Democrats should replace Pelosi

[theMAJORITY]

LMAO!!

Maj, pretending is a wonderful thing for you, isn't it?

Be careful. You'd be surprised how tough some of us hippies can be. And lots of us shoot back.

May the best Americans win. Real Americans have nothing to lose or fear when fighting for freedom and individual liberities. If your willing to fight for socialism to the death--good! We will put an end to it as it is time to kick some commie butt again! I will take a bullet for the individual liberities I have a right to have--and you will take a lot of bullets for demented Karl Marx. We Americans will not lose, and never bow to socialism. Come get my money fucker!

 

[Onceler]

I think a lot of Republicans are coming around on issues like alternative energy & healthcare; like LR said, it doesn't matter what the reasons are, because those can often be different, but people can share the same goal.

A real leadership in Congress could tap into that, and move forward on important issues where there is common ground; we could really get some meaningful legislation. Instead, the general m.o. is to dig in the heels, try to get too much and turn it into a partisan circus.

Revolutionaries don't like incremental change, but the fact is, the people who invented this country built the government to effect exactly that. Our gov't is not built for sweeping, radical change, though that kind of change HAS happened (usually, during very extreme circumstances).

We could spend our whole lives fighting for universal healthcare & get nowhere; I hope that isn't the case, but in the meantime, we can try to lower costs, fight bad practices in the insurance industry, and take other measures to make healthcare more available & affordable overall. That goes for a variety of issues.

 

[Bonestorm]

So they passed good things like SCHIP that ultimately failed, and they passed shitty things like the war funding bill and the Protect America Act that were enacted, and this an argument for their effectiveness?

Before you say it, yes I know that their majority in the Senate is too slim to do it alone. But I genuinely believe that with around 70% of people opposed to the war, it would not be that hard to bring a handful of Republicans on board for a timetable. Same with SCHIP. I suppose really more blame lies with Reid than Pelosi, but I think that both of them could have been more cooperative with Republicans on issues with broad appeal.

No, they passed good bills on Iraq and wiretapping that ultimately failed because of the composition of the senate and the occupant of the White House.

 

[Cancel7]

I think a lot of Republicans are coming around on issues like alternative energy & healthcare; like LR said, it doesn't matter what the reasons are, because those can often be different, but people can share the same goal.

A real leadership in Congress could tap into that, and move forward on important issues where there is common ground; we could really get some meaningful legislation. Instead, the general m.o. is to dig in the heels, try to get too much and turn it into a partisan circus.

Revolutionaries don't like incremental change, but the fact is, the people who invented this country built the government to effect exactly that. Our gov't is not built for sweeping, radical change, though that kind of change HAS happened (usually, during very extreme circumstances).

We could spend our whole lives fighting for universal healthcare & get nowhere; I hope that isn't the case, but in the meantime, we can try to lower costs, fight bad practices in the insurance industry, and take other measures to make healthcare more available & affordable overall. That goes for a variety of issues.

I have seen no sign of incremental change on health care. John McCain is attempting to revolutionize it with his health care plan. I think that how I have come to view this, has been shaped by my recognition of the modern R party as revolutionaries themselves, which is what they are. In fact, early on, Krugman did some great work on just that, in his book “The Great Unraveling”. You are not getting anything incremental up against them.

 

[Cancel7]

I am definitely not in the middle when it comes to social issues or the right to keep and bear arms. Most here (including you, I think) know this. I am concerned about the make up of the Supreme Court and I know it will be reshaped when Obama becomes president.....this definitely worries me, not with respect to abortion/gay rights or anything like that but solely because of the threats to the 2nd ammendment. Abortion isn't going anywhere, unfortunately, even if Sarah Palin herself were on the court.

As to other parts of the agenda, I am definitely for some form of universal health care. People should have access to adequate care. Dad had a triple bypass this past Friday and I would hate to think where he'd be without the private insurance he has as well as his military insurance.

I also support greener legislation and anything that we can do to get us off of the Middle Eastern oil tit. We have to develop new forms of power and the government should push for it....hard. I don't support this because I think we are killing the planet but because I see it as a national security issue. Lorax and I have talked about this before and we want the same things in this area, but for different reasons. Who cares about the reason, people like us (moderates in congress) should be able to get something done.

