Welcome to FinHeaven Fans Forums! We're glad to have you here. Please feel free to browse the forum. We'd like to invite you to join our community; doing so will enable you to view additional forums and post with our other members.



VIP Members don't see these ads. Join VIP Now
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 34

Thread: Why the Shutdown is a Republican Victory

  1. -21
    TheWalrus's Avatar
    1/7/14

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Dec 2011
    Posts:
    9,616
    vCash:
    40870
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by LANGER72 View Post
    The Rodmans are not conservative, they are wealthy liberal elitist. We could argue that all day.
    Fiscally conservative doesn't contradict being socially moderate.
    Not in principle, but more often than not in practice. Which is all that matters.

    Bill Clinton could be described as FC/SM. He compromised with a republican congress.
    The current POTUS and his circus do not want or need to compromise. They hold 2/3 power including veto. There is no check and balance.
    Factually incorrect. Unfortunately.

    Electing Hilliary would only be slightly better than Obama, and not many folks want to see this continue. I cannot honestly name anyone I know personally who would vote for a democrat even if it was Hilliary.
    I hope more independents can take office in 2014. The government has been infested with liberals like a dog with ticks...money sucking parasites..and they need to be stymied and new ideas and positive spirit of cooperation induced.
    A shame. Most of my family is Republican so I'm never at a loss for conservative points of view. I think if you knew some liberals you wouldn't resort to the unfortunate name calling your posts so often deteriorate into.



    #freespesh
    Quote Quote  

  2. -22
    phins_4_ever's Avatar
    FinHeaven VIP

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Oct 2008
    Posts:
    4,683
    vCash:
    34711
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by LANGER72 View Post
    The Rodmans are not conservative, they are wealthy liberal elitist. We could argue that all day.
    Fiscally conservative doesn't contradict being socially moderate. Bill Clinton could be described as FC/SM. He compromised with a republican congress.
    The current POTUS and his circus do not want or need to compromise. They hold 2/3 power including veto. There is no check and balance.
    Electing Hilliary would only be slightly better than Obama, and not many folks want to see this continue. I cannot honestly name anyone I know personally who would vote for a democrat even if it was Hilliary.
    I hope more independents can take office in 2014. The government has been infested with liberals like a dog with ticks...money sucking parasites..and they need to be stymied and new ideas and positive spirit of cooperation induced.

    Yeah, let's argue that:

    As a child, Hillary Rodham was a teacher's favorite at her public schools in Park Ridge.[7][8] She participated in swimming, baseball, and other sports.[7][8] She also earned numerous awards as a Brownie and Girl Scout.[8] She attended Maine East High School, where she participated in student council, the school newspaper, and was selected for National Honor Society.[1][9] For her senior year, she was redistricted to Maine South High School, where she was a National Merit Finalist and graduated in the top five percent of her class of 1965.[9][10] Her mother wanted her to have an independent, professional career,[6] and her father, otherwise a traditionalist, was of the opinion that his daughter's abilities and opportunities should not be limited by gender.[11]

    Raised in a politically conservative household,[6] at age thirteen Rodham helped canvass South Side Chicago following the very close 1960 U.S. presidential election, where she found evidence of electoral fraud against Republican candidate Richard Nixon.[12] She then volunteered to campaign for Republican candidate Barry Goldwater in the U.S. presidential election of 1964.[13] Rodham's early political development was shaped most by her high school history teacher (like her father, a fervent anticommunist), who introduced her to Goldwater's classic The Conscience of a Conservative,[14] and by her Methodist youth minister (like her mother, concerned with issues of social justice), with whom she saw and met civil rights leader Martin Luther King, Jr., in Chicago in 1962.[15]
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Rodham_Clinton
    ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________

    "You may think that you are some kind of god to these people. But we both know what you really are."
    "What's that? A criminal?"
    "Worse. A politician."
    Source: Under The Dome

    ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________

    Quote Quote  

  3. -23
    LANGER72's Avatar
    FinHeaven VIP

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Nov 2006
    Posts:
    9,307
    vCash:
    30889
    Loc:
    Munchkin Land / Emerald C
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by TheWalrus View Post
    Not in principle, but more often than not in practice. Which is all that matters.

