Right-wing forums and homosexuality

[01solara]

That's funny because it sounds like criticism of someone bellyaching about a President who's doing a good job and yet you, yourself, describe his performance as lousy.

Nobody has to be "damn determined to be unhappy with Obama." Just have to be paying attention and care about our country.





I think in these troubled times it's irresponsible to let Obama get away with failing us. I think in these troubled times it's wrong to actually cheer him for assinine successes like a smackdown of Republicans as if adding to animosity is good for our nation.

I think the wrong attitude is complacency and compliance. I think the right attitude is resistance and outrage. I think the right attitude is being mad as hell.

It seems that the issue here is that Nick is a Democrat in the traditional sense of the word and that Jock Boy is a Democrat in the progressive sense of the word. Progressives are happy with Obama he is the first president since Carter that shares their views. Bill Clinton was a traditional Democrat and never went far enough to the left to satisfy the progressives. The Republican party is divided as well. There are the religious Republicans that want to run everyones lives and force traditional values down everyones throat and there are the Fiscal/Libertarian Republicans that want the government to interfere the least possible. The progressives and the Religios both seem to have equal zeal to convert others to their system of belief and are perfectly willing to use the government to do so. The extreme right and the extreme left are at the end of the day extreme. These people have to garner the support of many from other categories to win thus most candidates move to the center after the primaries and then back to the right or the left depending on party when they start governing.

 

[Centexfarmer]

It seems that the issue here is that Nick is a Democrat in the traditional sense of the word and that Jock Boy is a Democrat in the progressive sense of the word.

I'll personally take issue with that seeing as how I'm familiar with both of those two members and where they seem to be coming from politically.

NickCole is only a Democrat in the "traditional" sense in that he doesn't align himself with any particular idealogy within the Democratic Party. (Currently the party is split between Obama the POTUS, and those who felt that Hillary Clinton should have won the nomination.).

JockBoy87 on the other hand is only as progressive as he can convince Obama's Democratic Party to be.

I applaud both of them for both being "traditional" Democrats!

Progressives are happy with Obama he is the first president since Carter that shares their views. Bill Clinton was a traditional Democrat and never went far enough to the left to satisfy the progressives.

Replace "Progressive" with "Liberal" and I might have a clue what you're talking about.

In my view there hasn't' been a true "Progressive" within the Democratic Party since Woodrow Wilson.

The Republican party is divided as well. There are the religious Republicans that want to run everyones lives and force traditional values down everyones throat and there are the Fiscal/Libertarian Republicans that want the government to interfere the least possible.

Yep and that division is diluting the true message of "Libertarianism" in this country.

The Fiscal Conservatives within the Republican Party have allowed the Social Conservatives to Co-op the traditional Republican message of financial responsabilty, and less government, while at the same time allowing nut jobs like Glenn Beck to latch onto the Libertarian movement with their Tea Parties, and allowing those freaks to drown at the truth sayers like Ron Paul.

The progressives and the Religios both seem to have equal zeal to convert others to their system of belief and are perfectly willing to use the government to do so.

At that is a microcosm in the extreme of what is wrong with our current two party system. The middle gets caught in the cross-fire.

The extreme right and the extreme left are at the end of the day extreme. These people have to garner the support of many from other categories to win thus most candidates move to the center after the primaries and then back to the right or the left depending on party when they start governing.

Either way the two extremes find someway to get elected, and in order to maintain power (or their offices / or both) they find a group to marginalize or to exploit to remain there.

None of which does anything for America and those who work and die for it, or the dream and myth that our elected officials have sold out for while doing nothing to truly defend it.

 

[Kulindahr]

Concerning this interesting digression, IIRC JockBoy agrees with the Founding Fathers about the right to keep and bear arms, namely that every person ought to have one, or at least be able to get and carry the one of his or her choice.

That is a very traditional Democrat-type position, one eloquently expressed by HHH:

“Certainly one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of citizens to keep and bear arms.... the right of citizens to bear arms is just one more guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard against tyranny which now appears remote in America, but which historically has proved to be always possible.,”

 

[Centexfarmer]

Concerning this interesting digression, IIRC JockBoy agrees with the Founding Fathers about the right to keep and bear arms, namely that every person ought to have one, or at least be able to get and carry the one of his or her choice.

That is a very traditional Democrat-type position, one eloquently expressed by HHH:

“Certainly one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of citizens to keep and bear arms.... the right of citizens to bear arms is just one more guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard against tyranny which now appears remote in America, but which historically has proved to be always possible.,”

Well from that perspective I say that the Federal Government should outlaw all guns, and make them as illegal as hell!

That way we can insure, that like moonshine and weed that only true patriotic American will find and have access to both!

*tongue and cheek*

 

[Kulindahr]

Well from that perspective I say that the Federal Government should outlaw all guns, and make them as illegal as hell!

