BREAKING NEWS: Arlen Specter switching parties to give Democrats 60 votes in Senate

[ItsFairmont]

If you are a republicans, and you're saying the same kind of things you have been saying for the past three years..........

you'll keep losing.


Change directions.

 

[oreo]

Republican, Democrat - what the s***s the difference? 8 yrs of past corruption as oppose to corruption in the next four years maybe more - BFD!!! The country as we know it is doomed anyway. So relax and enjoy the show, folks. If the repubs and dems don't get you, the swine flu will.

Yeah that's right, there is no difference between the Dems and the Repubs, just look at how the Repubs have agreed with everything the Dems are doing. Right?

Oh that's right the Repubs don't agree with anything that the Dems want to do, nevermind...

--

With the exceptions of Arlan Spector, Susan Collins, Olympia Snow & John McCain-who was all for closing GITMO & against enhanced interrogation technics.

I am sick & tired of wooosy Republicans--Get rid of all of them-& get someone in there--& I could care less if they're republican or democrat I just want some conservatives on capital hill that have some COMMON SENSE for a change!

 

[Xenophon]

Again, this changes nothing, Spector always votes with the Dems already, as does Snowe and Collins, Dems have been past 60 since the election.

 

[Old Rocks]

Why bother? There's no significant differences between the two parties.

there is a very big significant difference and it's getting bigger every single passing day..

That is correct. The Rushpublicans are exiling themselves in the wilderness of paranoia and ignorance. In the meantime, the Dems are moving on issues that mean much to most of the people in the US. Very good chance of Universal Health Care now. The new labor laws are a done deal. The very wealthy will have to pay their fair share of taxes.

Yep, you will get to whine and snivel all you please. I will even pass you a few tissues.

 

[Old Rocks]

Republican, Democrat - what the s***s the difference? 8 yrs of past corruption as oppose to corruption in the next four years maybe more - BFD!!! The country as we know it is doomed anyway. So relax and enjoy the show, folks. If the repubs and dems don't get you, the swine flu will.

Yeah that's right, there is no difference between the Dems and the Repubs, just look at how the Repubs have agreed with everything the Dems are doing. Right?

Oh that's right the Repubs don't agree with anything that the Dems want to do, nevermind...

--

With the exceptions of Arlan Spector, Susan Collins, Olympia Snow & John McCain-who was all for closing GITMO & against enhanced interrogation technics.

I am sick & tired of wooosy Republicans--Get rid of all of them-& get someone in there--& I could care less if they're republican or democrat I just want some conservatives on capital hill that have some COMMON SENSE for a change!

There used to be Eisenhower Republicans. Good sane conservative men with consciences, and a sense of duty. Todays Rupublican has a sense of duty only to Mammon.

 

[WillowTree]

Republican, Democrat - what the s***s the difference? 8 yrs of past corruption as oppose to corruption in the next four years maybe more - BFD!!! The country as we know it is doomed anyway. So relax and enjoy the show, folks. If the repubs and dems don't get you, the swine flu will.

Yeah that's right, there is no difference between the Dems and the Repubs, just look at how the Repubs have agreed with everything the Dems are doing. Right?

Oh that's right the Repubs don't agree with anything that the Dems want to do, nevermind...

--

With the exceptions of Arlan Spector, Susan Collins, Olympia Snow & John McCain-who was all for closing GITMO & against enhanced interrogation technics.

I am sick & tired of wooosy Republicans--Get rid of all of them-& get someone in there--& I could care less if they're republican or democrat I just want some conservatives on capital hill that have some COMMON SENSE for a change!

common sense seems to be a rare commodity these days!

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

It took the Dems who we booted in the 80's 20 plus years to get corrupt and bad.

It took the GOP no time at all. I say they came in to power in 2000 already corrupted.

Just to be cruel, I'll ask this member to explain with some discernable degree of substance, what she's basing this position upon.

