HUGE NEWS: BROWN WINS! Coakley calls Brown to Concede Election in Massachusetts

Originally posted by Noromyxo
AHHH... The pipedream of a viable 3rd party.

Pipedream is exactly what it is. Could never work, of course, because the American voting public has been conditioned to this harshly polarized mentality between "Us" and "Them" — There's no such thing as "The Other Us" or "The Other Them"...

Any time a third party enters the race, the third-party consistently loses, and his presence only spells defeat for one of the major 2-party candidates and a victory for the other — otherwise known as "the spoiler effect"... For example, if H. Ross Perot hadn't thrown his crazy hat into the ring in '92, George H.W. Bush would have been elected to a second term and Bill and Hillary Clinton would just be ink blots on the pages of history (Clinton didn't win by a "majority," Perot split the conservative majority with Bush). Think about that.

Judging from the crackpots and wiseacres we usually see campaigning for the "Third Party," we do not WANT a Third Party candidate ascending to the presidency.

The most logical and fair and balanced way to solve our 2-party dilemma is to implement a system whereby the winner of the presidential election becomes president, while the loser becomes vice president. No more vice presidential candidates.

Such a system — placing both a Republican and a Democrat in the nation's 2 highest offices — would force the two parties to work more closely together.

Of course, there are those (myself included) who think the two parties are already in bed together. However, if they are, then their highly visible demonstrations of partisanship must be a vaudeville routine designed to deceive the voters into believing there really is an ideological difference between the two parties when there really isn't.

Partisanship is the source of the "pendulum effect" — you know, 8 years of liberal bullshît followed by 8 years of conservative bullshît, and so forth, repeated like clockwork, and so predictably that we can forecast which party will be in power at any given point decades from now.

With a two-party presidency and vice presidency, we would know that the total voting public would be represented in the nation's highest offices, presumably helping to eliminate partisanship not only in government, but across the country. No more "pendulum effect"...

Ah. Another pipe dream.

— Doc Velocity

IMO I think what every one seems to overlook somewhat the early ideas of how bureaucracy stole the home spun soul of American and Canadian governance.

No matter if you are left or right once you are elected to office, during your time in office and during your time exiting office you are surrounded with a variety of `handlers`` from law enforcement, lawyers, doctors, economists, scientists etc to actual representatives of certain powerful government entities who all follow their own agendas. Most of these agendas are already in force, well greased and well planned as well as having generations of inertia.

An election is at most merely a pause in the big machine to grease the wheels of so called progress. The head is now for the most part disconnected from its body and we will see a growing seperation from those who have and those who do not.

Common knowledge.

The best head of state is so far as the ptb are concerned is whomever can emulate a steady growth or a image of hope to the consciousness of whichever sociological entity has reared its head as the latest power in the populace.

The advent of computers as allowed a single minded political entity with a common intent to become multi headed so to speak while maintaining its main thrust...which is compliance.<

It does make sense if one views humans predominately as a labor force or military force or ideological forcé!

Obama isn't too bipartisan, he's too pro union. He's trying to please the wrong people, and refuses to listen to the majority of people, of BOTH parties who hate this bill. Again, most people hate this bill, and the back room deals it took to get it this far. the American citizen is getting shafted by this horrible bill, and everyone knows it.

We can only hope the President gets the message, stop worrying about healthcare, and do something about the economy. we need jobs first so we can buy healthcare, not the other way around. if the rest of Congress doesn't get the message, they'll suffer the same fate as the Dems in Massachusetts. If a republican can get elected there, he can get elected anywhere.

Lastly, if the Republicans don't get their act together, they will also be replaced. Americans are pissed, both parties. And what idiiot media reporter will now talk smack about the tea party?? they demonstrated their power tuesday in Mass, and are getting stronger by the day. If some left wing liberal media dumbass wants to now say the tea party people don't matter, he 's just showing how stupid he really is. representatives better listen. this is just the beggining, and the wave is just starting to curl. Smart politicians will learn to listen, and ride the wave, but the Dems who continue to walk the party line will get crushed by the motion of the ocean. For real............