That way we can insure, that like moonshine and weed that only true patriotic American will find and have access to both!

*tongue and cheek*

To the contrary, everyone should have a gun, and we should all march on Washington and tell them to get rid of the laws about weed and moonshine, or we'll soon be needing a new Congress

 

[Centexfarmer]

To the contrary, everyone should have a gun, and we should all march on Washington and tell them to get rid of the laws about weed and moonshine, or we'll soon be needing a new Congress

NOW YOUR TALKING!

 

[Kulindahr]

Fireplace tongs.

Straight from the fire?

 

[NickCole]

NickCole is only a Democrat in the "traditional" sense in that he doesn't align himself with any particular idealogy within the Democratic Party.

With or without your parenthetical that follows I'm not sure exactly what this means but I'll try to clarify. 01solara is spot-on that I am a Democrat in the traditional sense of the Party, which during the Primaries and General I said of myself only to be attacked by Obama supporters as not a real Democrat.

What I see as traditional Democratic principles was summed up pretty well by Ron Brown, former Chairman of the Democratic Party: "The common thread of Democratic history, from Thomas Jefferson to Bill Clinton, has been an abiding faith in the judgment of hardworking American families, and a commitment to helping the excluded, the disenfranchised and the poor strengthen our nation by earning themselves a piece of the American Dream. We remember that this great land was sculpted by immigrants and slaves, their children and grandchildren."

(It seemed, to me, revealing that a few days ago an Obama supporter proudly started a thread about the majority of "the most educated Americans" approving of Obama. I'm all in favor of education but there is something subtextually elitist about that, especially juxtaposed with the Teabaggers, who are working class protesting conditions of the working class, being aligned with the Republican Party and Obama Democrats ridiculing them.)

Not that Brown's description covers everything but I was raised and have lived my adult life believing that the foundation of the Democratic Party is as champion and advocate for the vulnerable. Jefferson founded the Democratic Party to fight for the Bill of Rights, FDR put in place regulations to keep banks safe for us and programs like Social Security to provide a safety net for workers, LBJ pushed through civil rights laws and programs like Medicare and Medicaid to insure health care for our most vulnerable.

My criticism of Obama has been consistent with those principles.

(Currently the party is split between Obama the POTUS, and those who felt that Hillary Clinton should have won the nomination.).

The split in the party may have begun there but for me and many others it's beyond that now. (Which is not to say we've forgotten how Obama won the nomination.)

Now the split is between Democrats commited to Democratic principles and Democrats determined to protect and defend Obama at any cost, and if you read liberal/progressive blogs you know many in the first group were Obama supporters, some of whom were very caustic about Hillary but now are admitting they may have been wrong.

Obama's bailouts sans regulation and requirements, his stimulus bill that hasn't provided even a fraction of the help our economy needs, his backroom deal with PhRMA and other health care big business, his throwing abortion and illegal immigrants and a public option under the bus in health care reform, his broken promises to gays, diminishing AIDS programs that even George Bush expanded, these and many other choices are disgusting violations to those of us who stand for traditional Democratic principles.

In addition to all that, Obama's passion and leadership only kick in when he wants something for himself, never to fight for a cause bigger than himself. More and more Democrats are realizing this while other Dems insist he must be protected and defended even while he brings us down. That's part of the split as well. Some believe we are made stronger and more competent by forthright criticism, some believe being nice and likable (while selectively attacking those they can paint as Them) will make everything better.

Obama versus Hillary was only what began the split; now it's about much much more than that. Although ... I've wondered if the differences might have been simmering under the surface well before the Primaries because Obama's Primary campaign had the earmarks of exploiting existing differences to create real division of the Us Versus Them variety.

 

[NickCole]

NickCole, I can see that point of view. I even agree with most of it, especially the massive bailout without banking reform, which we desperately need. (In particular, a re-instatement of the Glass-Stengel Act is essential.)

The thing is, the fight right now on Capitol Hill is between Obama & the Democrats, who're pushing for the things we need, and the Republicans, who're trying to throw a monkey wrench in everything. You don't seem to see this.

Of course, you have the right to an opinion, and I respect that right, but I think you're blind to the real war going on up there.

I see exactly what's going on up there.

Republicans have no power --ZERO-- unless Obama gives it to them.

Obama and Pelosi and Reid have a huge Democratic majority, it's THEIR game, they get to make the rules and if they played their cards right they could pass any piece of healthcare or economic stimulus or banking legislation they want.

Pretending otherwise is just an excuse. It's really outrageous that voters gave Democrats this enormous majority and rather than use that extraordinary power to pass great legislation all Dems can think to do is bitch about Republicans.

 

[NickCole]

You keep insisting that parties in the United States vote en bloc.

I never once said that, much less keep insisting it.

