A Liberal Supermajority

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Chaotic42

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: Rockinacoustic

Topic Title: A Liberal Supermajority
Topic Summary: WSJ: "Get ready for 'change' we haven't seen since 1965, or 1933"

:thumbsup: :thumbsup:

Originally posted by: winnar111

You get the government you vote for.

Exactly! That's why I'm voting for Obama.

Strangely enough, I don't like my own Democratic Representative, and I don't intend to vote for him, but he's running unopposed.

So you agree with the union position listed above?

Yep, at least most of it in principle and proud of it. It's been far too long in coming, and it has cost our nation dearly in lives and treasure. :thumbsup:

If you have a problem with that, it's your problem.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Ozoned
You simply need to take a look at Obama's largest contributors to understand what direction the Obama nation would take. It's just more of the same, only different somehow,,,,changed??

His contributors are 99% individuals with an average donation size of less than $100.

You compare that with McCain, his contributors are 93% individuals with an average donation size of about $2000.

So what are you saying here?

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Balt

If the current polls hold, Barack Obama will win the White House on November 4 and Democrats will consolidate their Congressional majorities, probably with a filibuster-proof Senate or very close to it.

Well no, not really. The odds of a filibuster-proof majority are looking very slim right now. Even if the Dems could pull it off somehow a lot of the new Senate Democrats from 2006 are pretty moderate and aren't necessarily going to vote with the party on anything that's too liberal.

Shh... the Pubs hate it when you even hint at the fact that large numbers of Democrats are moderate or even conservative. They are ALL commies, do you hear? Every last one of them! Rush said so!

It's not about moderate or extremist. There are plenty of moderate Republicans as well. A rubber-stamp Democrat congress and president is no better than a Republican one.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Balt

If the current polls hold, Barack Obama will win the White House on November 4 and Democrats will consolidate their Congressional majorities, probably with a filibuster-proof Senate or very close to it.

Well no, not really. The odds of a filibuster-proof majority are looking very slim right now. Even if the Dems could pull it off somehow a lot of the new Senate Democrats from 2006 are pretty moderate and aren't necessarily going to vote with the party on anything that's too liberal.

Shh... the Pubs hate it when you even hint at the fact that large numbers of Democrats are moderate or even conservative. They are ALL commies, do you hear? Every last one of them! Rush said so!

It's not about moderate or extremist. There are plenty of moderate Republicans as well. A rubber-stamp Democrat congress and president is no better than a Republican one.

Well, we already just had a Republican rubber-stamp President and Congress, so why not try a Democratic one?

Anyway, I'm not seeing a lot of moderation coming from the Republican camps right now. In fact, even the most moderate Republicans I know of (IRL and online) have been acting a bit reactionary extremist lately. They're running a radical for VP yaknow.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Vic
Going by all the cries of "liberal media!" you hear, one would think that a reimplementation of the Fairness Doctrine would favor the Republicans.

I have found that the shrill Republican cries of Democratic bogeymen tend to be as substantial as the shrill Democratic cries of Republican bogeymen.

Why is that? afaik the fairness doctrine would only apply to am talk radio. Where liberals cant or wont compete.

 

[Chaotic42]

Originally posted by: Harvey
Yep, at least most of it in principle and proud of it. It's been far too long in coming, and it has cost our nation dearly in lives and treasure. :thumbsup:

Any concerns about what might happen to those who oppose the formation of a union?

-
HR800PCS-
(a) In General- Section 9(c) of the National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 159(c)) is amended by adding at the end the following:

(6)
Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, whenever a petition shall have been filed by an employee or group of employees or any individual or labor organization acting in their behalf alleging that a majority of employees in a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining wish to be represented by an individual or labor organization for such purposes, the Board shall investigate the petition. If the Board finds that a majority of the employees in a unit appropriate for bargaining has signed valid authorizations designating the individual or labor organization specified in the petition as their bargaining representative and that no other individual or labor organization is currently certified or recognized as the exclusive representative of any of the employees in the unit, the Board shall not direct an election but shall certify the individual or labor organization as the representative described in subsection
-

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Chaotic42

Any concerns about what might happen to those who oppose the formation of a union?