Using the same time period you've referenced here; when, exactly did the Dems do anything different than what they're doing right now? I mean to ask: To what SPECIFIC CORRUPTION are you referring? As far as I can tell, the corruption to which you assign to the GOP is that they simply behaved as Democrats... After all, that is why we (Americans) are upset with them and it seems clear that the reason YOU are upset with them is that the GOP didn't go DEMOCRAT ENOUGH...

So what exactly are you complaining about: and please be as specific as YOUR intellectual limitations allow.

Now just to be fair, it should be noted that this member will NOT return to offer a substantive basis in reasoning and when she fails to do so... she concedes, if only by default that her position is just more inane drivel of the leftist variety...

Typical Republican talking point. The GOP did bad because they acted too much like Democrats.

My fucking ass.

Really? Well let's test that... Thus far, what we have is a default concession by this member that there is no truth to the assertion: "It took the Dems who we booted in the 80's 20 plus years to get corrupt and bad.

It took the GOP no time at all. " and a vehement rejection that the GOP did't go left enough to suit this individual...

Launching a bullshit war?

Here we have the classic leftist (Democrat) aversion to the overt defense of the United States.

Doubling the debt in the name of defense?

Classic leftist aversion to FUNDING US national defense.

Jack Abramoff?

Classic feigned aversion to Lobbyist... This is typical of this deceitful ideology. The Lord of the Idiots itself, SWORE he would not have a single lobbyist in his administration; only to come to office and appoint dozens of lobbyist as the first order of business. The suggestion that Lobbyist are a GOP phenomenon is beyond absurd and the fodder advanced by the common fool.

Scooter Libby.

Great guy... and the only member of the Bush Administration to realize a federal conviction; and this on a bizarre case where he was charge and tried on a series of statements he made from his direct memory, which were found to be in error with the official record... It's a sad case where we're all treated to recognize that we can all be charged, tried and convicted for crimes which amount to absolutely nothing, where the prosecutor fails to maintain prudence in his prosecutorial authority. It's very unlikely that anyone could answer specific questions on their history from 5 years past; and not end up in prison, where the prosecutor takes the position that where one's testimony can be proven to be inaccurate; against an alternative record.

Imagine that the FBI flashes a badge and asks you what you had for Lunch on April 28th, 2004; you declare that you always have a poached egg and a garden fresh salad for lunch... yet, 9 months later you find the FBI again at your door, only this time to arrest you for your 'false testimony' and hear on the radio, as your being transported to the pokey, the prosecutor giving a press conference, stating that you testified to poached eggs and a salad, but credit card receipts and testimony from wait staff, proves you had egg salad and a slice of dry toast.

Bush and Co. pre planned the invasion of Iraq before he even STOLE the Florida Election.

And here, the member simply vomits long discredited lies... but that is what liars do... no isn't it?

Do you even have to ask?

So go back and research why the Dems lost power in the 80's. Too much spending. Corruption charges. Basically, they were acting too much like Republicans.

So then what you're saying is the GOP was corrupt because they spent too and failed to adhere to American principles of sound prudent governance... OKA: governing like DEMOCRATS HAVE ALWAYS GOVERNED AND ARE GOVERNING NOW!

Ironic ONLY by your having opened this post by vociferously denying such...

 

[007]

He is running scared. He doesnt think he can win.

This is exactly correct. I've been hearing this all day on the news. He's afraid he'll lose the next election because there's another repub running against him that's favored to win. Changing parties is a desperation move.

This can backfire though, because there's no doubt dems that will run against him too. His career is probably up, so even this BIG SWITCH is pretty much a non issue. There should be term limits anyway.

And they're going to pass a law that says you can't switch parties in mid term.

All this amounts to after all the hype is stripped away is.... not much.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

We're afraid of their "every man for himself" montra. No social programs, no social services, no social security, privatize everything.

It's "mantra" and what you're afraid of are the principles on which America is founded...

It's no secret that you're afraid of those principles... it's what makes your ideology such a bleeding MENACE.