What I say is that our President is the leader of the Democratic Party and Dems hold an enormous Congressional majority in both Houses. We Democrats have way more than enough votes to pass great legislation and if it doesn't happen then look to the leaders because that's their job.

If you have enough Democrats in office to pass legislation by majority and it's not happening, blaming Republicans is disingenuous.

We don't have a parliamentary system where discipline is rigid, because we don't have multiple parties. The two that we do have are extremely varied.

What a lame excuse for a party with the WH and a huge Congessional majority failing to pass good legislation. Excuses, that's all that's followed ObamaNation promises.

A good boss (and elected Dems do work for us) doesn't accept excuses. I tell my employees I didn't hire you to bring me excuses, I hired you to bring me results. And I expect no less from elected officials.

That being said, Republican Senators have used the filibuster in 2009 more than any other session in American history. Democrats can't pass bills unless they can achieve a cloture vote.

No they earned that distinction in 2008. In 2009 they haven't used the filibuster so much as threatened to use it. And Democrats with their supermajority and The One We've Been Waiting For in the White House have cowered in the face of that threat.

But aside from that, the notion that Democrats are powerless to do anything about Republican filibustering is flatly wrong.

Here's a little history lesson. For most of our first 200 years Senators would rarely try to delay a vote by filibustering. Back then "cloture" took a two-thirds majority (67 votes). In 1975 the Senate changed that to 60 votes and that rule is still in effect.

Bottom line: the Senate makes the rules. Democrats are in charge. They can change the rules. Very clearly the filibuster is a procedural tool that's become so abused by the minority that it gets in the way of majority rule and legislating. So change the rules. Constitutionally, our Congress is supposed to pass legislation by majority, so if something, in practical terms, makes that impossible in the Senate then the Party controlling the Senate has the power and the responsibility to correct the situation. Why aren't Democrats doing that instead of whining that Republicans keep threatening to filibuster.

 

[NickCole]

Democrats have been passing great legislation, due to great compromise.

Not one single piece of great legislation in a year. A year when we have desperately needed it and the opportunity was there.

One can only imagine where we'd be if FDR had squandered his opportunity this way.

Oh because that is obviously the best way to deal with the filibuster issue, just change the rules.

If filibustering as it's used today is obstructing majority rule as our Constitution structured it, then yes change the rules of filibuster. It wouldn't be the first time.

Same with rules in banking or health care. If the rules get used in ways that harm the system then the people in charge better change the rules.

Our government, our banking system, are human constructs. These institutions are designed by us to benefit us, they do what we tell them to for our reasons. This isn't Mother Nature, it's not weather, we don't have to accept and accomodate disaster. We're not victim to our own institutions, if they don't work to our benefit that's our fault.

Good God, NickCole.

You know perfectly well the political consequences of attempting to change filibuster rules.

Enlighten me. What are the political consequences?

Democrats aren't the ones doing the filibustering

Of course not, they're in the majority.

When Dems were the minority they filibustered.

Filibustering has been an abused procedure for many years now, by both sides, and it's time to address it with a rules change. Simply bitching about it doesn't make anything better -- but it's a typical response from the faux Hope and Change crowd that doesn't have the balls to make real change.

 

[NickCole]

Fair Pay Act
Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act
Helping Families Save Their Homes Act
Weapon Systems Acquisition Reform Act
Credit Card Act
Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act,
Car Allowance Rebate System (Cash for Clunkers)
Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act
Worker, Homeownership, and Business Assistance Act

What a joke. What a pathetic flimsy little joke that list is.

I cite FDR's New Deal and LBJ's Great Society legislation and you cite Cash for Clunkers.

That's ObamaNation.

Democrats would lose their majorities in Congress for sure, much to the delight of Republicans and conservatives, and to the loss of every gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered citizen in the United States.

Nonsense. There's nothing to support that.

I think voters would reward the party that changes a bad rule into a good one.

It's never going to go away. Neither party is going to even touch the filibuster rule.

Well, never is a long time. The current filibuster rules have only been in effect for 35 years; you act like man-made conventions --recent ones at that-- are as unchangable as the sun rising in the morning.

But it's true Obama Democrats won't change the filibuster rule. This Hope and Change crowd doesn't have what it takes to change a lightbulb.

 

[NickCole]

We didn't get a program as big or as expansive as the "New Deal" because we are not in a depression like the 1930s.

The economic crisis in September was bad enough to push Obama ahead of McCain, and when Obama took office was bad enough to give Obama carte blanche to create and pass virtually any legislation he wanted. And things are much worse now than they were a year ago. If Obama and Congress don't do something substantive about our banks and financial system, about jobs and health care, and about a myriad of other issues, we're going to be in a much worse situation than the Great Depression.

LBJ pushed through Great Society legislation in the 1960s. Bill Clinton pushed through his Omnibus Recon Budget in 1993. Great legislation that delivers important results comes from vision and leadership, doesn't matter when.