Nope. We're in the middle of a major economic catastrophy brought on by greed in the financial sector. Would you have any concerns about allowing them to continue operating as they have?

I'd be concerned that any such union was operatied cleanly, ethically and transparently. I'd have those same concerns for any business or government operation, and I'd want the same legal reporting, oversight and protection for the rights of individuals in any of them.

 

[Jack Flash]

Fear Fear Fear

Rabble Rabble Rabble

 

[OrByte]

Hey, I like a Librul President and a Republican congress as much as the next guy.

But really, who's fault is it that the Republican brand is so F'd up these days?

fix your damn party.

As for this editorial, with all the fear mongering in it one would think there would be nooo way libbies could/would get so powerful in this grand country.

How did we let this happen?!?!!? ohnooessss! :roll:

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Vic
Going by all the cries of "liberal media!" you hear, one would think that a reimplementation of the Fairness Doctrine would favor the Republicans.

I have found that the shrill Republican cries of Democratic bogeymen tend to be as substantial as the shrill Democratic cries of Republican bogeymen.

Why is that? afaik the fairness doctrine would only apply to am talk radio. Where liberals cant or wont compete.

I would assume that the Fairness Doctrine would apply to all holders of FCC broadcast licenses, just like it did before. That would include FM and television.

 

[techs]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Vic
Going by all the cries of "liberal media!" you hear, one would think that a reimplementation of the Fairness Doctrine would favor the Republicans.

I have found that the shrill Republican cries of Democratic bogeymen tend to be as substantial as the shrill Democratic cries of Republican bogeymen.

Why is that? afaik the fairness doctrine would only apply to am talk radio. Where liberals cant or wont compete.

You meant to say where educated, intelligent people don't want to listen to propaganda 24/7 that tells them they are right about everything?
Yeah, its tough for liberals to compete with that given that we have brains.

 

[Stuxnet]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Vic
Going by all the cries of "liberal media!" you hear, one would think that a reimplementation of the Fairness Doctrine would favor the Republicans.

I have found that the shrill Republican cries of Democratic bogeymen tend to be as substantial as the shrill Democratic cries of Republican bogeymen.

Why is that? afaik the fairness doctrine would only apply to am talk radio. Where liberals cant or wont compete.

I would assume that the Fairness Doctrine would apply to all holders of FCC broadcast licenses, just like it did before. That would include FM and television.

First order of business: stamping out free speech!!

YAY! YAY! YA... wait... what?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: jbourne77

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Vic
Going by all the cries of "liberal media!" you hear, one would think that a reimplementation of the Fairness Doctrine would favor the Republicans.

I have found that the shrill Republican cries of Democratic bogeymen tend to be as substantial as the shrill Democratic cries of Republican bogeymen.

Why is that? afaik the fairness doctrine would only apply to am talk radio. Where liberals cant or wont compete.

I would assume that the Fairness Doctrine would apply to all holders of FCC broadcast licenses, just like it did before. That would include FM and television.

First order of business: stamping out free speech!!

YAY! YAY! YA... wait... what?

Poor reading comprehension FTL!

My personal opinion is that the airwaves should be privatized, if not disband the entire FCC.
The Fairness Doctrine is only capable of existing because the airwaves are considered public, and free speech is already limited on them. And last I checked, it wasn't the left that pushed for broadcast censorship like of the "7 dirty words," etc.

 

[Stuxnet]

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo
Gee ... Rupert Murdoch promoting fear of Democrats through the editorial pages of the Wall Street Journal.

Like no one saw this coming ...

Call it what you will, but there are some very valid points in there. Take government expansion, for instance. In an effort to get out of the GP, Roosevelt expanded the government in the 30's beyond most people's wildest dreams. Many of those measures were promised to be temporary, but as the article above states, many of those expansions remain today.

There are many economists who believe Roosevelt's vast expansion prolonged the depression rather than shortened it.

A rubber stamp government is a very, very dangerous thing, regardless of who holds it. Only an extremist would tolerate it when it's his party controlling all 52 cards in the deck.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Balt

If the current polls hold, Barack Obama will win the White House on November 4 and Democrats will consolidate their Congressional majorities, probably with a filibuster-proof Senate or very close to it.