Originally posted by Noromyxo
The American People have spoken !!!
...and it's about time !
Rush had it right today with a Michelle Obamaism...."For the first time in my adult life, I am proud of Massachusetts !
Wonder how Reid, Pelosi, Barney Fwank,,,et al are taking it ?

If the american people have truly spoken by electing a member of the GOP, they have sanctioned: false flags, wars of aggression, kidnap, murder, CIA drug sales, torture, the deaths & suffering of millions, lies, reckless spending, misery, incompetence, occupations and all the feces the GOP stands behind. gw bush may have left the room, but his stink lingers.

As a matter of fact, I hope everyone in mass who voted GOP understands thanks to them, some poor innocent puke and his family 1/2 a world away are going to die, or suffer, or have a 24 hole 2-headed DU baby with shark fin hands.. another guy will be kidnapped & tortured, a bus load of terrorist children will get lit by a hellfire, and scores more strangers who mean you no harm are going to suffer horrific deaths... because their new GOP hero will fold like a cheap suit and vote "hell yes" on funding more death.

I hope the blood on their GOP/DNC voting hands never washes off and the next time they see iraqi / afghani mass grave toddler carnage.. they remind themselves they were too much of a coward to vote against the establishment liars who caused the violence.

2-party people, you're not alone, your 1930s german brothers & sisters did the exact same thing; got fooled into supporting mass killing for nationalism and das good fer dah "the party". And here we are in 2010, we should all frik'n know better than to keep ANY dishonest manufactures of international wars & violence in power... yet people do it again and again then wonder why despite all the promises, things keep getting worse and were always 1 incident away from war with iran, n korea, venezuela, and anyone who makes israel cry.

Originally posted by GovtFlu
If the american people have truly spoken by electing a member of the GOP, they have sanctioned: false flags, wars of aggression, kidnap, murder, CIA drug sales, torture, the deaths & suffering of millions, lies, reckless spending, misery, incompetence, occupations and all the feces the GOP stands behind. gw bush may have left the room, but his stink lingers.

We know what happened under the Bush Administration... He was elected under the pretense that he was a conservative, and then he crawled in bed with the most loathsome liberals in the Senate. Go to bed with jackasses and you invariably get up smelling like donkey dung.

Give me a break with your "sweet smell of Obama" rhetoric. The stench emanating from Washington today is all about your golden boy Obama and the spineless Democrats who are jumping through hoops backwards to give this inexperienced blunderer a "legacy" — even if it means locking themselves behind closed doors and forging unconstitutional legislation that is AGAINST the will of the American people.

As for all the terrible, terrible bullshît you're trying to lay at George Bush's doorstep, just keep in mind that George Bush's Administration was, essentially, a REPLAY of the debacle known as the Clinton Administration. Same exact playbook: Terrorism at the WTC, spying on Americans, military action in the Middle East, etc. Only difference was that the Clinton Administration pursued a war on terror against American citizens, racking up quite a domestic death toll (particularly if you include the OKC bombing); not only that, but Clinton deployed more American troops on more pointless missions around the world (Haiti, Somalia, the Sudan, Iraq, Bosnia, etc) than ANY other American president in history, including George Bush.

Plus, Clinton refused to extradite Osama bin Laden from Pakistan when that terrorist bastard was in custody, and Clinton pardoned a number of known terrorists just to add a little more fetid icing to his impalatable political legacy.

So... Let's finally put the Bush-bashing and Clinton-bashing to bed and start accepting responsibility for empowering the CURRENT brainless, anti-American stooge occupying the White House, Barack Hussein Obama and his merry band of thieves.