You have NO RIGHT to the product of another man's labor... PERIOD. FOR ANY REASON.

Now you'll surely disagree... but here's what happens when you disagree... I ASK YOU TO TELL ME WHAT RIGHT YOU HAVE TO THE PRODUCT OF ANOTHER PERSON'S LABOR; and that is where you FAIL.

So tell me: WHAT RIGHT DO YOU HAVE TO SOMEONE ELSE'S LABOR?

The member will now NOT be able to provide us with a RIGHT which she has that would entitle her to the product of someone elses labor. And when she fails to do so, she concedes, if only by default, that her fears are unfounded pablum, which amounts to nothing but her having folded to the weakness of her own personal character.

A quarter of all the delegates to the Constitutional Convention had voted in their own state legislatures for laws that would have helped debtors and the poor and thus harmed the interests of the rich.

How Rich is Too Rich For Democracy?

So what did motivate the Framers of the Constitution?

Along with the answer to this question, we may also find the answer to another question historians have asked for two centuries: Why was the Constitutional Convention held in secret behind locked doors, and why did James Madison not publish his own notes of the Convention until 1840, just after the last of the other participants had died?

The reason, simply put, was that most of the wealthy men among the delegates were betraying the interests of their own economic class. They were voting for democracy instead of oligarchy.

As with any political body, a few of the delegates, "a dozen at the outside" according to McDonald, "clearly acted according to the dictates of their personal economic interests."

But there were larger issues at stake. The people who hammered out the Constitution had such a strong feeling of history and destiny that it at times overwhelmed them.

They realized that in the seven-thousand-year history of what they called civilization, only once before, in Athens - and then only for the brief flicker of a few centuries - had anything like a democracy ever been brought into existence and survived more than a generation.

Their writings show that they truly believed they were doing sacred work, something greater than themselves, their personal interests, or even the narrow interests of their wealthy constituents back in their home states.

They believed they were altering the course of world history, and that if they got it right we could truly create a better world.

Thus the secrecy, the locked doors, the intensity of the Constitutional Convention. And thus the willingness to set aside economic interest to produce a document - admittedly imperfect - that would establish an enduring beacon of liberty for the world.

As George Washington, who presided over the Constitutional Convention, wrote to the nation on September 17, 1787 when "transmitting the Constitution" to the people of the new nation: "In all our deliberations on this subject we kept steadily in our view, that which appears to us the greatest interest of every true American, the consolidation of our Union, in which is involved our prosperity, felicity, safety, perhaps our national existence."

He concluded with his "most ardent wish" was that the Constitution "may promote the lasting welfare of that country so dear to us all, and secure her freedom and happiness..."

Since the so-called "Reagan revolution" more than cut in half the income taxes the multimillionaires and billionaires among us pay, wealth has concentrated in America in ways not seen since the era of the Robber Barons, or, before that, pre-revolutionary colonial times. At the same time, poverty has exploded and the middle class is under economic siege.

And now come the oligarchs - the most wealthy and powerful families of America - lobbying Congress that they should retain their stupefying levels of wealth and the power it brings, generation after generation. They say that democracy doesn't require a strong middle class, and that Jefferson was wrong when he said that "overgrown wealth" could be "dangerous to the State." They say that a permanent, hereditary, aristocratically rich ruling class is actually a good thing for the stability of society.

While a $1.5 million trigger for the estate tax is arguably too low - particularly given the recent bubble in real estate prices - that doesn't invalidate the concept of a democracy defending itself against oligarchy. Set the trigger at 10 million, or fifty million. Make sure that family farms and small businesses are protected. And make sure that people who have worked hard and earned a lot of money can have children and grandchildren and great-grandchildren who will live very comfortably.

But let's also make sure that we don't end up like so many Latin American countries, where a handful of super-rich families rule their nations, and democracy is more show than substance.