Well no, not really. The odds of a filibuster-proof majority are looking very slim right now. Even if the Dems could pull it off somehow a lot of the new Senate Democrats from 2006 are pretty moderate and aren't necessarily going to vote with the party on anything that's too liberal.

Shh... the Pubs hate it when you even hint at the fact that large numbers of Democrats are moderate or even conservative. They are ALL commies, do you hear? Every last one of them! Rush said so!

It's not about moderate or extremist. There are plenty of moderate Republicans as well. A rubber-stamp Democrat congress and president is no better than a Republican one.

Well, we already just had a Republican rubber-stamp President and Congress, so why not try a Democratic one?

Anyway, I'm not seeing a lot of moderation coming from the Republican camps right now. In fact, even the most moderate Republicans I know of (IRL and online) have been acting a bit reactionary extremist lately. They're running a radical for VP yaknow.

I would think the past 8 years would convince you not to take that path, regardless of the party in power. I guess we'll have a few years to see what the Democrats due with their unstoppable laws.

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Ozoned
You simply need to take a look at Obama's largest contributors to understand what direction the Obama nation would take. It's just more of the same, only different somehow,,,,changed??

His contributors are 99% individuals with an average donation size of less than $100.

You compare that with McCain, his contributors are 93% individuals with an average donation size of about $2000.

So what are you saying here?

Not true Maybe 50% @200 or less

The 200 dollar contribution doesn't have any leverage. The bigger contributions do.


Where the other 1/2 comes from
An analysis of campaign finance records shows that about two-thirds of his bundlers are concentrated in four major industries: law, securities and investments, real estate and entertainment. Lawyers make up the largest group at about 130, with many working for firms that also have lobbying arms. At least 100 Obama bundlers are top executives or brokers from investment businesses - nearly two dozen work for financial titans like Lehman Brothers, Goldman Sachs and Citigroup. About 40 others come from the real-estate industry.
----------------------------------------------------------------

What I am getting at is that a supermajority of dems isn't going to radically change the direction of this country. We are just going to have some new players in the game.

 

[Stuxnet]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Balt

If the current polls hold, Barack Obama will win the White House on November 4 and Democrats will consolidate their Congressional majorities, probably with a filibuster-proof Senate or very close to it.

Well no, not really. The odds of a filibuster-proof majority are looking very slim right now. Even if the Dems could pull it off somehow a lot of the new Senate Democrats from 2006 are pretty moderate and aren't necessarily going to vote with the party on anything that's too liberal.

Shh... the Pubs hate it when you even hint at the fact that large numbers of Democrats are moderate or even conservative. They are ALL commies, do you hear? Every last one of them! Rush said so!

It's not about moderate or extremist. There are plenty of moderate Republicans as well. A rubber-stamp Democrat congress and president is no better than a Republican one.

Well, we already just had a Republican rubber-stamp President and Congress, so why not try a Democratic one?

Anyway, I'm not seeing a lot of moderation coming from the Republican camps right now. In fact, even the most moderate Republicans I know of (IRL and online) have been acting a bit reactionary extremist lately. They're running a radical for VP yaknow.

I would think the past 8 years would convince you not to take that path

Think again.

It seems many people's true colors are coming out now. They no longer feel the need to temper or dilute their views. What they once condemned they now make apologies for.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Balt

If the current polls hold, Barack Obama will win the White House on November 4 and Democrats will consolidate their Congressional majorities, probably with a filibuster-proof Senate or very close to it.

Well no, not really. The odds of a filibuster-proof majority are looking very slim right now. Even if the Dems could pull it off somehow a lot of the new Senate Democrats from 2006 are pretty moderate and aren't necessarily going to vote with the party on anything that's too liberal.

Shh... the Pubs hate it when you even hint at the fact that large numbers of Democrats are moderate or even conservative. They are ALL commies, do you hear? Every last one of them! Rush said so!

It's not about moderate or extremist. There are plenty of moderate Republicans as well. A rubber-stamp Democrat congress and president is no better than a Republican one.

Well, we already just had a Republican rubber-stamp President and Congress, so why not try a Democratic one?