— Doc Velocity

Originally posted by Doc Velocity
We know what happened under the Bush Administration... He was elected under the pretense that he was a conservative, and then he crawled in bed with the most loathsome liberals in the Senate.

During the period of time when the Republicans held majority? What liberals? The liberals in DC were virtually shut out in their opposition to the Bush policies so please instead of pulling some claim out thin air as an excuse, be specific and back it up with evidence. Bush was voted in by conservatives and for the 8years of his administration the majority of conservative voters and representitives supported him. So tell me what liberal came in and told him to do what.

Give me a break with your "sweet smell of Obama" rhetoric.

Yes any realization of the cr*p the republicans cause in the last 8years is "Obama rhetoric". Dismiss the reality of the fact.

spineless Democrats

Yes goodness knows most Dems opposed the Iraq war of lies back in 03' and the same spineless excuse was used. Was my opposition to the iraq war spineless? Because that was the same BS excuse used when anybody opposed Bush and his policies from conservatives during his administration.

Sure the some Dems supported this conservative BS just to keep face in being called "spineless".

SG

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
So tell me what liberal came in and told him to do what.

Ted Kennedy for one and John McCain for another, and let's pretend Hillary Clinton and the majority of Democrats didn't vote for invading Iraq and continuing to fund the war, even after they held a majority in Congress. Your ridiculous partisan hypocrisy doesn't hold water at all.

BTW, my condolences to you and your liberal cohorts who just lost Massachusetts AND the half-baked Health Care Reform Bill...

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/2ae24ed69683.jpg[/atsimg]


(audience howls with laughter)

— Doc Velocity

What an amazing day! i think there is congratulations in order on two fronts:

1) Congratulations to Scott Brown on his win for the Senate seat in MA!

2) Congratulations to Ted Kennedy! He is over 120 days now SOBER!!!!

Originally posted by Doc Velocity
Ted Kennedy

What policy did he influence Bush to pass? He opposed the Iraq war, opposed the Bush tax cuts as was largely ignored and criticised by the Bush administration and his fellow conservatives. So why are you pulling this claim out of thin air?

John McCain

Who has been voted and backed by "conservative voters" for years. You call McCain a liberal and yet conservatives have continued to rally behind him and keep him in his seat.

The thing about it is that the minute a conservative respresentitive voted and supported by conservatives messes up, they get outcast as "liberals". Its rather amazing. You support their conservative policies until they mess up, then you distance yourselves.

and let's pretend Hillary Clinton and the majority of Democrats didn't vote for invading Iraq

I didnt deny the fact that some Democrats supported the Iraq war, infact I mentioned it in my prior post. Roughly half of all Democrats opposed the war so no I wouldnt use the majority. They do in part had a play for making the war happen.

Your ridiculous partisan hypocrisy

hypocrisy you say?

my condolences to you and your liberal cohorts who just lost Massachusetts AND the half-baked Health Care Reform Bill...

hypocrisy indeed doc. But yes good on you for celebrating. After years of complaining about Obama's troop surge in afghanistan, his unwillingness to withdraw troops from Iraq well before the promised 2011, lobbyists and special interests, your more than happy to brag about the fact another GOP candidate won. The irony in this, and what Brown and his party has advocated, is something I'd advise you look into.

Now that bipartisanship can't be ignored, a story: Teddy Roosevelt, a Republican in the age of Republican trust-busters (not groveling rump-kissers) was once giving a speech when an assassin lurched forward and fired a shot into Teddy's upper chest/shoulder. A veteran of combat, Teddy knew it wasn't mortal so he continued to give 30 minutes more of his speech before attending to the wound.

Fast forward to today's Republicans: Do you, Republicans, take forward stands on human rights? The party was founded to END slavery. Or do you just shut the f**k and not talk about that child sex slavery that everyone's ~talking~ about? Do you push aside the wimps in your midst and go after monopolists or those who would try to threaten the very premise of democracy? Or do you just stand in line to drop hints to wimpiest of wimp Rove-types ("Turdblossom" isn't a name that a man in Lincoln or Roosevelt's vicinity would have wanted hung on him) in order to get a cut of the secret regime rake?