The Founders of our republic fought a war against an aristocratic, oligarchic nation, and were very clear that they didn't want America to ever degenerate into aristocracy, oligarchy, or feudalism/fascism. We must hold to their vision of an egalitarian, democratic republic.

So as predicted, the member returns with absolutely NO MEANS TO DEMONSTRATE or even advance sustainable reason which would imply the basis for a RIGHT TO THE PRODUCT OF ANOTHER MAN'S LABOR...

What we were treated to was more of the worn out rationalization which simply points out that there are rich people and poor people and the rich are morally obligated to help the poor... Sadly, that moral obligation is a personal matter, not one of governance, and while MOST WEALTHY PEOPLE GIVE SUBSTANTIAL SUMS OF THEIR MONEY TO SERVE THE NEEDS OF THE POOR; THERE IS NO RIGHT WHICH THE POOR POSSESS WHICH ENTITLE THEM TO THOSE CHARITABLE DONATIONS.

And of course the member comes with absolutely NO CONCERN for the MORAL OBLIGATION OF EACH INDIVIDUAL TO NOT SET THEMSELVES TO SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH FORCE ANOTHER TO PART WITH THE PRODUCT OF THEIR LABOR TO SUSTAIN THEM...

Thus it is simply incontestable that this member Sealy-what'sherface, has conceded that her position is baseless, her ideology subversive to the founding principles of America and that she is unaware of ANY RIGHT which entitles her or ANYONE else to the product of another man's labor...

We should thank the member for her time and recognize that she's done the very BEST SHE COULD! God bless'er!

 

[Meister]

Why bother? There's no significant differences between the two parties.

there is a very big significant difference and it's getting bigger every single passing day..

That is correct. The Rushpublicans are exiling themselves in the wilderness of paranoia and ignorance. In the meantime, the Dems are moving on issues that mean much to most of the people in the US. Very good chance of Universal Health Care now. The new labor laws are a done deal. The very wealthy will have to pay their fair share of taxes.

Yep, you will get to whine and snivel all you please. I will even pass you a few tissues.

Eh, you might want to go change your panties after your post Old Rocks.

 

[WillowTree]

He is running scared. He doesnt think he can win.

This is exactly correct. I've been hearing this all day on the news. He's afraid he'll lose the next election because there's another repub running against him that's favored to win. Changing parties is a desperation move.

This can backfire though, because there's no doubt dems that will run against him too.nope that was part of the deal he cut with reid the dems will not finance anyone in opposition to spector His career is probably up, so even this BIG SWITCH is pretty much a non issue. There should be term limits anyway.

And they're going to pass a law that says you can't switch parties in mid term. really? when?

All this amounts to after all the hype is stripped away is.... not much.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

If you are a republicans, and you're saying the same kind of things you have been saying for the past three years..........

you'll keep losing.


Change directions.

Really? So if the immutable principles that you're espousing are rejected by 'The People'... depart from the advocacy of immutable principle?

Really? And your basing this on what? Or have I misunderstood your point?

 

[007]

He is running scared. He doesnt think he can win.

This is exactly correct. I've been hearing this all day on the news. He's afraid he'll lose the next election because there's another repub running against him that's favored to win. Changing parties is a desperation move.

This can backfire though, because there's no doubt dems that will run against him too.nope that was part of the deal he cut with reid the dems will not finance anyone in opposition to spector His career is probably up, so even this BIG SWITCH is pretty much a non issue. There should be term limits anyway.

And they're going to pass a law that says you can't switch parties in mid term. really? when?

All this amounts to after all the hype is stripped away is.... not much.

I heard oblahma will campaign for him, but there will be other dems run against him, and I heard there's a bill in the making that will stop elected officials from switching parties mid term. You'll have to serve out your term as whatever you're elected as.

I say term limits. Get rid of these good ole boys. Two terms, go home.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Republican, Democrat - what the s***s the difference? 8 yrs of past corruption as oppose to corruption in the next four years maybe more - BFD!!! The country as we know it is doomed anyway. So relax and enjoy the show, folks. If the repubs and dems don't get you, the swine flu will.