The legislation you crow about is penny ante stuff when we're in a high stakes game.

All you have is excuses excuses excuses.

 

[JB3]

It is going to take about 5% growth to reduce the unemployment rate by 1%, which is the general rule of thumb. It's going to take years no matter what anybody does.

However, 5.7% is an unnaturally high rate of growth for just three months, and can be attributed to help received from several bills passed in Congress in the last session.



Presidents don't force Congress to do anything, that would be a dictatorship. Do you want Obama to be a dictator? Thought not. But they can persuade.

It's also a poor choice of analogy to compare this Congress to those of the 1960s. Democrats held a filibuster-proof majority in Congress throughout that entire decade. The parties were also a lot less disciplined than they are today, and many Republicans joined with the Democrats to pass Great Society legislation, including the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

The Fair Pay Act of 2009 actually extends the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

As JohannBessler also pointed out, the filibuster was used 70% of the time by Senate Republicans, as opposed to 8% of the time in the 1960s.

You just said in an earlier part of your post that the democrats held a filibuster-proof majority in the 60s, and then you trumpet the fact that the filibuster was only used 8% of the time. No shit it was. You can't filibuster reliably if the other party has a filibuster-proof majority.

 

[NickCole]

It is going to take about 5% growth to reduce the unemployment rate by 1%, which is the general rule of thumb. It's going to take years no matter what anybody does.

"... no matter what anybody does" is another shovel of horseshit on the asinine pile of excuses ObamaNation tries to sell.

Weak ineffective leadership does not produce the same results as bold visionary leadership.

The legislation FDR pushed through made a much different outcome from Hoover's leadership. That's because FDR tackled the problems head-on with bold initiatives and got them through Congress. Obama has failed miserably.

It's also a poor choice of analogy to compare this Congress to those of the 1960s. Democrats held a filibuster-proof majority in Congress throughout that entire decade.

Democrats had a filibuster proof majority for the entire year of 2009.

And LBJ's Civil Rights Act of 1964 was filibustered for a couple of months as I recall. But he figured out how to get it passed and make it law.

ObamaNation is nothing but excuses.

 

[JB3]

You also missed my statement where I said the parties were much less disciplined than they are today

Right in the middle of the 4th paragraph

Take your time to critically read people's posts before you pounce on them.

That still doesn't change the fact that you wrote two contradictory things in close proximity, one of which you're using as the basis for another argument.

 

[JB3]

Droid.....

The 60-vote majority is weak at best. It includes an Independent or two, and that goddamn Joe Lieberman, who's really nothing less than an Insurance Company hack.

And now, that tenuous 60-vote majority has evaporated with the recent election in MA.

The filibuster process has become abused because, even in my own lifetime, politics has become infinitely more polarized. I almost miss the Watergate period.

I believe it's time for a change. I associate filibusters (and a previously-held 67-vote majority) with powdered wigs. We need to move on.

And now if we can get rid of the equally-antiquated Electoral College.

I wasn't remarking on today Johann, read my post again. Jockboy was using that 8% as a comparison for the percentage of today, despite the fact that the democrats in the 60s (where that 8% figure comes from), had a very clear filibuster-proof majority. (unlike today) The situations are not comparable.

 

[JB3]

Three sentences, on after another, compliment each other and the last one of the paragraph explains without question why the first statement followed by the second is not a contradiction.

It is a contradiction JB. You cannot in one statement say that the democrats had a filibuster-proof majority in the 1960s, and then compare the stat of 8% with the figure from today, when the democrats did NOT have a filibuster proof majority for most of that time. Of COURSE the number is going to be higher, the only option republicans have if they want to stop something is the filibuster. In the 60s they did not have that option.

 

[01solara]

Droid.....

The 60-vote majority is weak at best. It includes an Independent or two, and that goddamn Joe Lieberman, who's really nothing less than an Insurance Company hack.

And now, that tenuous 60-vote majority has evaporated with the recent election in MA.

The filibuster process has become abused because, even in my own lifetime, politics has become infinitely more polarized. I almost miss the Watergate period.

I believe it's time for a change. I associate filibusters (and a previously-held 67-vote majority) with powdered wigs. We need to move on.

And now if we can get rid of the equally-antiquated Electoral College.

The electoral college is very important. Without it candidates would only campaign in a few heavily populated areas and rural and small states would be ignored. The FF knew what they were doing and that and the way the Senate is set up differently than the house is vital to stop cities like New York, Chicago, L.A. and other large population centers from totally controlling the vote for President.

 

[Kulindahr]

I believe the filibuster has become antiquated. It's time for a change.

Let's issue them all dueling pistols. If one thinks another has been talking too long, he can challenge him to a duel.

Heck, it might even end the need for term limits....