The Original Gay Porn Community - Free Gay Movies and Photos, Gay Porn Site Reviews and Adult Gay Forums

  • Welcome To Just Us Boys - The World's Largest Gay Message Board Community

    In order to comply with recent US Supreme Court rulings regarding adult content, we will be making changes in the future to require that you log into your account to view adult content on the site.
    If you do not have an account, please register.
    REGISTER HERE - 100% FREE / We Will Never Sell Your Info

    PLEASE READ: To register, turn off your VPN (iPhone users- disable iCloud); you can re-enable the VPN after registration. You must maintain an active email address on your account: disposable email addresses cannot be used to register.

Welcome Back Arlen!

Well sure I can agree with all that, but none of that makes what Steele said false because it wasn't. The whole reason that he was down big in the polls to Toomer is because the Republicans have gone off the deep end and Specter has remained somewhat sane. He made the choice he had to to stay in the Senate (rather than lose in the Republican primary).

It does make it false. Steele was being less than honest. He never mentioned Specter running for office in a post-Hurricane Katrina, post-stock market crash, post-mortgage meltdown and post-Bush world.

Specter was emboldened to leave the GOP because of the crummy position their party is in, not solely because of some right wing wacko.

Don't believe me? He could have switched his party to Independent and not Democrat. He clearly is piggybacking off the GOP's recent demise.
 
Specter was emboldened to leave the GOP because of the crummy position their party is in, not solely because of some right wing wacko.
I didn't say it was because of only one person, it is the person and the party. But it is true that it's because he's a moderate Republican and the Republican party isn't really so welcoming of those people right now. The right wing wackos have the power in the Republican base right now, not the sane people. He only decided to switch after seeing that poll. You also have the fact that he very recently denied he was switching parties. It was only after he realized the impossibility of winning as a Republican that he chose to do this.

Don't believe me? He could have switched his party to Independent and not Democrat. He clearly is piggybacking off the GOP's recent demise.
LOL, put it together. He's making the choice that is MOST likely to keep him in office. That's switching to the Democrats, not becoming an independent.

You seriously can't even acknowledge the most basic driver of the decisions of any career politician like Specter, which is the desire to stay in power?

He even admitted that he probably could not win as a Republican. The whole other reason he gave is just a more proper thing to say than "I'm not ready to leave Washington yet even if my constituents on the right don't want me anymore".
 
letme I'm not sure what fuels these confused, marginally incoherent, mostly inaccurate and almost illegible posts of yours. (Actually, I am. As I am sure almost everyone at CE&P who reads them is.)

For the record:

1) Newt Gingrich and the GOP took control of the HOR in 1995, i.e 14 years ago
2) Delay? I assume you are referring to Tom Delay. He was many things (US Rep, exterminator, liar, corrupt politician) but he was never a US Senator.
3) The GOP controlled the US House from 1995-2007.
4) The GOP controlled the US Senate from 1995-2007, except for a brief period in 2001-2002, when VP Al Gore had the deciding vote and again when Jim Jeffords switched from GOP to Dem and shifted the balance of power.


Maybe a cup of coffee will help?

Well Damn I do not know what to say...

I thought I said it simple for the Dims to understand.

Yeppers I am wrong when I said Delay in the Senate... My bad..

A few years is what I wrote... I guess in the 233 that this country has been founded , a few years back means what to you ? a few is what 2 years or <10% ?? what.

The GOP lost control of of the Senate in 2007 ? Is that a few , couple ,yesterday ?

confused, marginally incoherent, mostly inaccurate and almost illegible posts

Care to post what you think is incoherent,inaccurate and illegible ? That is very vague and baiting on your part. Hell even my spelling is correct ! can't picture me wanting a 61/39 Senate.. Can't picture me wanting Snowe to leave the GOP ? Can't picture the House of Card falling in 2010 ?
What is your problem ?

Got a problem with my thoughts ? Say so straight foreword , don't say I am as dumb as you play me to be.....

Damn
 
I don't think Specter will become a yes man for the Obama administration


at least I hope he doesn't.


This move gives him more influence in the Senate, and that bodes better for his constituents, which are the people he should be worrying about.


a shrewd political move? Well, he's been in the Senate since the 1980s, and he didn't stay there for being some kind of lame duck...
 
I don't think Specter will become a yes man for the Obama administration

No I don't think he will either. He certainly never towed the line for the Republicans and I doubt he does for the Democrats now either.
 
I didn't say it was because of only one person, it is the person and the party. But it is true that it's because he's a moderate Republican and the Republican party isn't really so welcoming of those people right now. The right wing wackos have the power in the Republican base right now, not the sane people. He only decided to switch after seeing that poll. You also have the fact that he very recently denied he was switching parties. It was only after he realized the impossibility of winning as a Republican that he chose to do this.