Yeah that's right, there is no difference between the Dems and the Repubs, just look at how the Repubs have agreed with everything the Dems are doing. Right?

Oh that's right the Repubs don't agree with anything that the Dems want to do, nevermind...

--

With the exceptions of Arlan Spector, Susan Collins, Olympia Snow & John McCain-who was all for closing GITMO & against enhanced interrogation technics.

I am sick & tired of wooosy Republicans--Get rid of all of them-& get someone in there--& I could care less if they're republican or democrat I just want some conservatives on capital hill that have some COMMON SENSE for a change!

Hear hear!

I could not agree more... except with the prmise that it's possible that in the Neo-left Democrat Party one will find a principled, virtuous American... The last of that breed left with Zell Miller.

Sadly, the ideological left is in total control of the Democrat Party, Fascism is blooming and that will lead the next generation directly and irreversibly into Socialism... and this based upon nothing less than the certianty that those who are not intellectually capable of rejecting leftism, will ALWAYS find the fault of a given economic failure with THE FREEDOM WHICH ALLOWED FOR THE FAILURE. Such dullards will ALWAYS look to the Capitalist side of the equation for fault and will ALWAYS (and this is without exception, thus the term: ALWAYS) require that GREATER AND MORE REGULATION which today is becoming defined as 'government ownership' is needed to prevent such failures...

America is dying...

And there doesn't seem to be anyone at the top willing to even ADMIT IT... let CONTEST IT IN THE EXTREME.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Why bother? There's no significant differences between the two parties.

there is a very big significant difference and it's getting bigger every single passing day..

That is correct. The Rushpublicans are exiling themselves in the wilderness of paranoia and ignorance.

What paranoia and ignroance is that? And please, be SPECIFIC!

In the meantime ... Very good chance of Universal Health Care now.

Health care rationing? And that's a good thing? How so?

The new labor laws are a done deal.

Higher unemployment? and hows that good? Again... BE SPECIFIC.

The very wealthy will have to pay their fair share of taxes.

The very wealthy already pay vastly MORE THAN THEIR FAIR SHARE of taxes... they pay the vast majority of the income taxes... What's fair about that? And again... BE SPECIFIC... and towards helping you along, here is what "fair" means...

fair1

fair [fer]
adj (comparative fair·er, superlative fair·est)
1. reasonable or unbiased: not exhibiting any bias, and therefore reasonable or impartial

 

[ItsFairmont]

If you are a republicans, and you're saying the same kind of things you have been saying for the past three years..........

you'll keep losing.


Change directions.

Really? So if the immutable principles that you're espousing are rejected by 'The People'... depart from the advocacy of immutable principle?

Really? And your basing this on what? Or have I misunderstood your point?

Your signature is too long. It screws up the threads.

 

[Just A Man]

Arlen is running for the tall grass.

But it's his choice and that's fine with me. Heck, I changed from dem to repub about 20 years ago.

 

[Richard-H]

Well, the Republicans had almost total power in Washington, and they completely failed. Now it looks like the Dems are going to get total power in Washington and we'll see how they do....

But if they turn out as bad as the Republicans, I'll guess we'll have to give the socialists a chance next....

Well the sentiment in that position rests wholly in how you're defining 'bad'... If runaway irresponsible spending is at the root of 'bad' then the Dems have already destroyed the level of 'bad' the idiot 'centrists' of the GOP did...

So how are YOU defining 'bad'?

It may be that the Dems have a record of 'tax and spend', to some degree, but the programs that the dems spend the tax payers money on recycle the money back into the economy stimulating markets and maintaining a healthy economic cycle.

The Republicans have a policy of NOT taxing, but spending even more then the dems do. Most of which goes to a few select cronies and has almost no positive effect on the overall economy.

Now, I understand, that in your fervour of endless greed and selfishness, you feel that you have no responsibilty to the society that you live in, that has provided you with the freedoms that you enjoy, and therefore resent having to pay taxes for things like the wars that you supported or children's education or anything else that doesn't directly benefit you.

