So what are the Dems going to do when that great back lash from the Union legislation costs the Republicans the Wisconsin Senate???
Opps. Guess it didn't work out that way 
The Dems just picked up 2 seats in very red districts, and with a single seat majority in the Senate now, their efforts are now effectly blocked. There is one Republican senator who's a moderate, and even voted against the union stripping bill, so things are dead even now.
Of course, there are more recalls this Tuesday, this time for Dems, but it's 2 seats, and in one of those races, no one thinks it's even going to be close. In both races, the GOP isn't polling well.
But that's not the end of it. Under Wisconsin state law, you can't be recalled until you've served a year in office. Which means, that we're just a few months away from even more recalls, including the governor himself. And yes, the Dems are moving forward with it.
with Obama's numbers dipping below 40, the word Dem is becoming a HUGE negative in politics.
Your argument sounds more like "we only lost by...".
I have to tell you that as bad an ass whipping the Dems took at the polls last time, this time is really going to make that one look bad. Unemployment over 9%, downgraded credit rating, debt out of site...
I think it is safe to say we have proven that Liberal policies do not work. By the tiem any more reacalls come up, they will be mixed in with the general elections and the Republican tidal wave will ride the Republican numbers back up...
Now you may want to argue that point, but since I believe you were one the folks on the board who talked about how the republicans would lose control due to the recall, any of your predictions will have to be taken with a grain of salt...
The union thugs blew their load (money, enthusiasm, time) with this recall effort. I don't think the people of Wisconsin are looking forward to a never-ending election season.
Actually, if you look at Obama's numbers (the last I saw) with handling this debt ceiling shit, he faired far better than the GOP.
I have no idea how 2012 is going to play out, but so far it looks like nobody is happy with anyone. I would be surprised as hell that anyone in this GOP field can beat Obama. I think it's going to be a bad year for incumbants, so there's a good chance the Senate could go GOP. I think for the same reason the House could go Dem.
I think it's safe to say that we have proven that we can elect Dems and still get Republican policies. Actually, the next recalls can start being filed in January of 2012, so the elections themselves could be held in March or April. I hear Russ Feingold is considering running for Governor.
There won't be a Republican tidal wave. Americans just want somebody to fucking fix things, and the GOP are trying to break things. The mistake they made was in letting people know that was their intensions.
You said...
"Americans just want somebody to fucking fix things"
You are right. But remember, during preidential election years the race for the oval office impacts all the other races. He will have had 4 years, and short of a miracle in the next twelve months, people will always vote out what is proven not to work to try something new....
It's as if you live in a cave somewhere and have no clue as to what is actually happening. You ignore your own logic and contradict yourself from one sentence to the next.
So every two years you expect a 60 seat swing in The House of Reps??? Are you aware of how many times the House has switched hands over the last 70 years?
Are you aware there is more to being a Democrat other than raising taxes on everybody but you?? Name a President who has had as many bold progressive policies as Obama? How many social programs cost more than Obamacare? You don't even know what Democrat/Republican/Progressive/Conservative means.
When there is an "anti-incumbent" mood in the country do you think it may affect an incumbent President with a 40% approval rate?
So Cartman...Other than Health Care reform...What other liberal/progressive policies has Obama implemented? I'd like to know.
So every two years you expect a 60 seat swing in The House of Reps??? Are you aware of how many times the House has switched hands over the last 70 years?
Are you aware there is more to being a Democrat other than raising taxes on everybody but you?? Name a President who has had as many bold progressive policies as Obama? How many social programs cost more than Obamacare? You don't even know what Democrat/Republican/Progressive/Conservative means.
When there is an "anti-incumbent" mood in the country do you think it may affect an incumbent President with a 40% approval rate?
First, you can't ignore the massive size & scope of Healthcare and the fact that Obama and the Dems used all of their capital on it. Its ripple effect if ultimately implemented goes way beyond "one policy'. But his biggest liberal policy is Keynesian economics. It's lead to annual deficits that makes Bush look like a penny pincher. He has openly ignored and defied our immigration policies to such an extent that border states are trying to enforce Federal law themselves. All for the goal of creating more dependent voters. Fortunately he couldn't get Cap & Trade and other liberal policies passed.