The party isn't welcoming to moderates? They're not a moderate party. Like Specter said, he felt the party left him and that he didn't leave the GOP. There's some truth to that and obviously there's some political maneuvering there. However, he's not leaving his party because of his liberal tendencies like Chairman Steele said, as if being a liberal is a bad thing in a state that has a democratic governor, senator and voted for the Democratic president overwhelmingly---he's leaving the party because his party is a sinking ship.

To back up Specter about the party leaving him, he's been courted by Democrats for the last five years.

LOL, put it together. He's making the choice that is MOST likely to keep him in office. That's switching to the Democrats, not becoming an independent.

Tell Joseph LIEberman that. He didn't switch to the Republican party after the Democratic challenger beat him.

He would definitely be out of power in New Hampshire if he decided to be a Republican after being a Democrat (a comparable switch to Specter's today).

Switching from a Republican to a Democrat in Pennsylvania is a good thing.
 
and obviously there's some political maneuvering there.

That's all I needed to hear from you, so thanks. :lol:

In your original statement, you made it out like this was all about morals and ideals and everything for Specter.

It isn't. It's very simple. One of his strategists probably came to him said "Arlen, we can't win the next Republican primary".

That was the basis for his decision. The reasons he gave publicly are more about why he can't win the next Republican primary, than about being the real reason he switched. The fact that he very recently denied he would switch parties tells me that he based his decision on some new information. And that was obviously the new poll showing him down by 20 points.

That said, of course it's a good thing for him and the Democrats.
 
Care to post what you think is incoherent,inaccurate and illegible ? That is very vague and baiting on your part. Hell even my spelling is correct !

Incoherent:
The filibusters, the spending ,the War... blame the Pugs.

A few years is what I wrote... I guess in the 233 that this country has been founded , a few years back means what to you ? a few is what 2 years or <10% ?? what.

The GOP lost control of of the Senate in 2007 ? Is that a few , couple ,yesterday ?

Inaccurate:
and the Senate had Delay.

Illegible: Every one of your posts.

Got a problem with my thoughts ? Say so straight foreword , don't say I am as dumb as you play me to be.....

letme I've already responded to your "thoughts" and I've done so "straight foreward."
 
Joe Lieberman represents the State of Connecticut, not New Hampshire.

I think Specter did it just to remain in the Senate..Whatever it takes.

Mea culpa.

Mixed up my ritzy white elite states.

And so did Specter. My original point was that Specter didn't switch parties because he wasn't right wing enough. He did it to save his ass.
 
That's all I needed to hear from you, so thanks. :lol:

In your original statement, you made it out like this was all about morals and ideals and everything for Specter.

It isn't. It's very simple. One of his strategists probably came to him said "Arlen, we can't win the next Republican primary".

That was the basis for his decision. The reasons he gave publicly are more about why he can't win the next Republican primary, than about being the real reason he switched. The fact that he very recently denied he would switch parties tells me that he based his decision on some new information. And that was obviously the new poll showing him down by 20 points.

That said, of course it's a good thing for him and the Democrats.

Winning the Republican primary means nothing when you can't beat the Democrat in a state that is being bluer and bluer each election cycle.

Specter knew this. Specter didn't turn blue because he wasn't red enough (which is what you're saying by agreeing with Steele's assessment).

That was Michael Steele's spin. You weren't supposed to buy it. Steele needs to come to terms with reality and admit that the Republican machine is broken. The more they go right, the more they'll lose (like Specter switching parties or conservative radio host Smerconish voting for Obama, etc.).
 
Winning the Republican primary means nothing when you can't beat the Democrat in a state that is being bluer and bluer each election cycle.

Specter knew this. Specter didn't turn blue because he wasn't red enough (which is what you're saying by agreeing with Steele's assessment).
You're still not getting it. That's EXACTLY why Specter turned. Winning the general was never the issue. He won the last general by 11 points. He only won the last primary by like 1 point. He would not have won the primary this time, and yes because he was not red enough. If somehow he did, he probably would have won the general again, but he would have never got there.

That was Michael Steele's spin. You weren't supposed to buy it.
Ok, I understand now. Since Steele is a Republican that makes anything he says inherently wrong. :rolleyes:

Well you're more disillusioned than I thought, sorry. I don't agree with hardly any of Steele's politics, but he was totally correct in his assessment on this.
 
You're still not getting it. That's EXACTLY why Specter turned. Winning the general was never the issue. He won the last general by 11 points. He only won the last primary by like 1 point. He would not have won the primary this time, and yes because he was not red enough. If somehow he did, he probably would have won the general again, but he would have never got there.


Ok, I understand now. Since Steele is a Republican that makes anything he says inherently wrong. :rolleyes:

Well you're more disillusioned than I thought, sorry. I don't agree with hardly any of Steele's politics, but he was totally correct in his assessment on this.

Actually, I never said that. I did say that Steele's explanation for Specter defecting (not conservative enough for a state that's turning more liberal by the year-lmao, reread that) is complete BULLSHIT and SPIN.