    I disagree. They are much different people now. Deep blue. This is not the Rodman's of the 1960's.



    Factually incorrect. Unfortunately.

    Which part do you need help with? Clinton compromising with Newt to balance the budget or the fact that the democrats control the executive and judicial branches of the current government?



    A shame. Most of my family is Republican so I'm never at a loss for conservative points of view. I think if you knew some liberals you wouldn't resort to the unfortunate name calling your posts so often deteriorate into.
    I have friends from both sides of the isle at work and in my community. We have good discussions. Unfortunately, those political differences prevent me from really getting to know them better. We just politely accept each other as we are. Fine with me.
    Everyone has their own view. I can listen to it, but I don't have to agree or accept it..especially when those think they have all the answers at such a young age. I just smile at the naivete.
    The name calling goes both ways here. Redneck, Hick, Hillbilly, Teabaggers, Bible thumpers, and worse...Responding with Chumley, Atheist, liberal, socialist, Marxist, Islamist, Communist and so forth. My labels are generally accurate in my estimation. There are one or two posters here that do not deserve any respect, and they get none from me. I don't mind getting tagged from the mods when necessary.
    Swimming in this pool of liberalism in POFO is something I can only put up with small doses. Just passing through the neighborhood.
    There are much more entertaining and intelligent forums out there. I spend more time commenting there. Folks that can see both sides. This one consists of the same tired regulars.

    Walrus, I appreciate your input here. Keep up the good work.
    Quote Quote  

  4. -24
    Locke's Avatar
    They looked like strong hands.

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Aug 2008
    Posts:
    8,870
    vCash:
    5460
    Loc:
    Albuquerque, NM
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by LANGER72 View Post
    I have friends from both sides of the isle at work and in my community. We have good discussions. Unfortunately, those political differences prevent me from really getting to know them better. We just politely accept each other as we are. Fine with me.
    Everyone has their own view. I can listen to it, but I don't have to agree or accept it..especially when those think they have all the answers at such a young age. I just smile at the naivete.
    The name calling goes both ways here. Redneck, Hick, Hillbilly, Teabaggers, Bible thumpers, and worse...Responding with Chumley, Atheist, liberal, socialist, Marxist, Islamist, Communist and so forth. My labels are generally accurate in my estimation. There are one or two posters here that do not deserve any respect, and they get none from me. I don't mind getting tagged from the mods when necessary.
    Swimming in this pool of liberalism in POFO is something I can only put up with small doses. Just passing through the neighborhood.
    There are much more entertaining and intelligent forums out there. I spend more time commenting there. Folks that can see both sides. This one consists of the same tired regulars.

    Walrus, I appreciate your input here. Keep up the good work.


    I wonder who Finheaven's biggest victim could be talking about here. Hmmm. Tough one.

    Seeing as your posts don't do much other than bring the collective IQ of the forum down, maybe you should head back towards your Ted Cruz circle jerk forums. All of you FoxNewsBots are the same. You spew your garbage. Then when someone asks why and challenges your posts, you lose your head, freak out, throw out the victim card, etc. Do yourself a favor and follow your predecessors and move on if it's such a hassle to post here.

    It's not disagreement that's the issue. It's your inability to actually defend your ridiculous stances, and the temper tantrums thrown. In this thread both Walrus and Spesh disagreed with me about something and no pissing match occurred. That's what happens when reasonable people discuss things with actual reasons to back up their assertions...

    If I could take your pain and frame it, and hang it on my wall,
    maybe you would never have to hurt again...

    Quote Quote  

  5. -25
    TheWalrus's Avatar
    1/7/14

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Dec 2011
    Posts:
    9,616
    vCash:
    40870
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by LANGER72 View Post
    I have friends from both sides of the isle at work and in my community. We have good discussions. Unfortunately, those political differences prevent me from really getting to know them better. We just politely accept each other as we are. Fine with me.
    Everyone has their own view. I can listen to it, but I don't have to agree or accept it..especially when those think they have all the answers at such a young age. I just smile at the naivete.
    The name calling goes both ways here. Redneck, Hick, Hillbilly, Teabaggers, Bible thumpers, and worse...Responding with Chumley, Atheist, liberal, socialist, Marxist, Islamist, Communist and so forth. My labels are generally accurate in my estimation. There are one or two posters here that do not deserve any respect, and they get none from me. I don't mind getting tagged from the mods when necessary.
    Swimming in this pool of liberalism in POFO is something I can only put up with small doses. Just passing through the neighborhood.
    There are much more entertaining and intelligent forums out there. I spend more time commenting there. Folks that can see both sides. This one consists of the same tired regulars.