Do Dems and Rep's live in the same nation? Are they the same people? Then don't give Lindsay Graham any crap when he takes a stand against global warming. If you can't even stand up to defend the future of your children against mousy, arse-kissing oil company execs, how do you even consider yourself part of the Cleveland-Roosevelt party (trust-busters)? Not only do good leaders take necessary stands, but they take a soldier's position on potential attackers. Andrew Jackson saw an assassin approach, and Jackson attacked the assassin first. He won.

So that Monarch/butterfly and Ruby code subset that speaks that stupid, gutless language of keywords and program codes for SEX SLAVES isn't the mighty man that you should fear. You should be the stronger man that THEY fear. Your antescedants knew how to fight, and so do you. The Republican party isn't what Bush Jr. was: son of a kind of Frankenstein (Sr.'s narco ops are known to everyone who has half a brain in politics---that's why Dick Cheney is so often portrayed as a madman antisocial). Nor does the party reduce to someone like Palin, who looks like one of those Are You Smarter Than a 5th Grader contestants. You've got to be better than that.

Entire Congresses have met, full of revolutionaries who risked their lives to overthrow the criminal hand of empire. Presidents have stood and fought, not only against royalists, assassins, monopolists, and SLAVERS (let alone child sex SLAVERS). There's an order in being, not some angelic sop, not some infantile notion of heaven and Earth, but the actual, negative cycle physics of space (or hyperspace, to be more accurate)... an order in being wherein all intelligent beings must rise up against oppressive challenges.

Rather than be told you must vote like a herd, in a pack, toe the line or else, you must take stands. Would you have let a total wimp live Rove, or a loser like Bush Jr. tell you what to do thirty years ago? Of course not. Think just a little bit further back, and forward in time.

Before us are life and death questions: global warming, rising seas, the question of whether we will live in a swamp of 10 billion uneducated individuals or a more modest and peaceable educated community, whether a Federal Reserve financial mafia is allowed to own and control you or whether you fight back in at least some way, whether technology is all about weapons and domination or about knowledge and ability.

We don't get from here to there by hiding behind what went down the political sewer years ago. We have to pull together and fight, sometimes---right here in the USA.

Originally posted by Helmkat

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
reply to post by Helmkat

 

America would not be headed for the rocks if the processes were never sped up. They were meant to be slow and drawn out.

Then when would be a good time for healthcare reform? It has been debated for years. Is a century enough? Maybe a millenia will do

Slow and drawn out is one thing, stagnation is something else.

What we have now is not helathcrae reform.

Why do you want to totally redesign the best health care system in the world?

It needs tweaks, not a complete revamp.

As for when . . . that should be up to the people to decide.

Originally posted by Doc Velocity

Originally posted by Noromyxo
AHHH... The pipedream of a viable 3rd party.

Pipedream is exactly what it is. Could never work, of course, because the American voting public has been conditioned to this harshly polarized mentality between "Us" and "Them" — There's no such thing as "The Other Us" or "The Other Them"...

Any time a third party enters the race, the third-party consistently loses, and his presence only spells defeat for one of the major 2-party candidates and a victory for the other — otherwise known as "the spoiler effect"... For example, if H. Ross Perot hadn't thrown his crazy hat into the ring in '92, George H.W. Bush would have been elected to a second term and Bill and Hillary Clinton would just be ink blots on the pages of history (Clinton didn't win by a "majority," Perot split the conservative majority with Bush). Think about that.

Judging from the crackpots and wiseacres we usually see campaigning for the "Third Party," we do not WANT a Third Party candidate ascending to the presidency.

The most logical and fair and balanced way to solve our 2-party dilemma is to implement a system whereby the winner of the presidential election becomes president, while the loser becomes vice president. No more vice presidential candidates.