It doesn't get any simpler than that.

That's like saying the team A didn't beat team B because team A didn't suck enough (yes, conservatives suck in Pennsylvania now, analogy fits).

You don't win games by sucking. Just as in Pennsylvania lately, you don't win elections by becoming more conservative in a state that is getting more and more liberal.

Steele's full of shit. It was spin!
 
Actually, I never said that. I did say that Steele's explanation for Specter defecting (not conservative enough for a state that's turning more liberal by the year-lmao, reread that) is complete BULLSHIT and SPIN.

It doesn't get any simpler than that.

What doesn't get any simpler is understanding this.

In the last election 200k Reps switched their party to Dem (a lot so they could vote for Obama in the primary).

Where does that leave the Republican party in PA? Even more red than it was. Most of those people who left were obviously moderate Republicans since they clearly leaned blue.

Specter finds himself in the position where now he simply does not represent what it means to be "Republican" in PA anymore. That's why he is so far behind among Republicans. So yes, if you want to label it like that, it's precisely because he wasn't red enough.

I don't get why that is so hard for you to see.
 
A lot of opinions on here. Good thread.
I hope his defecting brings more gopers this way.
 
well, _ those with their debate pride wounded will argue until they have no strength to type. the good news is that specter is where he should be now, and there should be a flurry of spin at fox
ding
 
Arlen started life in Philadelphia as a Hubert Humphrey ADA Democrat and in a magnificent power play has come back to his roots.

Thanks goofy right wing Repubs, you sent Specter home.

Noty really coming home at all; today's Democratic Party isn't that of Humphrey.

Wake up call? The GOP has lost, I believe, four special elections in a row in conservative districts. They lost the house, senate and white house. The next time the phone rings it will be last call.

Uh -huh. That's what the Republicans said after Clinton -- there was even a book about the "last Democrat in the White House".

I believe expediency on gay rights legislation is paramount with this congress and the Obama administration. Who could expect the political stars to be aligned better? The Senate is about to have 60 Democratic senators! damn...

I fear that serious conversation about repealing DOMA has not occured soon enough. We can hope Democratic dominance last forever. Realistically though who would bet that it will last for a very long time? If indeed Republicans gain back seats in either house in substantial numbers it would sink any possibility of repealing that repressive law for many years.

Don't be so certain gays will get legislation granting them equality before the law quickly. The Democrats are keen to keep their edge, and don't want to offend all those Prop 8 type voters.

God help us if the Democrats dominate forever -- one-party rule always leads to excess and authoritarianism. My sincere hope is that the GOP will crumble and something new will arise in its place to shatter the Democrats... and then they'll crumble, and well get another new party.
 
This was self-preservation. Frankly, the man has been in office too long. We need term limits.

Also, keep in mind Specter vilified Jeffords for doing the same thing.


Politician first, human second. :lol:

On the way to the post office this morning, I heard Neal Boortz quote Spector as having said, a few years back when he lost a committee chairmanship because another senator switched parties, that he was going to propose a rule that forbade such things in mid term. Evidently, he failed to follow up.

Sort of makes him more than a bit of a hypocrite, don't you think.

Still looking for a source - but Boortz is accurate, most of the time. He regularly prefaces his remarks by saying 'don't take my word for it unless you know it to be true, or you have verified it etc etc.'
 
^Do you mean the "accurate and reliable" Neil Boortz that blamed victims for Katrina by calling them "worthless parasites"?
http://mediamatters.org/items/200802010015

Or, the "accurate and reliable" Neil Boortz that said Rep. McKinney looked like a "gutter slut"?
http://mediamatters.org/items/200603310005

Or the "reliable and accurate" Neil Boortz that hung up on the air on Al Franken when Franken caught him telling lies?
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Neal_Boortz

That Neil Boortz???????
 
^Do you mean the "accurate and reliable" Neil Boortz that blamed victims for Katrina by calling them "worthless parasites"?


Or, the "accurate and reliable" Neil Boortz that said Rep. McKinney looked like a "gutter slut"?


That Neil Boortz???????

Boortz said that the hurricane drove the welfare brood mares and parasites out of town - that is an extremely accurate statement.

if you don't understand the term 'welfare brood mare' here is a link to one, although she wasn't from NO:

http://www.theurbangrind.net/?p=3464

Thousands of those parasites are still living off the government:

http://www.louisianaweekly.com/news.php?viewStory=947

Boortz regularly referred to Cynthia McK as the 'cutest' communist in the house.
Didn't hear the gutter slut comment, but some images of her come to mind - seems fairly accurate to me.

Anyone with a modicum of self-respect would hang up on Franken.

2/3 of that about which you complain are the man's opinions, not a recital of actual facts.

I guess you - like most on the left - don't believe in free speech.
 
Back
Top