Anyway, I'm not seeing a lot of moderation coming from the Republican camps right now. In fact, even the most moderate Republicans I know of (IRL and online) have been acting a bit reactionary extremist lately. They're running a radical for VP yaknow.

I would think the past 8 years would convince you not to take that path, regardless of the party in power. I guess we'll have a few years to see what the Democrats due with their unstoppable laws.

I would agree with you except for the increasing radicalism of Republican supporters at this time. For too long now, they've been following the party with blind devotion because of irrational fears with regards to the other side. This has essentially given the Republican leadership a blank check to do almost anything, including what they done the past 8 years and yet this election is still relatively close. I fear what will happen to the Pubs if they continue down this path of extremism and apologism.
IMO, this is about having the Pubs take a little time out for their own good. The Dems did it and it worked out well for them.

This is not "true colors." :roll:<^>

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Vic
Going by all the cries of "liberal media!" you hear, one would think that a reimplementation of the Fairness Doctrine would favor the Republicans.

I have found that the shrill Republican cries of Democratic bogeymen tend to be as substantial as the shrill Democratic cries of Republican bogeymen.

Why is that? afaik the fairness doctrine would only apply to am talk radio. Where liberals cant or wont compete.

I would assume that the Fairness Doctrine would apply to all holders of FCC broadcast licenses, just like it did before. That would include FM and television.

I have to admit when looking at the wiki entry it doesnt specifically state am radio.

 

[Jhhnn]

Nice fearmongering from the WSJ.

Repubs came to power on the basis of creating and exploiting largely negative issues. They went even further in basically using a rightwing thinktank cookie-cutter to "create" politicians. Stand here. say this. support that. take our money. you'll win. and they did.

That sort of obesiance to authority extended to their time running the country- they were lockstepping, flying in formation, mostly because few of them, at all, were capable of or interested in independent thought. But they took directions well...

Dems aren't like that. Will Rogers was right- Dems have never exhibited the kind of unity or ideological purity exhibited by modern repubs. They're fractious and free-wheeling in thought and deed. It's gotta be like herding cats for both Pelosi and Reid. Even if Dems achieve a supermajority, it won't resemble the kind of steamroller repubs fear, the kind of steamroller they'd build for themselves...

 

[DrewSG3]

Good.

Maybe now Congress will get shit done now instead of sucking each others thumbs and pointing the finger at the other party.

 

[Craig234]

The WSJ editorial page has for many years not ben any legitimate contributor to the discussion, but paid propaanda by the ignorant, sophomoric, sellout monied right.

Of course they're going to whine about any democratic policies. They lie, you notice about the history of 'big government', not to mention whether government was for the people or the 'elites' - big difference there. Compare the size of government under LBJ - including the war in Vietnam the right was so much in agreement with - with the big increases in government under Nixon, Reagan (with debt), and GWB.

The WSJ is trying to pre-empty any sort of move the nation needs like FDR by scaring people to oppose it.

 

[StageLeft]

Point taken but the opposing point is that the republicans have been such total fvckups that they need to be completely ass kicked to learn their lesson. Perhaps by 2012 the party will have truly reinvented itself and not be such a pack of morons? We can hope, right?

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Craig234

The WSJ editorial page has for many years not ben any legitimate contributor to the discussion, but paid propaanda by the ignorant, sophomoric, sellout monied right.

They were pretty stodgy. It took Rupert Murdoch to make them "fair and balanced" enough to go directly to bird cage liner without bothering with read anything on the page... which is why they're nothing but another Republican mouthpiece.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: Craig234

The WSJ editorial page has for many years not ben any legitimate contributor to the discussion, but paid propaanda by the ignorant, sophomoric, sellout monied right.

They were pretty stodgy. It took Rupert Murdoch to make them "fair and balanced" enough to go directly to bird cage liner without bothering with read anything on the page... which is why they're nothing but another Republican mouthpiece.

They were already there long before Murdoch for me - remember the 'lucky duckies', the poor who did not pay income tax? I haven't read them in a long time, though.

Go watch the recent Real Time with Bill Maher shows with WSJ editor guests, especially Oct 10 with the giggling bufoonish editor, and you will see the point I think.