Such a system — placing both a Republican and a Democrat in the nation's 2 highest offices — would force the two parties to work more closely together.

Of course, there are those (myself included) who think the two parties are already in bed together. However, if they are, then their highly visible demonstrations of partisanship must be a vaudeville routine designed to deceive the voters into believing there really is an ideological difference between the two parties when there really isn't.

Partisanship is the source of the "pendulum effect" — you know, 8 years of liberal bullshît followed by 8 years of conservative bullshît, and so forth, repeated like clockwork, and so predictably that we can forecast which party will be in power at any given point decades from now.

With a two-party presidency and vice presidency, we would know that the total voting public would be represented in the nation's highest offices, presumably helping to eliminate partisanship not only in government, but across the country. No more "pendulum effect"...

Ah. Another pipe dream.

— Doc Velocity

Oh my good God, I agree with you. I hope I didn't just tear the space time continuum apart.

Question is, how do you get both parties to agree to that set up? It's much more lucrative for them in a winner takes all system rather than hedging their bets and giving up some prestige to the other party.

Plus, the current system is a better enabler for corporate control. You say third parties aren't viable, and I agree to a point that some of them put up candidates that could never win the electorate, but how do you get the current system to change for the better without adding a new variable to the equation?

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
What policy did [Kennedy] influence Bush to pass? So why are you pulling this claim out of thin air?

Bush never "passed" anything — the liberal House and Senate do the passing, and the president is supposed to be "influencing" them. Unless, of course, he crawls in bed with the enemy, as he did with Ted Kennedy (God rest his black soul).

Are you telling me that you're so out-of-touch with political history that you don't remember the "No Child Left Behind" legislation, which Bush essentially handed over to Ted Kennedy to craft to his liberal liking? Do you not remember the "Immigration Reform" debacle that Bush essentially handed to Kennedy to craft and distort, in spite of the outcries of the American public?

Or, perhaps, like the rest of the Liberal Left, you choose not to remember? Just one more example of Lefties completely out-of-touch with the will of the American People. That's why you're losing now, and it's why you're going to surrender Congress in November.

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
[McCain] has been voted and backed by "conservative voters" for years. You call McCain a liberal and yet conservatives have continued to rally behind him and keep him in his seat.

John McCain was at one time, long ago, a "conservative" — maybe back in the 1980s. Anyone who knows his politics knows that John McCain has been a "moderate," at best, for the last 15 years, and a shameless turncoat to liberal values in the last 5 years. Ask any true conservative, and he'll quickly tell you that McCain no more represents "conservative" values than did Ted Kennedy (God forgive his corrupt heart).

McCain was one of the sorry bastards who took Kennedy's "Immigration Reform" floorshow on the road, telling the American public that "the Senate knows best" when it comes to such controversial reforms. As you probably don't recall, "Immigration Reform" was beaten by public outcry against the unconstitutional legislation. It was the beginning of the Tea Party Era, which has hindered and hampered your Liberal Congress, and it has precipitated the downfall of your political party.

I won't be at all surprised when McCain is kicked out on his ass along with the rest of the flip-flopping Lefties in Congress. Oh, that'll be a great day, I can tell you.

— Doc Velocity

Come off of it, Doc. The Republican party was FOUNDED as a progressive party, and ran progressive trust busters just a century ago. Don't try to pose as though your idea of "conservative" is the gospel. History is much bigger than that. But let's go further back: who's "conservative", the Red coats or the Revolutionaries? The Slavers or the Antis? The Monopolists or the Progressives?

You seek refuge in too narrow a slice of time. Why?

Originally posted by gl2
Now that bipartisanship can't be ignored, a story: Teddy Roosevelt, a Republican in the age of Republican trust-busters (not groveling rump-kissers) was once giving a speech when an assassin lurched forward and fired a shot into Teddy's upper chest/shoulder. A veteran of combat, Teddy knew it wasn't mortal so he continued to give 30 minutes more of his speech before attending to the wound.