You still haven't showed anything...And to state that Keynesian economics is exclusively a "liberal" policy is disingenuous at best. There is nothing liberal about the concept Keynesian. This school has been used by several govts (US, British and other) and administration's including the Bush Administration to affect desired economic outcomes.
You still haven't learned to understand what you read...
One of the most baffling thing about liberals is that they deny that anything is liberal. They even had to change the term to "progressive". Keynesian economics when practiced spits in the face of an open market and capitalist principles. But of course that doesn't count either. If you ever admitted that a President was actually a liberal you may have to stop bitching for 10 seconds. Liberals don't like to stop bitching so NOBODY is a true liberal. If Dennis Kucinich was PUSA you and Willy would call him a right-wing fascist.
Cartmann, forget the last 70 years. Look at how many times the House switched hands from the outset of the Depression through the 50's. Why is this relevant? Because the country was going to a transformative and stressful era...just like now. How many of those changes have happened in the last 6 years?
Name a President who has had as many bold progressive policies as Obama? That's easy. Richard Nixon was a more bold progressive. How many social programs cost more than "Obamacare"? All of them, since there's no such thing as "Obamacare". I assume you mean the Health Care Affordability Act, which according to the CBO will result in a $143 billion decline in federal deficits over the next 10 years.
Do you know what progressive and conservative means? Do you know what liberal means? Would it make sense to say that "George Bush was in favor of a more liberal gun control policy"? Would it make sense to say that "Jane was conservative in her estimates"? Would it make sense to say that "doctors worry about the progressive spread of cancer cells in the patient"?
Let's be clear here. Obama is no progressive. He ain't even a liberal. Kucinich isn't a progressive either. Kucinich is a liberal. Obama is a moderate conservative. When YOU are defining fascists as conservatives, then I can see where you'd have some confusion on this.
Cap & Trade is NOT a progressive idea. It's not a liberal idea. It's an idea that came from the GOP.
Obama has flirted only slightly with Keynesian economics. If he was a real Keynesian, the stimulus would have been bigger, and it wouldn't have contained any tax cuts. If he was a Keynesian, he would be pushing for higher corporate income taxes, not reducing them and cutting loopholes. If he was a Keynesian, he would push for a higher minimum wage, would have pushed through card check, and he wouldn't be pursing free trade with Colombia and South Korea. If he was a Keynesian, he would have backed a public option and a dismantling of private health care providers. If he was a Keynesian then he would not have extended the Bush tax cuts.
"Keynesian" does not mean "government spending". It means stimulating demand instead of stimulating supply. Keynes himself laid it out when he rewrote Say's Law.
Obama ain't a socialist. He ain't a progressive. He's not even a liberal. He's a moderate conservative, and he's to the right of Eisenhower, Goldwater, and Nixon. He even openly admits that he's modeled his administration on Ronald Reagan. Need I say more?
-- Modified on 8/15/2011 8:16:06 AM
Willy, you make Hugo Chavez look conservative, how can you possibly have a POV regarding liberalism that the rest of us could agree with?
"when we lose, we lose, and when we win, we still lose." Progressives have grown quite accustomed to not getting anything remotely resembling what they want. When you live for 30 years not getting what you want, you're happy to take what crumbs you're offered. When you live on a crumb diet, you sit up and take notice of an extra serving of crumbs.
OTOH, conservatives tend to have litmus tests for their candidates, especially lately. When your loony base keeps changing the goal post on what they consider to be "mainstream" conservatism, then it leads them to have a rather warped sense of political ideology. By their own standards, Reagan would be too liberal for the modern Republican party. That should tell ya something.
You know what is also telling? That if Eisenhower was running for office today, he would be seen as a socialist, too left for the Democratic party. In a letter this his brother on Nov. 8th, 1954, Eisenhower said:
"Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are H. L. Hunt (you possibly know his background), a few other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or business man from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid."
Well, today we have a Democratic president who is willing to cut social security, won't do much about unemployment insurance, especially for the 99er's, and won't lift a finger for strengthening labor laws.
Yeh, Eisenhower was more liberal than the modern Democratic party. Things are so bad now, that I long for the Republican party of the 50's, which as horrible as they were, would be an improvement to what we have now in both parties.
Trust me the Dems lost and so did the unions. The unions poured millions of dollars into the campaign. If they won it would be plastered all over the television. Instead there was minimal coverage 10-15 seconds. So, that means the Republicans won.
