drnykterstein Posted April 28, 2009 Posted April 28, 2009 Good riddance to trash (Specter). He should have been kicked out of teh party years ago. Case and point bills_fan
DC Tom Posted April 28, 2009 Posted April 28, 2009 Case and point bills_fan "Case IN point". You people !@#$in' kill me.
Wacka Posted April 28, 2009 Posted April 28, 2009 Wait till the dems lose big in 2010. The uber-libs telling people what a republican should be The republican party hasn't been conservative enough since 1988. Yes, I think Bush was too moderate.
IDBillzFan Posted April 28, 2009 Author Posted April 28, 2009 The [very predictable] GOP reaction to this makes them look even more like idiots. First, it's clear they were blindsided. THEN they start with the attacks. I agree. The liberals were much better with Lieberman.
IDBillzFan Posted April 28, 2009 Author Posted April 28, 2009 "Case IN point". You people !@#$in' kill me. Y'know, he may have done that intentionally...y'know...for all intentional purposes.
erynthered Posted April 28, 2009 Posted April 28, 2009 I agree. The liberals were much better with Lieberman. I can almost see RE telling obama that if this swine flu takes hold that they could use it to advance their agenda: Hey bam? ummm ah, what? just think if this flu thing takes hold! ummm ahh umm what? Yeah, there will be nobody left to oppose are agenda! umm ahh umm, Yeah? Ok! Are you listening? Yeah, people dieing is a good thing, I like it. Well, Cheney and Bush did it, why cant we? can I still play basketball? are you listening? No you're an idiot. Where's Pelosi? Who? No one, you're her B word, remember? What? Oh yeah, sorry. How bout that Spector dude, eh? Who? The PA Sen, switching sides. Oh great another Barney Frank on the team. No No No. God you're an idiot. What? Nothing, good night TOTUS. <satire>
erynthered Posted April 28, 2009 Posted April 28, 2009 He voted against the Rep party line 33% of the time but often, the Dems and Repubs agree and therefore he probably will still be against the Dems 1/3 of the time. (The odds of me caring enough to figure out how often he voted against the Repubs on issues where the Dems and Repubs had opposite stances is nil.) OBTW. Get out the legal pad for your notes tonight. The Rat pack songs are tonight (just heard it on the tele). Thats more important then this, thats for sure.
Keukasmallies Posted April 28, 2009 Posted April 28, 2009 All the very best to Arlen do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do Specter. I'm thinkin' the people of PA are just pissed....how to waste a vote. Of course, there is the arguement that any time you vote for a politician you waste a vote.
bills_fan Posted April 28, 2009 Posted April 28, 2009 Case and point bills_fan Point taken. Wait till the dems lose big in 2010. The uber-libs telling people what a republican should be The republican party hasn't been conservative enough since 1988. Yes, I think Bush was too moderate. By conservative do you mean social conservative or fiscal conservative? Cause Bush spent like a drunken sailor, he was horrific to small gov't advocates. If you mean social conservative...well that will only further marginalize and regionalize the party and you will see very little gains in 2010. If the Republican party wants to turn it around they MUST embrace small gov't and balance the budget. That has to be their message; anything else is far too divisive. Many Republicans (except maybe the defense industry NeoCons), some Blue Dog Dems and a ton of Independents can agree on smaller gov't. Once the tax hikes from Obama hit, the Republicans will have a chance to position themselves as the party of lower taxes and smaller gov't. If they can draw off some Obama independents (due to the size of the tax increase and the profligate spending), they have a chance to make a comeback. Embracing social conservativism or NeoCon foreign policy will kill the party, IMHO.
Bishop Hedd Posted April 28, 2009 Posted April 28, 2009 Point taken. By conservative do you mean social conservative or fiscal conservative? Cause Bush spent like a drunken sailor, he was horrific to small gov't advocates. If you mean social conservative...well that will only further marginalize and regionalize the party and you will see very little gains in 2010.If the Republican party wants to turn it around they MUST embrace small gov't and balance the budget. That has to be their message; anything else is far too divisive. Many Republicans (except maybe the defense industry NeoCons), some Blue Dog Dems and a ton of Independents can agree on smaller gov't. Once the tax hikes from Obama hit, the Republicans will have a chance to position themselves as the party of lower taxes and smaller gov't. If they can draw off some Obama independents (due to the size of the tax increase and the profligate spending), they have a chance to make a comeback.Embracing social conservativism or NeoCon foreign policy will kill the party, IMHO. Dont need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows. Bob Dylan
Bishop Hedd Posted April 29, 2009 Posted April 29, 2009 Many on this board are not the "too far to the right" Republicans of whom you speak.Oh BS! Ive been here too long for that to be remotely true.
erynthered Posted April 29, 2009 Posted April 29, 2009 Oh BS! Ive been here too long for that to be remotely true. I'll disagree. Don't you think that some, including myself try to push the buttons? Its a freakin message board Dude. I really don't think the left here is as far left as they purport themselves to be, nor the right for that matter. If you think that way you're an idiot. Though I'm probably telling you something you already know.
blzrul Posted April 29, 2009 Posted April 29, 2009 I'll disagree. Don't you think that some, including myself try to push the buttons? Its a freakin message board Dude. I really don't think the left here is as far left as they purport themselves to be, nor the right for that matter. If you think that way you're an idiot. Though I'm probably telling you something you already know. Then one would wonder why you bother. But nice admission there dude. I almost - almost - begin to think wingnuts might be human instead of the knuckle-draggers whose image they seem to want to emulate. Ah fuhgeddaboudit. I just like saying "knuckle-draggers". The syrah has just gone right to my head.
Wacka Posted April 29, 2009 Posted April 29, 2009 Then one would wonder why you bother. But nice admission there dude. I almost - almost - begin to think wingnuts might be human instead of the knuckle-draggers whose image they seem to want to emulate. Ah fuhgeddaboudit. I just like saying "knuckle-draggers". The syrah has just gone right to my head. A wino too?
EC-Bills Posted April 29, 2009 Posted April 29, 2009 ...You know my position on this issue. That's right, how's the move to Vermont coming along?
erynthered Posted April 29, 2009 Posted April 29, 2009 Then one would wonder why you bother. But nice admission there dude. I almost - almost - begin to think wingnuts might be human instead of the knuckle-draggers whose image they seem to want to emulate. Ah fuhgeddaboudit. I just like saying "knuckle-draggers". The syrah has just gone right to my head. ....you're the exception. You're always wrong.
erynthered Posted April 29, 2009 Posted April 29, 2009 That's right, how's the move to Vermont coming along? Its Iowa, get it right, fag.
EC-Bills Posted April 29, 2009 Posted April 29, 2009 Its Iowa, get it right, fag. That's right, I forgot about your "need" for the livestock.
erynthered Posted April 29, 2009 Posted April 29, 2009 That's right, I forgot about your "need" for the livestock. You havent been around in a while, at least posting, we miss you. NOT!!
Recommended Posts