But can you at least understand that while 'tax and spend' may not be something that you like, NOT taxing and spending is PLAIN FUCKING IDIOTIC? That is one of many reasons why the Republicans under Bush were the worst governement this nation has had in recent history.

Of course you'll blame it all on Bush. No doubt that you, like almost all the other wingnuts, were a fanatic supporter of the Bush Republicans until they started losing elections, and then all you wingnuts abandoned them like rats from a sinking ship.

Where were your criticisms of the Bush Republicans before the 2006 elections? He was your baby.

But, if you still don't get it, let me try to explain it in language that you and the other wingnuts will understand:

Oink...Oink, oink... Oink, Oink, Oink...Oink...Oink...Oink, oink... Oink, Oink, Oink...Oink...Oink...Oink, oink... Oink, Oink, Oink...Oink...Oink...Oink, oink... Oink, Oink, Oink...Oink...Oink...Oink, oink... Oink, Oink, Oink...Oink...Oink...Oink, oink... Oink, Oink, Oink...Oink...Oink...Oink, oink... Oink, Oink, Oink...Oink...Oink...Oink, oink... Oink, Oink, Oink...Oink...Oink...Oink, oink... Oink, Oink, Oink...Oink...

Got it?!?!?!?

Good!

 

[Toro]

Specter was ok with being a Republican, he said it in his statement. I'm sure he was getting a lot of pressure from his fellow Rs to toe the line. He's been there a long time, why get his marching orders from them?

I've always thought that Joe Lieberman would jump to the Republican side sooner or later.

The Republicans might lose the other moderates if they aren't careful.

That's what the conservatives want. Its better to be pure and win 35 Senate and 180 House seats than to be in power with "RINOs"

 

[HUGGY]

Below is a scene from a movie that perfectly illustrates the mentality of the neo cons.
They are losing all relevance and the end of the "new" christian fascist republican party is at hand.

Black Knight (Monty Python)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
The Black Knight is a fictional character in the film Monty Python and the Holy Grail. As his name suggests, he is a black knight who guards a tiny bridge for unknown reasons. Although supremely skilled in swordplay, he suffers from unchecked overconfidence and a staunch refusal ever to give up. Though he only appeared in one scene, he has become one of the most popular characters of the entire film.

Contents [hide]
1 Overview
2 Behind the scenes
3 Cultural references
4 Notes
5 External Links



[edit] Overview
In the film, King Arthur (Graham Chapman), accompanied by his trusty serf Patsy (Terry Gilliam), is traveling through a forest when he enters a clearing and observes a fight taking place between a Black Knight (John Cleese) and a Green Knight (also played by Gilliam) by a bridge over a small stream. As he watches, the Black Knight defeats the Green, stabbing his sword straight through the eye slot of the Green Knight's helm.

Arthur then congratulates the Black Knight and offers him a place at his court on the Round Table, but he only stands still, holding his sword, and makes no response until Arthur moves to cross the bridge; he then refuses to stand aside. Reluctantly, Arthur fights the Black Knight, and after a short battle the Knight's left arm is severed.

However, even at this the Knight refuses to stand aside, insisting "'tis but a scratch," "I've had worse," and fights on. Next his right arm, which had been holding his sword, is also removed, but he still does not concede. As the Knight is literally disarmed, Arthur assumes the fight is over and kneels to offer a prayer to God. The Black Knight interrupts Arthur's prayer of thanks for his victory by kicking him in the side of the head and accusing him of cowardice; when Arthur points out his injuries he insists "it's just a flesh wound!" In response to the continued kicks and insults, Arthur chops off first one leg and finally the other, at which point the Black Knight offers to "call it a draw". Arthur summons Patsy and "rides" away, leaving the Black Knight to scream threats at him ("You'll get what's coming to you! I'll bite your legs off!"), where the scene fades out.