There's no need for you to actually examine what happened, look at the results, take note of what it means, and come to a conclusion. Instead, it's much better to use the news cycle as your guide of what probably happened. Kudos. I wished I'd figured this out years ago. It would have save me countless hours of reading.
and what a condescending remark "don't worry your pretty little head" how about a GO FUCK YOURSELF!! in response? lol
Pretty little head or not, she is absolutely right, if the dems had won as you so inaccurately predicted, it would be front page news, as it stands, it's barely a footnote.
You were wise to wimp out on the Scott Walker bet I made with Pri, at least Pri will man up and pay me when the time comes, but I don't see him taking me up on my offer to allow him to double or triple up on his bet, even he can see the writing on the wall.
...I'll just say this...you're the last guy who should be complaining about condescending remarks made towards providers on the P&R board. I'm just sayin'.
Using the news cycle as an explaination of what happened, is just fucking bone headed, I'm sorry. Did you and our not so well read provider friend not remember that there was another GOP Presidental debate, the Iowa straw poll, as well as Rick Perry getting into the race? Think that might have drowned out the news cycle?
Well, let's take a look at another election. On the same day as the recalls, there was also a special election for a New Hamshire House seat. The Democrat won by quite a margin. Did you ever hear of it until now?
Rude, obnoxious, dismissive even, but condescending? no, give me a single example of when I have been condescending to a provider here.
I treat providers the same way I treat everyone else here, They get no special treatment either good or bad from me. I don't ridcule them for being women, or sexual providers, but I don't coddle them either. There have been a couple that I might have "cuddled" with, but never coddled. lmao
as for Bruschigirl, I bet she is older than you, so dismissing her post with a "your pretty head" remark, is past condescending and I would find it downright insulting if I were her. At least when I insult someone, I either insult them personally, or I insult their opinion, but I never insult them for their gender. Trannyboy is the execption, I insult him for his "gender confusion" not his gender.
...to go to the gym and lose weight. If you don't like plumpers, don't see them. There are plenty of men, including me, who like them as they are.
You don't see me criticizing your predilection for seeing "chicas", do you?
when I tell fat broads to lose weight I am not being condescending, insulting perhaps, but definitely not condescending.
Condescending would be dismissing their arguments on a political subject simply because they were fat and disgusting. Calling them fat and disgusting is not condescending, dismissing their arguments simply because they are fat and disgusting OTOH would be condescending and that's just what WW did.
and criticizing my taste for chicas would not be condescending either. Again, please look up the word before attempting to use it in a sentence. Sheesh, and I thought it was only the trolls that had difficulties with the English language.
I'm sure the fat and disgusting providers feel much better now knowing they were insulted and not condescended. lol
hey if people want to parse words and argue minutia, I can play by those rules too.
...which you probably got from those smelly, pirate chicas (now that's condescending) instead of nitpicking the definition of the word.
You have an attitude of patronizing superiority (see, I looked up the definition) when you tell someone to lose weight. What do you look like? How much could you make as a 50+ male provider? When was the last time you saw a 50+ provider?
now "patronizing superiority" that's a completely different matter. I am more than likely guilty of that tort on a rather regular basis, but in my defense the "superiority" part of it is usually a fact, which makes the patronizing part of it understandable to most.
and I can't imagine ever seeing a 50+ provider, nor do I have any desire to become a 50+ male provider. I make plenty of money and have no need or desire to fuck old broads, either for free or for pay.
and just for the record, when have I ever told someone to lose weight? I think you are just throwing accusations out there, hoping one of them will stick.
All work, booze & chicas makes GaG a dull boy. See a movie once in a while.
Read all your responses in this thread on the GD board 7/22/11. You will see how many times you told 'latina.bebe' to go to the gym and lose weight. Booze can affect the brain as well as the liver.
-- Modified on 8/16/2011 7:29:02 PM
The democrats and the unions lost. If they had won it would have been big news for more than a day because thats how liberal television works.(If you dont think thats true you are just delusional)
If the dems and the unions had one, it would be plastered all over the front page and the lead story on every newscast.
Willy has no real response so he dismisses you for being a provider. At least as a provider, you fuck us in a good way, unlike the government parasites like Willy.
BTW, I don't have a clue as to what you look like, nor is your appearance relevant to this conversation.