM
I'm pretty sure I'm done voting.

Are you trying to tell us you want to run for governor?

Also, I (shudder) agree with Chuck on the McDonnell/Christie leads, and I'd add that angry old white people are angry and like to vote in mid-term elections.

Quote from: Dr. Nguyen Van Falk on September 30, 2009, 10:32:13 AM

Quote from: Trinew: The Boiler on September 30, 2009, 10:12:02 AM
I'm pretty sure I'm done voting.

That's the spirit! That'll learn that Michael Savage asshole but good.

I figure why vote when I can sit back and watch the Amorickah I love so passionately become unrecognizable over the next 4 years? Didn't you hear? They'll be marching down Ashland, stopping at each house to make sure we're praying to our Obama statues each and every night.

Quote from: R-V on September 30, 2009, 10:38:54 AM
Also, I (shudder) agree with Chuck on the McDonnell/Christie leads, and I'd add that angry old white people are angry and like to vote in mid-term elections.

This.

Chuck is (shudder squared) right, Fork is wrong.

This is a "throw the bums out" election.

Quote from: Waco Kid on September 30, 2009, 08:55:17 AM
Well I can think of no better way to preserve democracy than a military coup followed by some sort of military run government, be it dictatorship, oligarchy OLIGARHY, or whatever.

Beck'd.

Seriously though, let's ignore the 2002 midterms for a moment and remember this historical fact: the party in control of Congress in midterm elections generally loses seats.  It's a simple fact.  Alot of Obama voters are not going to be coming out in 2010; they're waiting for 2012.  Yes, there is a general anti-incumbent mood, but 2010 is going to simply be who can rile up the base the most.  Unfortunately, it will be the GOP. 

But they will not win the House or the Senate.  The numbers, as Fork alluded to, do not work.  Plus, if the Dems can deliver on healthcare and the economy begins to show signs of life, it'll be a real dogfight.

Quote from: Brownie on September 30, 2009, 10:01:08 AM

Quote from: air2300 on September 30, 2009, 09:16:00 AM

Quote from: Brownie on September 30, 2009, 09:10:36 AM

Quote from: Fork on September 30, 2009, 08:59:43 AM

I like how people on the far right can somehow talk about Obama's "Change" mockingly, as if nothing has changed, while simultaneously complain that America is being rendered unrecognizable.

All in 8 months.

Guys like me on the far right mock Obama's "Change" for the same reason we might mock Hendry's vision of change. The Cubs were embarrassed in the playoffs, so things were going to have to change around Clark and Addison. Change they did indeed.



(However, if anyone needed any proof that Newsmax is off its rocker and no other evidence was convincing, this would be all you need. Ho. Lee. Shit.)

But isn't this situation more like Lou taking over from Dusty?   

Or is it like Don Baylor taking over for Riggleman or Kimm taking over for Baylor or Baker taking over for Baylor/Kimm or Bill Cartwright taking over for Floyd?

Quote from: Fork on September 30, 2009, 09:19:55 AM

Obama promised change, and he's a Democrat. So it shouldn't be a surprise that his change is stuff Republicans don't like.

McCain trying to be the "Change" candidate was one of the 3 things that cost him the election last year (the others being the Wall St. meltdown and Palin).

2010 (This has become the GOP's rallying cry) is a pretty big pipe dream for the GOP, considering that just for the Senate, they need to hold every seat they have, and pick up 11 Democratic seats. They need to pick up 40 seats in Congress.

Unlike 1994, there's no legislative agenda (like the "Contract With America"), and a larger proportion on nonwhite voters.

George W. Bush's most lasting contribution to the United States, like it or not, will be at least a decade of the Democrats running Congress, and at least 7 1/4 more years of a Democrat getting his mail at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

But, if Chris Christie is ahead in New Jersey and Bob McDonnell is ahead in Virginia, that cannot be a great omen for the Democrats, especially given that the label "Obama Democrat" appears to be more toxic than the "Bush Republican" label.

As for the absence of the "Contract With America," let's note that such a document didn't surface until late September 1994.

Corzine was screwed in NJ from the second Hank Paulson funnelled billions of tax dollars through Goldman Sachs.

Quote from: Brownie on September 30, 2009, 10:01:08 AM

Quote from: air2300 on September 30, 2009, 09:16:00 AM

Quote from: Brownie on September 30, 2009, 09:10:36 AM

Quote from: Fork on September 30, 2009, 08:59:43 AM

I like how people on the far right can somehow talk about Obama's "Change" mockingly, as if nothing has changed, while simultaneously complain that America is being rendered unrecognizable.

All in 8 months.

Guys like me on the far right mock Obama's "Change" for the same reason we might mock Hendry's vision of change. The Cubs were embarrassed in the playoffs, so things were going to have to change around Clark and Addison. Change they did indeed.



(However, if anyone needed any proof that Newsmax is off its rocker and no other evidence was convincing, this would be all you need. Ho. Lee. Shit.)

But isn't this situation more like Lou taking over from Dusty?   

Or is it like Don Baylor taking over for Riggleman or Kimm taking over for Baylor or Baker taking over for Baylor/Kimm or Bill Cartwright taking over for Floyd?

Quote from: Fork on September 30, 2009, 09:19:55 AM

Obama promised change, and he's a Democrat. So it shouldn't be a surprise that his change is stuff Republicans don't like.

McCain trying to be the "Change" candidate was one of the 3 things that cost him the election last year (the others being the Wall St. meltdown and Palin).

2010 (This has become the GOP's rallying cry) is a pretty big pipe dream for the GOP, considering that just for the Senate, they need to hold every seat they have, and pick up 11 Democratic seats. They need to pick up 40 seats in Congress.

Unlike 1994, there's no legislative agenda (like the "Contract With America"), and a larger proportion on nonwhite voters.

George W. Bush's most lasting contribution to the United States, like it or not, will be at least a decade of the Democrats running Congress, and at least 7 1/4 more years of a Democrat getting his mail at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

But, if Chris Christie is ahead in New Jersey and Bob McDonnell is ahead in Virginia, that cannot be a great omen for the Democrats, especially given that the label "Obama Democrat" appears to be more toxic than the "Bush Republican" label.

As for the absence of the "Contract With America," let's note that such a document didn't surface until late September 1994.

I contend that the Assault Weapons Ban was the biggest single driver of the results in 1994. The bill also wasn't passed until September but it had been debated for months before.
It seems unlikely that Obama would touch this hot button again before a midterm election.

Also, what Chuck said.

So whats Obama going to do about Iran? He has been playing nice wanting to talk to them knowing they had a secret nuclear facility on a military base inside a mountain.

We pissed off the Polish and Chezks over missle defense only to see Iran launch a missile with a 1200 mile range so we can get the Russians on board with sanctions. The Russians will never agree to sanctions on Iran and will continue to use that angle to get whatever they want out of Obama. They already got missile defense shut down just because they said they "might" be open to sanctions if the political process fails.

Obama gave a "firm" deadline at the G8 summit, for the Iranians to negotiate about their nuclear programs. That date was September 10th and the Iranians blew off Obama. Obama is giving a "firm" deadline of December now.

Gee what happens when Iran blows that off too? Do we send an angry E-mail saying we mean it this time?

Were going to talk, the Iranians are going to act like they want to talk, nothing is going to get done but a nuclear bomb being built. Russians aren't going to help and neither are the Chinese.

Quote from: MikeC on September 30, 2009, 04:05:56 PM
So whats Obama going to do about Iran?

You're a week late with your cut-and-paste diatribe.  Get with the times.  Let's hear your pro coup angle.