    Walrus, I appreciate your input here. Keep up the good work.
    Ah, when you said 2/3rds power I thought you meant 2/3 in both houses of Congress. Anyway I don't think the Supreme Court can be counted as liberal. Four of the justices are solid liberals appointed by Clinton or Obama and four are solid conservatives (including the chief justice). The "moderate" on the court -- Anthony Kennedy -- was appointed by Reagan and is more conservative than the moderate he replaced as a moderate in Sandra Day O'Connor. It's a pretty conservative court, really. You're free to disagree with that. Whatever. But the Supreme Court almost always tracks to the right of the populace and elected representatives. One of the reasons the Warren Court is so historically notable is that it's one of the few times the court bucked that trend to be more liberal than the country or the president or Congress.

    As for the rest of your post... well, do what thou wilt, as Aleister Crowley said. If you think you've got it all figured out then I guess there's no harm in never giving stock to the opinion of people who disagree with you. One thing that made me chuckle though was the fact that you think the labels you give people are accurate. Well, I'd certainly hope so. They're your labels!
    Last edited by TheWalrus; 10-18-2013 at 04:38 AM.
    Quote Quote  

  6. -26
    Spesh's Avatar
    #freespesh

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Apr 2007
    Posts:
    8,478
    vCash:
    1511
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by TheWalrus View Post
    There's always a "chance" in that "non-zero probability" kind of way, but I don't think they have an actual chance. My point is only that the right wing is going to demand an actual champion of it's ideas this time, not a pretender. After the fallout from that, then we'll see what direction they take. But that's years down the road, and given how much these people live in the bubble, they could go on a "the election was stolen" kind of kick and feel like they need another chance, pushing the reckoning back a decade or more. Who knows? It's literally like predicting what an insane person is going to do.

    But there's another factor in this, too. As long as redistricting holds up the House in the new status quo, they may feel like winning the presidency isn't particularly necessary. Regardless of who the president is, nothing moves without a filibuster proof majority... and there's just enough of these guys to maintain a filibuster. For these people, a dysfunctional government that does nothing is actually sort of a victory, because not only is the government not passing active legislation that could expand the powers of the government, but it helps the narrative that government is broken and terrible and needs to be restrained which helps them philosophically... like somebody running a lawnmower over with a truck to prove it's unreliable.
    By no means am i declaring victory 3 years in advance, theres to much that can happen before '16. Scandals, misplaying a partisan battle, a shift in public opinion, etc, etc, etc, could all easily wipe out the gains the left has made. Hell, perhaps this shutdown has convinced the GOP to quickly and ruthlessly solve their problems(fat chance). But at the same time i have no choice but to call a spade a spade.
    And just to clarify, my posts have been directed at years from now. A GOP majority in the House has been a given for a multitude of reasons. I have no doubt Republicans will continue to play the ideological purity routine over the next few years. Its only after another Presidential ass kicking do they have any chance of self-reflection. Perhaps they can find a way to save their brand without kicking it to center...but i just dont see it at the moment. The public is far too disgusted and is only growing more alienated as conservatives turn more extreme.

    The other paragraph quoted i have to protest. Theres been one constant with those who identify themselves with the Tea Party during the shutdown: not only are their efforts just, but they will be rewarded for it with a trip to the White House. Anonymous politicians, aides, and even donors have all come out and stated they think they could win an election with these tactics. Theres been a consistent enough theme that i tend to believe it, especially as it fits into their self-delusional naivety and ideology. I threw up another thread last night showing the response from conservatives concerning the GOP. The Tea Party feels its taken over and is not being given the respect it expects, they are not content to simply be a part of the Republican party, they want to run it and are willing to bail and start from scratch if they dont get their way. If they cant even play well as the major influence in the party they identify with, how could they be content to a single part of a government they feel is destroying the land they so desperately love?
    By all means they will settle for a dysfunctional and slow government, that was never more apparent then Ted Cruz blocking an Obama nomination less then 24 hours after the shutdown ended, but they arent going to settle for anything less than running the entire thing. It would be scary if they werent running themselves into the ground.