Raise the minimum wage - that's a good thing, IMO, as long as it isn't made to be ridiculous. I have supported every minimum wage increase that has happened in the last 20 years.

I could go on with the democratic policies that I support....but I simply cannot go against my moral make-up and vote for the democratic candidates for president that I have seen in the last few elections. So I look to the middle for guys like Ford, Dan Boren, and yes, Mike Huckabee. Guys that would get the above agenda to the forefront but still keep the things I hold dear intact.

You will take issue with my support for Huckabee becasue of his religiousness, but if you look closely at how he governed Arkansas you will see that he did indeed govern from the center as to the issues mentioned above.

It’s interesting because the Supreme Court you want, would do untold damage to consumer, labor, and environmental protections. They would decimate those things. So even on things that you might have moderate, center, or even slightly left of center views of – the court you would advocate for, would institute radical right wing positions on.

I also don’t think your positions on abortion and other social issues, and gun control, would qualify as moderate. So you are in a pretty bad position, if you are economically center and socially conservative. I don’t think you’re going to have many candidates. Harold Ford as far as I know is not anti-choice. I guess Huckabee is probably your best fit.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

I think a lot of Republicans are coming around on issues like alternative energy & healthcare; like LR said, it doesn't matter what the reasons are, because those can often be different, but people can share the same goal.

A real leadership in Congress could tap into that, and move forward on important issues where there is common ground; we could really get some meaningful legislation. Instead, the general m.o. is to dig in the heels, try to get too much and turn it into a partisan circus.

Revolutionaries don't like incremental change, but the fact is, the people who invented this country built the government to effect exactly that. Our gov't is not built for sweeping, radical change, though that kind of change HAS happened (usually, during very extreme circumstances).

We could spend our whole lives fighting for universal healthcare & get nowhere; I hope that isn't the case, but in the meantime, we can try to lower costs, fight bad practices in the insurance industry, and take other measures to make healthcare more available & affordable overall. That goes for a variety of issues.

Wow, the rationale Lorax is back!!! I could not agree more with your comments above, especially the bolded portions.

 

[Cancel7]

Wow, the rationale Lorax is back!!! I could not agree more with your comments above, especially the bolded portions.

So this would be a good sign of how much health care we’d get following that road. I know it is to me. SF is way farther to the right than he tries to let on, but I think we have all gotten the picture from his posts.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

So this would be a good sign of how much health care we’d get following that road. I know it is to me. SF is way farther to the right than he tries to let on, but I think we have all gotten the picture from his posts.

As I have always stated, I am economically/fiscally conservative. That has always been the case. As has my stand on social issues. Moderate on most, conservative on a few. That has not changed.

I know it is hard for you to fathom the type of dem that I would vote for, because those Dems are not typically going to be ones that you would prefer. Nor are they the ones your party tends to nominate for President.

If you can't see the big picture, there is not much I can do about that. But COST reduction is the thing we SHOULD be focusing on. You want more affordable healthcare... then FIND OUT why we pay so much and find ways to reduce costs. Simply shifting the money from the individual/company directly and in turn taking it from the individual/company via taxes is NOT going to solve the problem.

 

[Cancel7]

As I have always stated, I am economically/fiscally conservative. That has always been the case. As has my stand on social issues. Moderate on most, conservative on a few. That has not changed.

I know it is hard for you to fathom the type of dem that I would vote for, because those Dems are not typically going to be ones that you would prefer. Nor are they the ones your party tends to nominate for President.

If you can't see the big picture, there is not much I can do about that. But COST reduction is the thing we SHOULD be focusing on. You want more affordable healthcare... then FIND OUT why we pay so much and find ways to reduce costs. Simply shifting the money from the individual/company directly and in turn taking it from the individual/company via taxes is NOT going to solve the problem.

The big picture is that you are a right wing conservative on economics, and vehemently anti-choice. Maybe you are looking for a badge for not wanting to beat gay people to death? I will put it in the mail!

 

[Cypress]

As I have always stated, I am economically/fiscally conservative. That has always been the case. As has my stand on social issues. Moderate on most, conservative on a few. That has not changed.

I know it is hard for you to fathom the type of dem that I would vote for, because those Dems are not typically going to be ones that you would prefer. Nor are they the ones your party tends to nominate for President.

If you can't see the big picture, there is not much I can do about that. But COST reduction is the thing we SHOULD be focusing on. You want more affordable healthcare... then FIND OUT why we pay so much and find ways to reduce costs. Simply shifting the money from the individual/company directly and in turn taking it from the individual/company via taxes is NOT going to solve the problem.

You're rabidly anti-choice, you are on record dismissing the science of global warming, and I've owned you on multiple threads where you said we should cut public funding for science. I'm pretty sure where you stand on stem cells too, you defend the rightwing, or Bush, position.

Dude, just because you voted for a Zell Miller type democrat once or twice in your life, doesn't make you an "independent". I might vote for Lincon Chaffe if he were running as an R against Joe Lieberman. That doesn't make me independent, moderate, or open to republican ideology. Why are you so embarrassed to be known as a rightwing republican partisan.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

The big picture is that you are a right wing conservative on economics, and vehemently anti-choice. Maybe you are looking for a badge for not wanting to beat gay people to death? I will put it in the mail!

LMAO... I am fiscally conservative as I stated and I am definitely PRO LIFE.

Apparently you believe there are only two social issues in this country??? I already stated I am conservative on some, which obviously included abortion.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

You're rabidly anti-choice, you are on record dismissing the science of global warming, and I've owned you on multiple threads where you said we should cut public funding for science. I'm pretty sure where you stand on stem cells too, you defend the rightwing, or Bush, position.

Dude, just because you voted for a Zell Miller type democrat once or twice in your life, doesn't make you an "independent". I might vote for Lincon Chaffe if he were running as an R against Joe Lieberman. That doesn't make me independent, moderate, or open to republican ideology. Why are you so embarrassed to be known as a rightwing republican partisan.

you are a fucking moron and a hack. As I stated, I am pro life. I don't believe in murdering kids.... you do. Which one of us is rabid?

I do not dismiss global warming. I question mans contribution and the need to determine just how much man is causing. Because it doesn't help to solve the problem.

I have not stated that we should cut public funding for science you idiot. I stated that we did not need every avenue funded by science. That the private side would step in if they felt an area was underfunded. Which is EXACTLY what they did. I doubt you have any clue where I stand on stem cell research.

I am an independent because I do not trust either party. Not because I don't share some similar positions. I have always stated that out of the two I certainly favor the Reps more than the Dems... I have never tried to hide that. I have also given examples of the type of Dem that I would vote for... none of which are the far left nuts you like.

Now, why don't you go back to stalking someone or trying to hump their leg? Leave the discussion to those of us that are capable of adult conversations.

 

[Cypress]

You're not fooling anyone Supertool.

Your a rightwing republican. Who's the last Democrat you voted for president?

 

[Cypress]

Oh, supertool, you really shouldn't call other posters leghumpers, when your profile prominently features women mocking you and humliating you because you begged them to be on your friends list.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

You're not fooling anyone Supertool.

Your a rightwing republican. Who's the last Democrat you voted for president?

translation: "I am too stupid to actually read and comprehend, so I am going to trot out the same tired bullshit I saw someone else use once. I am too fucking ignorant to understand that Superfreak has only voted four times for President and that all the votes for state and local offices also reflect his overall views."

Side note stalker boy.... twice the Dem President candidate was a from a family I cannot stand. the other two times the Dems put up far left hacks.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Oh, supertool, you really shouldn't call other posters leghumpers, when your profile prominently features women mocking you and humliating you because you begged them to be on your friends list.

LMAO at poor little emo leghumping stalker boy. Is that the best you got? Well, I should give you credit, at least that is different from your normal "ur ghey" "insult"

 

[Cypress]

LMAO at poor little emo leghumping stalker boy. Is that the best you got? Well, I should give you credit, at least that is different from your normal "ur ghey" "insult"

Besides Cynthia McKinney (and only because she's hot), who am I stalking?

 

[leaningright]

You're not fooling anyone Supertool.

Your a rightwing republican. Who's the last Democrat you voted for president?

Loaded question. You ask that of Democrats around here and they might say Bill Clinton (me), but most would say Jimmy Carter......and that only once, before Ronald Reagan ran against him. The democrats don't have a very good record of putting up moderates as their presidential candidates in recent history.