The story is better than that.

Teddy Roosevelt was shot at relatively close range with a relatively low-powered handgun (a .38 revolver). The would-be assassin was thwarted by a bystander at the last moment, his shot missed Roosevelt's head and hit the President in the right chest. Teddy didn't even know he was hit.

The bullet passed through Roosevelt's steel glasses case and penetrated the 50-page speech he had tucked in his jacket before traveling 3" into his chest.

Roosevelt went ahead and gave his campaign speech, concluded his address, then started handing out the bullet-torn, bloody pages of the speech as souvenirs to people in the crowd. How much do you think that would be worth on Ebay, hmm?

The true lesson of the story is: Keep campaigning, even if you're shot in the thorax, and do not trust your doctor. Roosevelt lost the 1912 election because he curtailed his campaign early on doctor's recommendation.

— Doc Velocity

Originally posted by gl2
You seek refuge in too narrow a slice of time. Why?

For one thing, I'm not a Republican. You assume too much. I recognize black-hearted bastards by their ideologies, not their political parties. I define Conservative as: One who learns the lessons of history and does not repeat its mistakes. I define Liberal as: One who makes the mistakes, then blames anyone but himself.

In that respect, my personal political leaning is timeless.

— Doc Velocity

reply to post by Stormdancer777


No, they can't hear you and they don't care either. The U.S. and Congress are NOT part of America as you know it. What don't you people get, congress does NOTHING FOR the people, they are to regulate commerce and foreign affairs ONLY, and between the States. THEY HAVE NO SAY over you or I, period, end of story. It does not matter WHAT bill or law they pass, it can NOT be applied to you or I, it's that simple. When we learn this to be true and we put them in their place and stop being so blind and stupid, THEN we will get control of our country. Understand WHAT you are and WHO you are. You are NOT a U.S. citizen but an AMERICAN Citizen, a Human Being and NOT a corporate "person", please understand and comprehend this. THIS is the conspiracy, you all "believe" the government wants to take care of you. Of course they do, YOU ARE A SLAVE FOR THEM!! Turn it around already, you are a slave only if YOU choose to be. STOP being so niave.

Lol, funny how these things work out.

Neither is ready for office.

Originally posted by Stormdancer777
reply to post by Styki

 

America is not waking up to anything. There is nothing to wake up to except for the fact that our political system is broken.

I think you are wrong,

Regarding negative press, truth is truth, whether negative or positive,

I watched what the press did to Palin, now that was evil.

No, what the McCain team said about Palin was evil. They were on the same team and they pretty much said it all after the election. I voted for Obama and I thought what was leaked publicly was wrong.

I think I have said enough about that.

Further more, did anybody think she was ready for the position she was running for? Really, anybody at all? Or, McCain just trying to pick up the female vote that the Dems lost from picking Obama over Clinton?

[edit on 20-1-2010 by Styki]

This is a small victory for conservatives.

However, the health care bill has been brought up many times over the years. This is not the last time a health care reform will be brought up. This is only first major time that something has been discussed. Most other industrialized nations in the world already have systems such as this one.

Health care is a human rights issue. Every human should have the right to the same medical treatments as the next. I have discussed this with a conservative friend of mine and just like every other human rights issue the battle has already been won; it's only a matter of time. America will have a nationalized health care system at some point in time. It's simply the right thing to do. Even if you do not support the issue everyone here knows deep down that it's going to happen. Just like gay couples will have the right to marry. It's only a matter of time. If you are fighting the cause then you a fighting a losing battle.

Not only is it a matter of time till these issues are passed into policy; at some point in time everybody who fought against them will be seen as intolerant. Mark my words I am telling you the truth. It may take years, but it's going to happen.

You may have won the battle but you have not won the war. This story has already been written.