    I mostly agree with the rest of your post. Its not the first time ive heard Obama nominated Hilary because of that influence, but ive always had some reservations about it. While Obama was willing the compromise to get what he wanted, he always seemed to take previous digs very personally early in his Presidency. For example, Ive seen stories about him despising Bill Clinton for missing the opportunity to advance the progressive movement during the onset of the internet advent, and they apparently only soothed things out after 1) Obama gained experience "in the game" and 2) bonded over their shared fondness of golf(and, as countless women and the American public have found: its just so damned tough to stay angry at Bill Clinton). His indignation concerning Hilary seemed much deeper and his nomination of her was all but forced upon him due to the circumstances rather then an attempt to gain an ally.


    Terrorist attack count against the Anything Goes Thread: 2
    Quote Quote  

  7. -27
    LANGER72's Avatar
    FinHeaven VIP

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Nov 2006
    Posts:
    9,307
    vCash:
    30889
    Loc:
    Munchkin Land / Emerald C
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by Locke View Post


    I wonder who Finheaven's biggest victim could be talking about here. Hmmm. Tough one.

    Seeing as your posts don't do much other than bring the collective IQ of the forum down, maybe you should head back towards your Ted Cruz circle jerk forums. All of you FoxNewsBots are the same. You spew your garbage. Then when someone asks why and challenges your posts, you lose your head, freak out, throw out the victim card, etc. Do yourself a favor and follow your predecessors and move on if it's such a hassle to post here.

    It's not disagreement that's the issue. It's your inability to actually defend your ridiculous stances, and the temper tantrums thrown. In this thread both Walrus and Spesh disagreed with me about something and no pissing match occurred. That's what happens when reasonable people discuss things with actual reasons to back up their assertions...
    I was not talking about you. Feeling a bit self conscious today?
    Entering debates with you is like arguing with a child. You cannot understand what you have not yet learned or refuse to acknowledge.
    That is where is stands.
    Collective IQ ?
    Quote Quote  

  8. -28
    LANGER72's Avatar
    FinHeaven VIP

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Nov 2006
    Posts:
    9,307
    vCash:
    30889
    Loc:
    Munchkin Land / Emerald C
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by Spesh View Post
    By no means am i declaring victory 3 years in advance, theres to much that can happen before '16. Scandals, misplaying a partisan battle, a shift in public opinion, etc, etc, etc, could all easily wipe out the gains the left has made. Hell, perhaps this shutdown has convinced the GOP to quickly and ruthlessly solve their problems(fat chance). But at the same time i have no choice but to call a spade a spade.
    And just to clarify, my posts have been directed at years from now. A GOP majority in the House has been a given for a multitude of reasons. I have no doubt Republicans will continue to play the ideological purity routine over the next few years. Its only after another Presidential ass kicking do they have any chance of self-reflection. Perhaps they can find a way to save their brand without kicking it to center...but i just dont see it at the moment. The public is far too disgusted and is only growing more alienated as conservatives turn more extreme.

    The other paragraph quoted i have to protest. Theres been one constant with those who identify themselves with the Tea Party during the shutdown: not only are their efforts just, but they will be rewarded for it with a trip to the White House. Anonymous politicians, aides, and even donors have all come out and stated they think they could win an election with these tactics. Theres been a consistent enough theme that i tend to believe it, especially as it fits into their self-delusional naivety and ideology. I threw up another thread last night showing the response from conservatives concerning the GOP. The Tea Party feels its taken over and is not being given the respect it expects, they are not content to simply be a part of the Republican party, they want to run it and are willing to bail and start from scratch if they dont get their way. If they cant even play well as the major influence in the party they identify with, how could they be content to a single part of a government they feel is destroying the land they so desperately love?
    By all means they will settle for a dysfunctional and slow government, that was never more apparent then Ted Cruz blocking an Obama nomination less then 24 hours after the shutdown ended, but they arent going to settle for anything less than running the entire thing. It would be scary if they werent running themselves into the ground.

    I mostly agree with the rest of your post. Its not the first time ive heard Obama nominated Hilary because of that influence, but ive always had some reservations about it. While Obama was willing the compromise to get what he wanted, he always seemed to take previous digs very personally early in his Presidency. For example, Ive seen stories about him despising Bill Clinton for missing the opportunity to advance the progressive movement during the onset of the internet advent, and they apparently only soothed things out after 1) Obama gained experience "in the game" and 2) bonded over their shared fondness of golf(and, as countless women and the American public have found: its just so damned tough to stay angry at Bill Clinton). His indignation concerning Hilary seemed much deeper and his nomination of her was all but forced upon him due to the circumstances rather then an attempt to gain an ally.

    His political machine is not a fan of Hilliary. They will likely bring forth their own alternative.
    Also, the perceived gains by the left are media hype. There is a lot or resentment building. Once folks see their tax refunds slashed and additional expenses incurred during the implementation of the ACA, the bloom will be off the rose. Everyone will want exemptions, leading to either a one payer system or complete collapse of the ACA. The Republicans will make political hay with all this going on and doing their feeble best to undermine any way they can.
    Most of the republicans posturing recently(Cruz) is for selfish political purposes. Candidates from both sides have been doing this for years.
    Quote Quote  

  9. -29
    nick1's Avatar
    Hall Of Famer

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Jan 2004
    Posts:
    12,181
    vCash:
    3224
    Thanks / No Thanks
    I can't agree with the main idea of this shutdown being a republican gain. the nation as a whole thinks republicans are at fault, as backed by polls taken on this topic. in 14 when the house elections occur I think you will see alot less republicans winning. this is viewed as an immature negotiation tatic, change the ACA or we will keep the government shutdown
    Quote Quote  

  10. -30
    LANGER72's Avatar
    FinHeaven VIP

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Nov 2006
    Posts:
    9,307
    vCash:
    30889
    Loc:
    Munchkin Land / Emerald C
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by nick1 View Post
    I can't agree with the main idea of this shutdown being a republican gain. the nation as a whole thinks republicans are at fault, as backed by polls taken on this topic. in 14 when the house elections occur I think you will see alot less republicans winning. this is viewed as an immature negotiation tatic, change the ACA or we will keep the government shutdown
    The tactic was politically attractive at the beginning, but it had zero chance of succeeding. The tea part right needed to satisfy their followers even if it was a dead end. There is still over a year to go before the elections and many more budget battles. This particular incident will be just a footnote.
    As I mentioned above, when the actual increase income tax from the ACA "Tax" occurs, that is what will resonate with voters IMHO.
    The other group will be trying to absorb large increases to their insurance premiums.
    IMHO, It will not be a great time to be a democrat. They will likely be spouting their talking points, but the reality will be the cost.
    Finally, in 2016, when full implementation occurs, Obama will be riding out of town. The successor will either increase taxes again, or push to eliminate the ACA all together. I feel it will be eliminated, because the economy is going nowhere, and the deficits will be even greater. It cannot be sustained.

    ---------- Post added at 11:33 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:31 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by LANGER72 View Post
    I was not talking about you. Feeling a bit self conscious today?
    Entering debates with you is like arguing with a child. You cannot understand what you have not yet learned or refuse to acknowledge.
    That is where is stands.
    Collective IQ ?
    Quote Quote  

Similar Threads

  1. Our Next Shutdown Corner is on the roster
    By CaSh in forum Miami Dolphins Forum
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: 07-01-2012, 03:57 PM
  2. shutdown CB and other needs.
    By absoluteLance in forum Miami Dolphins Forum
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 09-16-2008, 10:57 AM
  3. Are you a Democrat, Republican or Southern Republican?
    By calphin in forum Political | War Forum
    Replies: 105
    Last Post: 07-19-2005, 10:08 AM
  4. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-17-2005, 03:06 PM
  5. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-03-2005, 04:14 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •