Bayh refuses to name anonymous members of his new Blue-Dog style coalition.
Bayh refuses to name anonymous members of his new Blue-Dog style coalition.
This morning on MSNBC’s Morning Joe, Sen. Evan Bayh (D-IN) officially announced the creation of his new Blue-Dog style coalition of approximately 15 “moderate” Democratic senators. As Roll Call explained last week, members of the group “acknowledge that they are seeking to restrain the influence of party liberals.” During his announcement, host Joe Scarborough asked Bayh who is in the new coalition. Bayh said that while a press release on the group’s creation included the names of 12 senators, there are “three or four” who don’t want to be identified:
SCARBOROUGH: This is great! Can you tell us who’s in it?
BAYH: Well there are about 12 of us on the press release and then there are three or four who we are putting in the witness protection program, who attend our meetings but don’t want to be publicly identified yet.
Watch it:
Explaining the likely rational for senators not wanting to be publicly associated with Bayh’s new group, Matt Yglesias writes, “After all, Barack Obama is popular! And his agenda is popular! So if you choose to oppose it, you might face political problems. So better to keep the sabotage secret.”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Democrats
In
Name
Only
s
i.e., traitors
March 18th, 2009 at 11:39 amEven IF Obama had the best of intentions (which is disputable, under the BEST circumstances), the Conservo-Tard/DINOs–even if Bayh won’t name ‘em, we know who they are–will fcuk us in the names of their Bidness/CorpoRat paymasters.
The game is up, friends. The only question now is how LOUD to play the “TeDeum.” Cuz all our asses belong to Gawd…
March 18th, 2009 at 11:42 am.
Of course (R)ushpublickin’s aren’t the only “OBSTRUCTIONISTS”
.
March 18th, 2009 at 11:47 amAnd this guy was on Obama’s short list. What a wanker.
http://www.pufferfishblog.com/
March 18th, 2009 at 11:47 amThis has been the problem for the Democrats since time immemorial. Their OWN.
Republicans march in lockstep. But–they march in lockstep right off cliffs, as can be verified by the last two months of their idiocy.
Democrats actually stop and THINK, even Democratic politicians. And there is something to be said about pulling a party to the right on certain issues, even if I don’t agree with them. Mistakes are rarely fatal.
But I sometimes wish we had the opposite problem–that D.C. was being pulled too far to the LEFT. We are not there yet. But the Left has too much to offer this country, and before we’re done, Mitch McConnell, it WILL LOOK MORE LIKE EUROPE than you would like…
And that’s the best thing we could possibly hope for.
March 18th, 2009 at 11:49 amBAYH:
“…there are three or four who we are putting in the witness protection program, who attend our meetings…”
So are these meetings that are being held by this self-serving group of blue dogs being funded by taxpayer money? The taxpayers who elected Obama and an overwhelming number of Dems to bring change to our broken healthcare system, tax system, defense spending and oil dependence? Mr. Bayh and his little shadow government should be very careful. The American populace is very much behind President Obama’s vision of where America should be heading. If this pack of DINOs thinks that obstructing progress is going to help their political future maybe they should pay some attention to how the Republican Party is fairing as of late. Will Senator Bayh invite Rush Limbaugh to speak at their next meeting?
March 18th, 2009 at 11:50 amA**hole.
March 18th, 2009 at 11:50 amHey, Biden is too much of a hawk for my tastes. He is very similar to Bayh, except possibly on social issues, which Biden is about 80% in agreement with me on.
Bayh is from a very conservative state. So is McCaskill. I’m not so worried about what they SAY they are as HOW THEY VOTE in the final tally.
If only the Democrats had a Green Dog coalition…hey, you liberal think tanks, what about it?
March 18th, 2009 at 11:52 amBuh-bye, Bayh.
We need more Blue Dogs like we need Bush & Cheney back.
What will you name your group; Yellow Dogs?
March 18th, 2009 at 11:53 amSince rethugs are eating their own, I guess blue dog Democrats feel the need to disrupt the party instead of trying to work together for the good of the country. Since repugs can’t do it at this time, Bayh and his cohorts will fill in the void.
March 18th, 2009 at 11:55 amThese people are idiots…isn’t Obama a moderate ??? Where were they when Bush was in office?
March 18th, 2009 at 11:56 amshawnfassett, They were voting with bush.
March 18th, 2009 at 11:56 amDaddy-O makes a great point. I’m all for varying factions within the halls of Congress. There should be open debate on differing views. But to secretly be a part of a coalition is spineless.
Let’s have a green dog coalition join the ranks of the blue dogs and the Black Caucus and the others. Just stand in the light and let your true colors show instead of this shadowy spineless secrecy.
March 18th, 2009 at 11:56 amThese “blue dog democrats” remain anonymous because they know they are wrong. Come on out and show yourselves – hypocrites!
March 18th, 2009 at 11:56 am.
I smell Limbaugh on Evan’s breath…
.
March 18th, 2009 at 12:01 pmI don’t think they know they are wrong, just trying to test the political winds before standing out in the open. This type of politician reeks of slime and fungus. The Blue dogs will appear to be obstructionists and will be outed by others in congress if they try to flex some muscle.
Not a wise move on these 3 or 4 members but then again nobody can accuse members of congress of having courage and wisdom.
March 18th, 2009 at 12:01 pmHere is something for them to think about:
If Joe Scarborough is l1cking your cracks, you are not doing something right. You are going the way of the loser party.
March 18th, 2009 at 12:01 pmBAYH: Well there are about 12 of us on the press release and then there are three or four who we are putting in the witness protection program, who attend our meetings but don’t want to be publicly identified yet.
___________
Wouldn’t that be the WITLESS protection program, Evan?
March 18th, 2009 at 12:08 pmDINO’s is the party that will replace the repugs.
March 18th, 2009 at 12:13 pm.
Bahy reminds me of our resident trolls…
… They hide in secret, looking for opportunities to “score” a derailing point in the conversation.
.
March 18th, 2009 at 12:17 pmThe mighty Casey is 3 & 2.
March 18th, 2009 at 12:18 pmThe 23%ers will NEVER vote for anyone with a “D” behind their name — not even a “Bleu Dawg”. So, no votes there. A lot of voters are MUCH more attentive than ever before, so this plan will backfire on these secret-meeting shadow party politicians. And the cowards who attend the meetings but don’t want to be named are the worst of them.
Secret meetings… unidentified members…. secret agendas couched in generalized and almost meaningless terminology… stated primary purpose is to interfere with another’s liberty…. this sounds vaguely familiar, and ominously sinister…..
These Blue Dawgs Blow Dog.
March 18th, 2009 at 12:18 pmmakete Says:
——————————————————————————–
DINO’s is the party that will replace the repugs.
Except they will have to wear mask to protect their secret identities.
March 18th, 2009 at 12:19 pmNew England Indy Says:
DINO’s is the party that will replace the repugs.
Except they will have to wear mask to protect their secret identities.
No masks. Just pointy hoods.
March 18th, 2009 at 12:20 pmAttention seekers
March 18th, 2009 at 12:21 pmNote the value of swing states
Control at all costs
That’s great. We’ve seen how well secrecy and deception has worked for the country over the last 8 years. I wonder if Dick Cheney is going to their meetings?
Feh.
March 18th, 2009 at 12:21 pmOh, and it is just great to hear that there is a secret splinter party that exists for the purpose of obstructing the popular (i.e. people’s) agenda.
All you blue doggies have just joined the obstructionist party of ‘no’.
Now, fade away into irrelavance please.
March 18th, 2009 at 12:22 pmOdds are these ’secret meetings’ will be discovered, these legislators identified, and they’ll not only need to deal with their constituents, but also the party apparatus. The latter probably not a problem. We’ll see how successful this ‘coalition’ is once they are seen in the light of day.
March 18th, 2009 at 12:23 pmThe 3 or 4 should step up to the plate.
What it does suggest that there is kind of a Joe McCarthy atmosphere of trying to squelch opposition to the new agenda.
It’s evident in this thread:
Is it treacherous to oppose the agenda?
March 18th, 2009 at 12:25 pmBayh wants to start a blue dog style coalition..Why not just join the blue dogs?
March 18th, 2009 at 12:26 pmAre they not radical enough for ya Bayh?
The fly over part of America has some really reichwingnut people in it. I moved back to TX from CA after twenty years and it is really a cultural shock. These people are angry, ill-informed, and obstinate. The Blow Dogs are from that part of the country.
March 18th, 2009 at 12:27 pmcanine—Being the cousins of House Blue Dogs, would’t his group all be SONS-A-B*TCHES??
March 18th, 2009 at 12:28 pmAm I seeing the words dog & style in the same sentence?
March 18th, 2009 at 12:28 pmNo biggie. Let these guys do what they’re doing. As was already pointed out – it’s how they vote, not how they talk about it. If it keeps them in their red-state seats, fine. Better they than them.
Let the whole thing stand as proof D’s don’t operate like R’s.
Remember that next time someone tries to tell you “they’re all the same”.
March 18th, 2009 at 12:28 pmWhat’s wrong? Dissension in the ranks?
March 18th, 2009 at 12:31 pmObama is a moderate, but the DINOs aren’t satisfied. Obama has reached out to DINOS as well as repugs in filling his administration and making policy. That is obviously not enough. Rather than work with him, they seek to undermine him.
March 18th, 2009 at 12:34 pmThis man like the rest are not Democrats. They are all like Joe Liberman. Closet Republicans. They do not like the term liberal because of 25 yrs of Reagan to Bush slashing away at anyone perceived as too liberal or those who state out right that they are.
And just what has being a COMPASSIONATE, CONSERVATIVE come to mean? Obstruction, crime, illegal war, destruction of our financial system, and worse the shredding of the Constitution.
By all means, lets not say liberal. There is something Obama misjudged, the character of some in his own party. And the lack of character in the other party. But they do have one thing in common. Stated or not, they are all Republicans.
The so called Blue Dogs will make Obamas job even harder. They wait and salivate with the thought of what they can gain. What kind of power and leverage. They don’t care about what happens with the coming in-fighting. They won’t care about the lack of cohesion while Obama tries to save what THE REPUBLICANS SCREWED UP. These Republicans in waiting are going to be no different from the admitted Republicans.
This is a power grab. A greedy self serving power grab.
March 18th, 2009 at 12:35 pmOr they don’t agree with what Obama and their fellow Dems are doing. Free thinkers.
March 18th, 2009 at 12:39 pmand @ 37 we have the one sure result of all this carping and hand-wringing over whether the D’s are homogenous enough (kind of a stupid thing to wish for, dontcha think?) – some smartass troll insinuating sh*t, and using what you people have said to prove his point.
heckuva job, lefties. you’re accomplishing the very thing you fear these “blue dogs” will.
take a little pride in standing up for a party that doesn’t need absolute fealty to exist and succeed. a party that can tolerate and benefit from differing opinions. a party that, unlike the R party, has not been losing members and seats due to a hardcore ideological agenda.
we shouldn’t insist that every D in office call HQ every day to get marching orders on what to say and what color tie to wear. only the R’s need that kind of top-down authoritarian dictation in order to function. we don’t, and we shouldn’t.
March 18th, 2009 at 12:43 pmIt’s one thing to just vote the way they want but to announce that their goal is to undermine progressive agendas makes me believe that there is some politicing going on.
March 18th, 2009 at 12:43 pmMaybe, say, a push to unseat Pelosi?
I just heard Chris Matthews say that Bayh and his group are doing nothing more than trying to save their asses in the 2010 elections. It is not about country, it is purely political. By taking up a position to “look and see” Bayh and buddies can play the middle ground. This way no matter what happens with AIG or the economy Bayh can say he had nothing to do with it OR everything to do with it.
I don’t believe in lock step thinking BUT it would be nice, FOR ONCE, to have Democrats support each other.
March 18th, 2009 at 12:43 pmOr they are free thinkers who disagree with the way things are being handled. Geithner for one?
March 18th, 2009 at 12:44 pmrepublicans hate facts Says:
jay Says:
Or they are free thinkers who disagree with the way things are being handled. Geithner for one?
Democrats as a rule are ALMOST ALL FREE THINKERS as opposed to YOU my little one! ;) Free thinkers don’t need to form OPPOSITION GROUPS to DISRUPT UNITY for the SAKE OF IT. That’s what REPUBLICANS DO! ;)
Not my problem sockpuppet. They are your people. Not mine. Make them march in lockstep.
March 18th, 2009 at 12:48 pmjay Says:
Or they are free thinkers who disagree with the way things are being handled.
____________
Of course, one could always wonder where these “principled free thinkers” were hiding whilst BotchCo was busy destroying the country over the last 8 years.
Anybody have any ideas?
March 18th, 2009 at 12:49 pmYa. Where were they? Hiding then also. You guys whip them into shape and make them march in lockstep. Teach them how to get those boots high in the air. You can do it.
March 18th, 2009 at 12:52 pmjay Says:
Or they are free thinkers who disagree with the way things are being handled.
No. They are idiots who think that things like slashing funding for education in the midst of an economic crisis is a Serious centrist position (Nelson). This isnt about principled opposition in ones party, or putting forward valid alternatives, it is sabotage for personal gain.
March 18th, 2009 at 12:53 pmjay Says:
Ya. Where were they? Hiding then also. You guys whip them into shape and make them march in lockstep.
____________
You seem to be obsessed w/ lockstepping… project much?
March 18th, 2009 at 12:54 pmDru P. Says:
jay Says:
Or they are free thinkers who disagree with the way things are being handled.
No. They are idiots who think that things like slashing funding for education in the midst of an economic crisis is a Serious centrist position (Nelson). This isnt about principled opposition in ones party, or putting forward valid alternatives, it is sabotage for personal gain.
Your people not mine. Of course they are idiots in your mind. They think for themselves. Hunt them down and do away with them. Better hurry.
March 18th, 2009 at 12:55 pmHmmm… didn’t the GOOP just vote 188-0 against the stimulus?
Somehow, that seems like the VERY DEFINITION of lockstepping…
Dunnit, Jay?
March 18th, 2009 at 12:56 pmSpare us. There is more diversity of though between ANY 5 Democrats than there is between the 250 Republicans in the Congress. Bayh and Co. would be worth listening to if they hadn’t been so wrong over the past 8 years.
March 18th, 2009 at 12:56 pmSo what about that 188-0 vote, Jay?
Lockstepping or not?
March 18th, 2009 at 12:57 pmYou seem to be obsessed w/ lockstepping… project much?
Typical response from you. I don’t mind. You deal in insults.
That’s what you do here.
March 18th, 2009 at 12:58 pmtombaker. you get this.
March 18th, 2009 at 12:58 pmThe Republic of Stupidity Says:
So what about that 188-0 vote, Jay?
Lockstepping or not?
You mean “Unity” right?
March 18th, 2009 at 12:59 pmjay Says:
Typical response from you. I don’t mind. You deal in insults.
That’s what you do here.
__________
And like you don’t? You gotta be kidding.
March 18th, 2009 at 1:01 pmThe Republic of Stupidity Says:
jay Says:
Typical response from you. I don’t mind. You deal in insults.
That’s what you do here.
__________
And like you don’t? You gotta be kidding.
Not lately. How about you?
March 18th, 2009 at 1:02 pmYeah, ‘unity’
March 18th, 2009 at 1:03 pmjay Says:
Lockstepping or not?
You mean “Unity” right?
_________
Again… you’re kidding, right?
So some people here complain about those Blue Dogs, and you immediately claim they want them in “lockstep”… BUT the GOOP forms an incredibly rigid ideological block, a 188-0 vote, including bullying some recalcitrant party memebers into their proper place, and to you… that constitutes “unity”, and not “lockstepping”…
Yer funny… but not in a good way.
March 18th, 2009 at 1:04 pmYeah.
March 18th, 2009 at 1:05 pmJay Says:
Not lately. How about you?
________
Ya. Where were they? Hiding then also. You guys whip them into shape and make them march in lockstep. Teach them how to get those boots high in the air. You can do it.
_________
So this kind of labeling on your part ISN’T an insult? You are kidding, right?
March 18th, 2009 at 1:06 pmAs usual, adult discussion flies out the door with a troll here who writes a sarcastic one-liner with no contribution to debate, and then he cries about insults at ThinkProgress. No substance, all troll. Jay’s as irrelevant as his party. Swat him away.
March 18th, 2009 at 1:08 pmThe Republic of Stupidity Says:
jay Says:
Lockstepping or not?
You mean “Unity” right?
_________
Again… you’re kidding, right?
So some people here complain about those Blue Dogs, and you immediately claim they want them in “lockstep”… BUT the GOOP forms an incredibly rigid ideological block, a 188-0 vote, including bullying some recalcitrant party memebers into their proper place, and to you… that constitutes “unity”, and not “lockstepping”…
Yer funny… but not in a good way.
Hey, except for a few people in the Senate, we are pretty much unified. Nothings perfect. You, however, make a big deal of a few who disagree with the policies they see and choose to not be followers. Your problem, not mine.
March 18th, 2009 at 1:09 pmTo anyone with the intellectual acuity greater than that of a particularly stupid shell-fish, it has been obvious since the campaigning started more than a year ago that no “Dim” would ever actually be able to govern from anywhere left of Citibank/Exxon…
Obama’s ‘promises’ were only ever worth the paper they were printed on.
The corpoRat co-optation of the country is complete. The government of the people, by the elites, for the oligarchs is ‘fait accompli’ and has been for at least the last 15 years.
We all here are just spinning our wheels, flapping our fingertips, howling at the wind. Any “change” is gonna be for the worse. There’s is nothing anybody can or will to readjust the balance of power. Obama’s just a scape-goat and place-holder, set there to deflect the blame for the national collapse away from the real villains, who can now stand back and await the collapse of Obama & the Dims in wreckage of the Bushevik putsch, biding their time til ‘12, when they can recover control over the Army and proceed with the Rightard Reactionary Revolt, unmolested by a discredited Dim ‘party’.
March 18th, 2009 at 1:09 pmJay,
You have mistakenly landed here. I think you mean to be here. That’s where all your Rushbot buddies are.
Pathetic looser.
March 18th, 2009 at 1:10 pmRealness Says:
As usual, adult discussion flies out the door with a troll here who writes a sarcastic one-liner with no contribution to debate, and then he cries about insults at ThinkProgress. No substance, all troll. Jay’s as irrelevant as his party. Swat him away.
Your contribution is off topic yet I’m the troll. Nice debate on your part. I didn’t insult anyone here, how about you?
Now back to the discussion. There are some free thinkers in the Dem party. How are you going to squash them? That’s the topic of discussion when I got here.
March 18th, 2009 at 1:13 pmRandomChaos Says:
Jay,
You have mistakenly landed here. I think you mean to be here. That’s where all your Rushbot buddies are.
Pathetic looser.
I didn’t mistakenly land anywhere. I’m a member here and have been one for quite some time. More name calling and no discussion. Next!
March 18th, 2009 at 1:14 pmTokin,
on one hand I agree when I’m feeling most frustrated, but I will say that an incrimentalist approach has happened. It could be argued that the U.S. was just as corporate-interested in the 60’s, but there was a lot of grassroots energy that really forced the politics leftward. I think it can happen, I think it’s a different complicated field now, I agree, but there’s also lots of new means to organize as well.
I also think there is something to be said about harnessing the ‘populist’ outrage that this country feels right now, and we can see it a little with the AIG business.
March 18th, 2009 at 1:17 pmjay Says:
Hey, except for a few people in the Senate, we are pretty much unified. Nothings perfect. You, however, make a big deal of a few who disagree with the policies they see and choose to not be followers. Your problem, not mine.
___________
Actaully, I personally DIDN’T make a big deal of it.
YOU DID, by posting the comments you did, and using it as an excuse to start labeling and condemning people here.
THAT is YOUR problem, but you appear to be in denial about what your own behavior says about you.
Let’s go back to this “lockstep” nonsense, again, shall we?
Are you actually trying to claim, w/ a straight face, that a 188-0 vote on the part of the House GOOPers, including bullying stray members back into place, is NOT ‘lockstepping” and ideological rigidity?
A complete ONE HUNDRED percent stance… not a single GOOPer voting outside the fold?
And that’s NOT lockstepping?
March 18th, 2009 at 1:18 pmRealness Says:
Oh no, Realness, we’re just going to keep passing Jay more ammo by acting as the recalcitrant and juvenile backseat drivers with unrealistic expectations.
All the cool kids know that self-righteous pessimism is the way to get some real progress made….too bad we didn’t all waste our votes on Ralph Nader again – that would’ve really shown them who’s who.
March 18th, 2009 at 1:18 pmIn the meantime, Jay can continue convincing himself that less democracy and more uniformity are the keys to success, and that D’s are “crazy” if they don’t operate the way R’s do (never mind that R’s have been losing in every measurable way for the last few years in spite of their “discipline”).
what a total threadwreck.
March 18th, 2009 at 1:22 pmThere are some free thinkers in the Dem party. How are you going to squash them? That’s the topic of discussion when I got here.
March 18th, 2009 at 1:13 pm
Wrong.
There are no ‘free-thinkers’ in the hierarchies of either ‘party.’ The closest to such a thing might be Dennis Kucenich. Or Ron Paul.
Neither of whom has any influence, power, or authority; nor will they EVER have any. Th country’s owners are positioned to ensure, with absolute certainty, that NO ONE who bears the SLIGHTEST animus against the CorpoRat status quo can, may, or ever will exert ANY power if it interferes with their power and profit.
March 18th, 2009 at 1:24 pmjay the sock puppet
March 18th, 2009 at 1:25 pmposts under many names
but the lack of substance is the same
Yikes, Tom! I didn’t mean to imply self-righteous pessimism, as much as frustration with the troll who detracts from what I really like about these threads. sheesh. and as for the 2nd paragraph… misdirected and a little wildly swinging.
March 18th, 2009 at 1:26 pmJay spews: I am a member.
Yippee for you sonny. Your still a Troll.
NEXT!
March 18th, 2009 at 1:26 pm#
The Republic of Stupidity Says:
jay Says:
Hey, except for a few people in the Senate, we are pretty much unified. Nothings perfect. You, however, make a big deal of a few who disagree with the policies they see and choose to not be followers. Your problem, not mine.
___________
Actaully, I personally DIDN’T make a big deal of it.
YOU DID, by posting the comments you did, and using it as an excuse to start labeling and condemning people here.
Not an excuse, just joining in the discussion.
THAT is YOUR problem, but you appear to be in denial about what your own behavior says about you.
Let’s go back to this “lockstep” nonsense, again, shall we?
If you insist. A term used most affectionately by Liberals here when referring to Conservatives
Are you actually trying to claim, w/ a straight face, that a 188-0 vote on the part of the House GOOPers, including bullying stray members back into place, is NOT ‘lockstepping” and ideological rigidity?
I don’t really care. You call it “Lockstepping” we call it unity.
A complete ONE HUNDRED percent stance… not a single GOOPer voting outside the fold?
And that’s NOT lockstepping?
March 18th, 2009 at 1:27 pmYou call it “Lockstepping” we call it unity.
or whatever, I could be the sensitive one this morning. i am a little hungover…
March 18th, 2009 at 1:28 pmif we were all just as ideologically pure as Mr. Tokin, we wouldn’t have to worry about politics at all – we could just sit around couting down the days to inevitable apocalypse, smugly satisfied that we knew it was coming all along (just like those Left-Behind folks wait for their rapture)
March 18th, 2009 at 1:28 pmThe Nazi party had UNITY.
March 18th, 2009 at 1:28 pmCageyCretin Says:
jay the sock puppet
posts under many names
but the lack of substance is the same
I Only have one name and it’s really mine unlike “CageyCretan”. Who named you that, your mother or your father. Right! I’m the sock.
You’re way off topic. Cretin.
March 18th, 2009 at 1:31 pmRealness – I wasn’t putting that on you, I was snarking at the handwringers who see a problem with having more than 1 point of view within the D party.
March 18th, 2009 at 1:31 pmah i see. so i officially blame my hungover-ness :)
March 18th, 2009 at 1:31 pmCageyCretin Says:
The Nazi party had UNITY.
Not really. A Party doesn’t make up the People. How long have you been in the party?
March 18th, 2009 at 1:32 pmLet’s leave “Purity Balls” to the Righties, and celebrate the fact we’ve got a genuinely diverse organization.
That shouldn’t be too hard to do, and it’s certainly better than loading righties’ guns for them.
March 18th, 2009 at 1:34 pmHaving multiple viewpoints within the party is a good thing.
March 18th, 2009 at 1:34 pmKeeping them secret for political purposes is not.
tombaker Says:
Realness – I wasn’t putting that on you, I was snarking at the handwringers who see a problem with having more than 1 point of view within the D party.
So, so true “tombaker”. Agreed.
March 18th, 2009 at 1:34 pmThe secrecy part is silly and unnecessary, but it doesn’t rise to the level of some high crime against anyone.
March 18th, 2009 at 1:37 pmtombaker Says:
The secrecy part is silly and unnecessary, but it doesn’t rise to the level of some high crime against anyone.
The secrecy part is what is most important. That is why we have a secret ballot in this country. Look at the attacks made here on their own members of the party buy members of that party. If you want to know who these people are all you need do is to look at their voting records. Those votes are public record.
March 18th, 2009 at 1:41 pmTombaker,
March 18th, 2009 at 1:41 pmI do not think it is a crime, just bad for the people that are supposed to be openly and honestly represented. That’s all I meant.
Agreed Tom and RandomChaos. I think everyone feels pretty strongly about their own personal political/ideological views here, especially in regards to the Democratic Party, but the alternative that we see across the aisle is creepy and really not very in line with a democratic country.
Maybe we’ll just to have see some progress as slow because the Democratic Party refuses to force everyone into strict ideology. Strength or weakness? I’ve never been a fan of the 2 party system, so maybe another reason we should be trying to bolster up 3rd parties.
March 18th, 2009 at 1:41 pmjay Says:
What’s wrong? Dissension in the ranks?
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Its an old problem. Those on the left LIKE thinking for ourselves. The old political sayings are that getting progressives together for anything is like herding cats and if you have two liberals in a room you have at least three opinions.
March 18th, 2009 at 1:46 pmIn this, Bayh shows he has a really twisted idea of what Democracy is. They can hardly ‘represent us’ if we can’t tell what they are actually doing. I don’t live in Indiana, but if I did, this would make it hard for me to vote for him.
It would be nice if he faced ‘political problems’ for this position alone. He is not living up to the ideals of our form of government.
March 18th, 2009 at 1:47 pmjay Says:
I Only have one name and it’s really mine
Says the anonymous blogger on an anonymous blog.
And I care because?….
March 18th, 2009 at 1:48 pmjay Says:
Not my problem sockpuppet. They are your people. Not mine. Make them march in lockstep.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Not the way WE work. Dissenting opinions are allowed as rational principled disagreements. We are not the party of dittoheads.
March 18th, 2009 at 1:49 pmRealness Says:
Agreed Tom and RandomChaos. I think everyone feels pretty strongly about their own personal political/ideological views here, especially in regards to the Democratic Party, but the alternative that we see across the aisle is creepy and really not very in line with a democratic country.
I wouldn’t expect you to feel any other way “Realness”.
This is a Democratic country but not everyone is a Democrat. The Democratic party is in the minority when you consider all the other parties in this country. Neither is the Republican party.
March 18th, 2009 at 1:49 pmReally, maybe we wouldn’t be having a lot of the usual Democratic problems if there was more diversity of political parties. I personally don’t identify as a moderate, feel uncomfortable with the political machine/corporate campaign contribution BS, and like a lot of people on here, feel stifled by the appeasing to these moderates. If the goading were coming from 3rd parties, and not within the parties, how would this change the landscape?
on the other hand the more progressive ‘liberal’ side of the party might find more resources within the Democratic political machine. I don’t know, I find the watered down results pretty frustrating, though.
March 18th, 2009 at 1:50 pmjay Says:
CageyCretin Says:
The Nazi party had UNITY.
Not really.
Yes, really.
A Party doesn’t make up the People.
What is your point? A party is independent of the people? Do you suggest that a political party exists outside of people? Are you suggesting “party personhood”?
March 18th, 2009 at 1:51 pmjay Says:
Your people not mine. Of course they are idiots in your mind. They think for themselves. Hunt them down and do away with them. Better hurry.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You just cant help being an ignorant jerk and troll can you? That isnt out style. Jackboots dont fit OUR feet they are more the RIGHTs style.
March 18th, 2009 at 1:51 pmEvan Bayh needs to Go!!!!
The last couple of times he’s been up for election I’ve voted straight ticket Democrat, but gone back and switched one vote from Bayh, to whatever third-party candidate was least objectionable.
But not voting for him is no longer enough. We need to find a really good primary opponent for him and get him out of the Senate once and for all.
March 18th, 2009 at 1:53 pmEugeneDebs Says:
jay Says:
Not my problem sockpuppet. They are your people. Not mine. Make them march in lockstep.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Not the way WE work. Dissenting opinions are allowed as rational principled disagreements. We are not the party of dittoheads.
Then why are there so many ridiculous comments on this subject here? Read the posts #1-34. Until I came here your fellow Dems were ripping a few people in the party, who don’t vote the party line 100%, to no end.
March 18th, 2009 at 1:54 pmI’d like to see another party or parties get going, but I’ve been scanning the horizon for a long time, and don’t see any ships on it. For now, it’s got to be the D’s – the R’s are too deeply mired in the Frankensteinian morass they’ve patched together to just-barely-win elections over the last couple of decades. Their unnatural coalition of Plutocrats, Militarists, and Fundamentalists is going to pieces on them, and it’s going to be a long time before they cobble another together.
Gotta make hay while the sun shines, get what we can back on track, and hope that the positive results are enough to convince voters it’s worth sticking to.
I’ve been long convinced there are a bunch of erstwhile righties out there who, were they to have the circumstances of their lives improve appreciably, would wander quietly away from the AM radios and the R pols, and pursue what they want from life, rather than getting all pissed-off and mobbed-up the way they have since back in the ’90’s.
March 18th, 2009 at 1:55 pmjay Says:
This is a Democratic country
Hmmm.. this is a republic that operates along democratic lines, but this country is not a pure democracy.
March 18th, 2009 at 1:55 pmjay Says:
YOU are a lair and a fool and a worthless troll
Your contribution is off topic yet I’m the troll. Nice debate on your part. I didn’t insult anyone here, how about you?
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
No it wasnt that was your braindead interpretation of them based on your weak mind and projection. Those ARENT the droids you are looking for works only on you wingnuts
March 18th, 2009 at 1:56 pmEugeneDebs Says:
jay Says:
Your people not mine. Of course they are idiots in your mind. They think for themselves. Hunt them down and do away with them. Better hurry.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You just cant help being an ignorant jerk and troll can you? That isnt out style. Jackboots dont fit OUR feet they are more the RIGHTs style.
That’s not what I read in the first 34 posts here. Nice name calling, but that’s who you are, right?
March 18th, 2009 at 1:56 pmCageyCretin Says:
jay Says:
This is a Democratic country
Hmmm.. this is a republic that operates along democratic lines, but this country is not a pure democracy.
Agreed.
March 18th, 2009 at 1:58 pmIt would be great if we could replace people like Bayh and Nelson and so on, but think about the States they’re from – does anyone really believe we can just run right into those states and plug in whatever brand of D we prefer?
Until there is are serious D challengers to these guys, challengers who can actually win in a general, there is nothing to gain and everything to lose by busting their balls over the details.
March 18th, 2009 at 1:58 pmwoops – excuse my edit…
March 18th, 2009 at 2:00 pmjay Says:
Not the way WE work. Dissenting opinions are allowed as rational principled disagreements. We are not the party of dittoheads.
Then why are there so many ridiculous comments on this subject here? Read the posts #1-34. Until I came here your fellow Dems were ripping a few people in the party, who don’t vote the party line 100%, to no end.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
And you think this is contradictory to my point HOW? We disagree. I most likely agree with them 70% of the time and we disagree on this just the way Bahy is saying he is going to disagree with Obama. We dont DO ideological purity
March 18th, 2009 at 2:00 pm#
#
EugeneDebs Says:
Jay says
Your contribution is off topic yet I’m the troll. Nice debate on your part. I didn’t insult anyone here, how about you?
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
No it wasnt that was your braindead interpretation of them based on your weak mind and projection. Those ARENT the droids you are looking for works only on you wingnuts
You make my point eugene.. Almost Every time you post.
March 18th, 2009 at 2:00 pmHe’s all haircut
March 18th, 2009 at 2:02 pmJay,
it’s been said a million times, but here it is again: this is a progressive blog. It’s obviously for the left-leaning part of the Democratic party, even 3rd party people. It doesn’t identify as a blog for the Democratic party. It’s simplistic to think as much, and worse to even start judging people in this thread because of that faulty premise. People discuss, vent their frustrations, etc. People come here all the time looking and ready to judge people on here as THE Democratic Party, to prove their own pre-judgments about THE entire Democratic Party. that’s just kind of blog communities shake out.
March 18th, 2009 at 2:02 pmjay Says:
That’s not what I read in the first 34 posts here. Nice name calling, but that’s who you are, right?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Yes it is. Exactly what you read. Two different groups of lefties disagreeing. I guess and being a moron and a troll who drips contempt from his every post PRETENDING he is being honest, and adding to discussion is who you are. We have been over this before you can try all you want to push your I am a nice guy who just blithely insinuates you are all Nazis but that wont work on us. We just arent as bone ignorant as you are.
March 18th, 2009 at 2:03 pmjay Says:
EugeneDebs Says:
jay Says:
Not my problem sockpuppet. They are your people. Not mine. Make them march in lockstep.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Not the way WE work. Dissenting opinions are allowed as rational principled disagreements. We are not the party of dittoheads.
Then why are there so many ridiculous comments on this subject here? Read the posts #1-34. Until I came here your fellow Dems were ripping a few people in the party, who don’t vote the party line 100%, to no end.
And that is part of ‘progressive’ or ‘liberal’ concepts of open dialogue and dissenting opinion — those who don’t agree have the right to disagree. The issue with this secret coalition is that it is secret — by elected officials who are supposed to be doing the work of the people. it is impossible to know what these politicians are doing when they do it in secret. And those that are afraid of being identified are obviously doing something that they are afraid of making public. Now, why is that?
The politicians — elected officials sworn to do the business of “we the people” — have no business having secret meetings with secet agendas — they have public vehicles to do their business of the people. While said business is being conducted in secret it appears to be something dishonest, regardless of what is actually occurring. And, even worse than appearances, it is fertile ground for illegal or unethical activities.
Secrecy in government is NEVER a positive thing.
March 18th, 2009 at 2:03 pmCan someone tell me how this is any different than the DLC?
March 18th, 2009 at 2:05 pm#
#
CageyCretin Says:
jay Says:
CageyCretin Says:
The Nazi party had UNITY.
Not really.
Yes, really.
A Party doesn’t make up the People.
What is your point? A party is independent of the people? Do you suggest that a political party exists outside of people? Are you suggesting “party personhood”?
My point is that you said the NAZI Party was united. History say’s that they weren’t. There were many within the Nazi Party that didn’t agree with the party (the leader) as a whole. They were put up on meat hooks.
The Party only reflects the wishes of that Party and it’s leader . Not the people as a whole.
I don’t suggest anything. Do you?
March 18th, 2009 at 2:06 pmjay Says:
You make my point eugene.. Almost Every time you post.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
No it doesnt. YOU are just so stupid and brainwashed you SEE your weak attempt at a point in every post like OTHER braindead morons see breasts in every Roscharch test.
March 18th, 2009 at 2:06 pmTom,
I agree with the hay metaphor to an extent, but we’ll keep grumbling and being the lefty gadflies along the way. I’m always on the fence with the incrementalism, but I do and have seen results from it. The Blue Dogs are the most unsavory part of that incrementalism, but the alternative does still suck, and at least we can all agree on that! :)
The bad thing about the righties is that by all of the real results we see from their ideologies of selfishness and greed, the quality of life does decrease, leaving even MORE people going to AM radio for answers to their anxieties and problems, not wanting to hear about incrementalism, complex shades of gray and compromise, large ideas of social safety nets, etc.
March 18th, 2009 at 2:06 pmJay is just concern trolling. He is trying to propagandize that any lack of 100% loyalty to the party is a bad thing.
See Jay, Democrats have not adopted fascism the way the Republican Party has. This is why Democrats are in power and Republicans are not. Americans know that 100% loyalty to political party means 0% loyalty to your country. Maybe not all Democrats are 100% loyal to their party, but this is America, and we really don’t like fascism here.
March 18th, 2009 at 2:07 pmAnd that is part of ‘progressive’ or ‘liberal’ concepts of open dialogue and dissenting opinion —
Not according to the first 34 posts. Those who were not voting the party line had to be gotten rid of. I opened the conversation to another view and was called names by you and others. No dissenting opinions allowed here by you. You call the opposing people “trolls”. So you are just shouting to the crowd and your friends.
Look at your own posts here.
March 18th, 2009 at 2:10 pmLevi the Oracle Says:
Jay is just concern trolling. He is trying to propagandize that any lack of 100% loyalty to the party is a bad thing.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Exactly. Jay is a button pushing troll here to annoy and provoke us and has NO interest in real discussion. His posts drip contempt for us then he snivels like the little punk he is when his contempt is returned.
March 18th, 2009 at 2:11 pmLevi the Oracle Says:
Jay is just concern trolling. He is trying to propagandize that any lack of 100% loyalty to the party is a bad thing.
See Jay, Democrats have not adopted fascism the way the Republican Party has. This is why Democrats are in power and Republicans are not. Americans know that 100% loyalty to political party means 0% loyalty to your country. Maybe not all Democrats are 100% loyal to their party, but this is America, and we really don’t like fascism here.
When you accuse a person who has an opposing view of being a Nazi and a Troll and include anyone who has an opposing view, and try to shout them down and get rid of them, then who are the fascist?
You should look up the definition of the word you gleefully throw at others.
You are who you protest.
March 18th, 2009 at 2:14 pmjay Says:
—
Not according to the first 34 posts. Those who were not voting the party line had to be gotten rid of. I opened the conversation to another view and was called names by you and others. No dissenting opinions allowed here by you. You call the opposing people “trolls”. So you are just shouting to the crowd and your friends.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Yeah and others have the opposing view. They are allowed THEIR opinion, others disagree like we said no ideological purity here. Also you ARE a troll. Your posts are NOT to further discussion but to show your contempt and to provoke the very DEFINITION of being a troll. Come out of the closet, you arent fooling anyone. We arent as stupid as you and you wont fool us. I know you are a troll. YOU know you are a troll everyone HERE knows you are a troll. We arent weak minded enough for your stupid tricks.
March 18th, 2009 at 2:15 pmBy the way JayTroll you opened the conversation with a reasonable post and I responded reasonably THEN you went right to Nazi imagry and your usual ignorant troll tactics of contempt and vieled insults. You arent even any good at this.
March 18th, 2009 at 2:18 pmEugeneDebs Says:
Levi the Oracle Says:
Jay is just concern trolling. He is trying to propagandize that any lack of 100% loyalty to the party is a bad thing.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Exactly. Jay is a button pushing troll here to annoy and provoke us and has NO interest in real discussion. His posts drip contempt for us then he snivels like the little punk he is when his contempt is returned.
I’m a member here Eugene. I have the same right to post my views here as you do. Sorry that I don’t stroke your ego but I will never do that. I don’t agree with your hate and madness. If making a comment pushes your buttons then that’s tough. Not everyone agrees with you Eugene.
So far you haven’t engaged me in any real discussion, just name calling and accusations. Of course that’s what you do, right? I only see two conversations here and you are not one of them. I would be the third if I didn’t have to put up with the name calling and attacks by some narrow minded people here who want to talk about things not on topic.
March 18th, 2009 at 2:20 pmThe Republican propaganda machine has gone to great lengths to train trolls like Jay. He thinks he is doing his own party some good by trolling a progressive site like this one, trying to stir up dissent.
The problem is that Jay and the Republican propaganda machine don’t comprehend that the people of America have awakened. We know that if some Democrats are not voting the way their constituents want them to vote, they won’t be in positions of power for long. The Democratic primary election is going to become far more important than the actually election, because Republicans are going to lose across the board. The winner in the Democratic primary is the person that will eventually serve. That is the political landscape for years to come.
We the people owe the Republican Party a huge debt of gratitude, because their extreme fascist abuse of power has awakened the sleeping giant, and his vengeance will be terrible.
March 18th, 2009 at 2:22 pmEugeneDebs Says:
By the way JayTroll you opened the conversation with a reasonable post and I responded reasonably THEN you went right to Nazi imagry and your usual ignorant troll tactics of contempt and vieled insults. You arent even any good at this.
Sorry Pal but you’re not being honest here. Your first post to me #96 wasn’t answered by me. Your second post to me #99 was quoting a response to rhf and the lockstep term is commonly used by her to describe RepubliCons.
Sorry the tactic won’t work with me.
March 18th, 2009 at 2:28 pmLevi the Oracle Says:
The Republican propaganda machine has gone to great lengths to train trolls like Jay. He thinks he is doing his own party some good by trolling a progressive site like this one, trying to stir up dissent.
The problem is that Jay and the Republican propaganda machine don’t comprehend that the people of America have awakened. We know that if some Democrats are not voting the way their constituents want them to vote, they won’t be in positions of power for long. The Democratic primary election is going to become far more important than the actually election, because Republicans are going to lose across the board. The winner in the Democratic primary is the person that will eventually serve. That is the political landscape for years to come.
We the people owe the Republican Party a huge debt of gratitude, because their extreme fascist abuse of power has awakened the sleeping giant, and his vengeance will be terrible.
You keep telling yourself that Levi. The more you do, the more you will believe the nonsense.
Look up fascist. It describes you. Now back to the topic here.
There are many within the Democratic party who don’t believe as you do. That’s a good sign for us Republicans. Another “HOUSE” of cards coming down in my opinion.
March 18th, 2009 at 2:32 pmHabib/Archie… why are logged in under a new name? Why don’t you show at least on ounce of courage and post under the same name for a month or so.
Would you give me one good reason as to why you feel the need to log in to TP under multiple aliases?
What do you think you are accomplishing here by doing what it is you do?
March 18th, 2009 at 2:33 pmLevi. I’m a member here. I have been for quite some time. I won’t be driven off by fascists who can’t listen to an opposing view. I like it here and I ain’t a goin no whar..
1’st amendment, you know.
March 18th, 2009 at 2:36 pmjay Says:
I’m a member here Eugene. I have the same right to post my views here as you do. Sorry that I don’t stroke your ego but I will never do that. I don’t agree with your hate and madness. If making a comment pushes your buttons then that’s tough. Not everyone agrees with you Eugene.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You are a punk Jay. You keep saying you are a member when did I ever tell you to leave and not come back? I couldt care less how often you post and will just respond TO your posts. You DO agree with the hate. It is in MOST of your posts you are a liar. Your veiled insults and Nazin imagry ARE hateful. You are just a coward who prefers your passive aggressive contempt and to veil your insults behind a false mask of civility. Doesnt make it any less hateful for YOU to link us to Nazis in your post as it is for me to point out you are a moron.
So far you haven’t engaged me in any real discussion, just name calling and accusations. Of course that’s what you do, right? I only see two conversations here and you are not one of them. I would be the third if I didn’t have to put up with the name calling and attacks by some narrow minded people here who want to talk about things not on topic.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Your punkass provocation posts dont CALL for discussion. They call for slapping you around like the moronic troll you are. When you talk to us about making people goosestep you arent engaged in conversation you are engaged in button pushing provocation then follow it with snivelling like a punk that after you basically call us Nazis we dont pat you on the head and treat YOU with respect. Like many brainwashed morons you think you have some God given right to FRAME the discussion. You want to frame it that YOU get to treat US with contempt but WE must treat YOU with respect or at least limit us to the veiled insult instead of the honest hostility I prefer. Not. Going. To. Happen. When YOU actually engage in reasoned discussion instead of your contempt laden attacks on us. So will I when you do your trollturd dropping I will respond with EXACTLY what that deserves.
March 18th, 2009 at 2:38 pmHabib/Archie… why are logged in under a new name? Why don’t you show at least on ounce of courage and post under the same name for a month or so.
Would you give me one good reason as to why you feel the need to log in to TP under multiple aliases?
What do you think you are accomplishing here by doing what it is you do?
You go on with your paranoia alpuz3. What’s your name? I post for myself. I answer for myself.
March 18th, 2009 at 2:38 pmEugeneDebs Says:
Right Eugene. You just do what you do. I expect nothing less from you.
March 18th, 2009 at 2:41 pmSorry Pal but you’re not being honest here.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
And I didnt go nuclear there either only pointed out that we arent the party of dittoheads a term that CANNOT be derogatory since it is USED by the very people we are talking about.
Sorry the tactic won’t work with me.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I dont HAVE a tactic. I am honest. I respond directly.
March 18th, 2009 at 2:42 pmOBTW Eugene, it was I who was called a NAZI by many here. Close your eyes Eugene. It must be dark inside a closed mind.
March 18th, 2009 at 2:43 pmEugeneDebs Says:
Sorry Pal but you’re not being honest here.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
And I didnt go nuclear there either only pointed out that we arent the party of dittoheads a term that CANNOT be derogatory since it is USED by the very people we are talking about.
Sorry the tactic won’t work with me.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I dont HAVE a tactic. I am honest. I respond directly.
I don’t fall into the Rush trap Eugene.
You people here have done nothing but call me names since I first came here. Sorry Pal but I’m not intimidated by people like you. It is a Tactic you use. I’ve seen it from you for months. It’s all you have.
March 18th, 2009 at 2:45 pmjay Says:
There are many within the Democratic party who don’t believe as you do. That’s a good sign for us Republicans. Another “HOUSE” of cards coming down in my opinion.
><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
So the FACT that Democrats dont do the ideological purity thing makes them a house of cards? How very groupthink of you. Yet they never HAVE and the Democratic Party has been around a lot longer than the Republican Party and in that time has held power a lot MORE then the Republican party and SPANKED the Republicans in the last two elections. Your assertion has no logic
March 18th, 2009 at 2:46 pmjay Says:
Levi. I’m a member here. I have been for quite some time. I won’t be driven off by fascists who can’t listen to an opposing view. I like it here and I ain’t a goin no whar..
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Yeah you keep saying that I am not sure who cares. Keep coming back. Most of us LIKE the free clown show.
1’st amendment, you know.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
The first amendment no more gives you a RIGHT to post on a PRIVATE message board than it gives ME a right to put up a billboard in YOUR front yard. You conservatives never seem to have any dim idea what the First Amendment is about.
March 18th, 2009 at 2:48 pmEugeneDebs Says:
jay Says:
There are many within the Democratic party who don’t believe as you do. That’s a good sign for us Republicans. Another “HOUSE” of cards coming down in my opinion.
><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
So the FACT that Democrats dont do the ideological purity thing makes them a house of cards? How very groupthink of you. Yet they never HAVE and the Democratic Party has been around a lot longer than the Republican Party and in that time has held power a lot MORE then the Republican party and SPANKED the Republicans in the last two elections. Your assertion has no logic
It is rare for a ruling party to gain seats in a mid term election. It only happened three times in over 200 years. We will see.
March 18th, 2009 at 2:49 pmjay Says:
Right Eugene. You just do what you do. I expect nothing less from you.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
You can COUNT on it. Meanwhile YOU can keep being a button pushing troll with no game, a buttload of contempt and tons of snivelling. It is all you HAVE.
March 18th, 2009 at 2:50 pmhmmmmmmm…..
hmmmmm…. you sure do sound like habib/archie.
March 18th, 2009 at 2:50 pmjay Says:
OBTW Eugene, it was I who was called a NAZI by many here. Close your eyes Eugene. It must be dark inside a closed mind.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
We both know what your goosestepping imagry was about so keep snivelling that YOU are treated the way you treat us. You are such a punk. I at least HAVE a mind you brainwashed troll. You have no capacity for higher brain function whatsoever.
March 18th, 2009 at 2:52 pmEugeneDebs Says:
jay Says:
Right Eugene. You just do what you do. I expect nothing less from you.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
You can COUNT on it. Meanwhile YOU can keep being a button pushing troll with no game, a buttload of contempt and tons of snivelling. It is all you HAVE.
Very open minded of you. Your the superior one here, I can just see that.
March 18th, 2009 at 2:52 pmEugeneDebs Says:
jay Says:
OBTW Eugene, it was I who was called a NAZI by many here. Close your eyes Eugene. It must be dark inside a closed mind.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
We both know what your goosestepping imagry was about so keep snivelling that YOU are treated the way you treat us. You are such a punk. I at least HAVE a mind you brainwashed troll. You have no capacity for higher brain function whatsoever.
All kinds of “higher brain function” in that post Eugene.
March 18th, 2009 at 2:53 pm132 jay Says:
So what I believe is nonsense? Why are you so insulting to me when I have not insulted you? Just so you know, I have looked up fascism, and the definition is quite complex. There are 14 defining characteristics of Fascism, and the Republican Party has been exhibiting all 14 of them. You really don’t want to get me started on this topic, because I know more about fascism than anyone wants to hear.
If you are looking for good news for Republicans, this is not the place to look. Not all of us here are Democrats, but we all share one thing in common. None of us are ever going to vote for a Republican again. If ever a house of cards came down, it was the Republican house built on a foundation of fascism.
March 18th, 2009 at 2:55 pmjay Says:
I don’t fall into the Rush trap Eugene.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
That is a lie. I have dont other things my first two posts didnt call you any names. Who cares if you are intimidated we mop the floor with you. Keep coming back for future floormoppings I couldnt care less. It isnt ALL I have it is all most of your posts call for. You arent going to manipulate me. YOU are doing the same thing just in a more cowardly, passive aggressive way. Contempt drops from 90% of your posts. You inult us all the time with snide condescension and veiled insults. That isnt my way. YOU are a punk not me. I come right out with honest hostility. YOU can keep trying to DEFINE your insults as just fine and mine as SOOOO mean but we arent as weak minded and stupid as you so it just flat wont work. Have a REAL conversation you will see something else from me. Talk about us goosestepping and a return serve of contempt is all you deserve.
March 18th, 2009 at 2:57 pmSo what I believe is nonsense? Why are you so insulting to me when I have not insulted you?
Levi, you called me a fascist. Don’t you remember?
If you are looking for good news for Republicans, this is not the place to look.
I know exactly where I am. Sadly I only see the same thing over and over. Read post #1 thru 36 or so. You said I was not an “American”. That isn’t an insult in your mind??????
March 18th, 2009 at 3:00 pmjay Says:
It is rare for a ruling party to gain seats in a mid term election. It only happened three times in over 200 years. We will see.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
That is true and we will see. However losing some ground in a midterm election which is LIKELY in 2012 is NOT the same thing as being a house of cards.
March 18th, 2009 at 3:01 pmEugeneDebs Says:
jay Says:
I don’t fall into the Rush trap Eugene.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
That is a lie. I have dont other things my first two posts didnt call you any names. Who cares if you are intimidated we mop the floor with you. Keep coming back for future floormoppings I couldnt care less. It isnt ALL I have it is all most of your posts call for. You arent going to manipulate me. YOU are doing the same thing just in a more cowardly, passive aggressive way. Contempt drops from 90% of your posts. You inult us all the time with snide condescension and veiled insults. That isnt my way. YOU are a punk not me. I come right out with honest hostility. YOU can keep trying to DEFINE your insults as just fine and mine as SOOOO mean but we arent as weak minded and stupid as you so it just flat wont work. Have a REAL conversation you will see something else from me. Talk about us goosestepping and a return serve of contempt is all you deserve.
Right Eugene. Very intelligent. Very superior. It’s all you do. Insults and name calling. You are what you are.
Now what?
March 18th, 2009 at 3:01 pmEugeneDebs Says:
jay Says:
It is rare for a ruling party to gain seats in a mid term election. It only happened three times in over 200 years. We will see.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
That is true and we will see. However losing some ground in a midterm election which is LIKELY in 2012 is NOT the same thing as being a house of cards.
Time will tell Eugene. When the people in this country see all the taxes they will be asked to pay then they will change their minds. Nothing is free. At least I hope they will.
March 18th, 2009 at 3:04 pmjay Says:
Very open minded of you. Your the superior one here, I can just see that.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Our two posts had the same tone. EVERYONE can see you are the sniveller here.
March 18th, 2009 at 3:04 pmalpuz3 Says:
jay Says:
I didn’t mistakenly land anywhere. I’m a member here and have been one for quite some time. More name calling and no discussion. Next!
hmmmmmmm…..
jay Says:
republicans hate facts Says:
jay Says:
Not my problem sockpuppet. They are your people. Not mine. Make them march in lockstep.
hmmmmm…. you sure do sound like habib/archie.
And you sound like TRAJAN. So what?
March 18th, 2009 at 3:06 pmEugeneDebs Says:
jay Says:
Very open minded of you. Your the superior one here, I can just see that.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Our two posts had the same tone. EVERYONE can see you are the sniveller here.
Right Eugene and what do you sound like? You sound like you. Name caller and very irritated. Yup, the superior one for sure.
March 18th, 2009 at 3:07 pmjay Says:
All kinds of “higher brain function” in that post Eugene.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Not really, your snide little missive didnt call for any. Just a return serve. Did you think this snarky rudeness is any more acceptable than my honest hostility? You are a dishonest snivelling punk and a worthless troll. The worst of it is you COULD add to the discussion you HAVE the capacity you just cant manage to keep your rude contempt for us out of your posts. As long as you cant you can expect the same back from me. I despise people who would rather screw around with the discussion than engage in it and that is YOU. Look at how well you have done your trollwork today derailing the discussion from the topic.
March 18th, 2009 at 3:08 pmThen let the discussion begin. One thing though Eugene, the first one to call the other names loses.
What do you say?
March 18th, 2009 at 3:09 pm151 jay Says:
No, I believe I said that the Republican Party is a fascist organization. I don’t have any idea what you are and I never said you personally were anything but a propagandist.
151 jay Says:
I don’t believe I said anyone was or was not an American. If I did, please quote it, or are you just making up lies?
March 18th, 2009 at 3:10 pmAwww… habib/archie is back, that was easy. So archie/habib, are you arguing that you’re a victim here because your stick is a dull one as opposed to being sharp?
March 18th, 2009 at 3:11 pmLevi. My apologies. You weren’t the one who said that. My mistake and I admit it. You did, however, call me a fascist.
If You think that a person who disagrees with you is a propagandist then that’s too bad. What did I say was propaganda?
March 18th, 2009 at 3:15 pm#
#
alpuz3 Says:
jay Says:
And you sound like TRAJAN. So what?
Awww… habib/archie is back, that was easy. So archie/habib, are you arguing that you’re a victim here because your stick is a dull one as opposed to being sharp?
Paranoia alpuz3, unless you are Trajan. He got booted you know. You might be his new sock.
The name is Jay always is and always will be.
March 18th, 2009 at 3:17 pmWould you like know what I think you are archieB/Habib/Jay…etc?
March 18th, 2009 at 3:17 pmalpuz3 Says:
Would you like know what I think you are archieB/Habib/Jay…etc?
I don’t care what you think. Why would I? I do know that you’re paranoid like so many here.
March 18th, 2009 at 3:18 pmjay Says:
Right Eugene. Very intelligent. Very superior. It’s all you do. Insults and name calling. You are what you are.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
And you are what you are a snivelling punk. Keep posting your posts dripping with contempt and veiled insults to US then whine about our contempt to you. It is so pathetic.
Now what?
>>>>>>>>>>
Probably rinse and repeat unless you start talking TO us instead of aiming contempt AT us.
March 18th, 2009 at 3:19 pmjay Says:
Then let the discussion begin. One thing though Eugene, the first one to call the other names loses.
What do you say?
EugeneDebs Says:
jay Says:
Right Eugene. Very intelligent. Very superior. It’s all you do. Insults and name calling. You are what you are.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
And you are what you are a snivelling punk. Keep posting your posts dripping with contempt and veiled insults to US then whine about our contempt to you. It is so pathetic.
Now what?
>>>>>>>>>>
Probably rinse and repeat unless you start talking TO us instead of aiming contempt AT us.
I didn’t think so.
March 18th, 2009 at 3:21 pmjay Says:
Time will tell Eugene. When the people in this country see all the taxes they will be asked to pay then they will change their minds. Nothing is free. At least I hope they will.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Most Americans will get a TAX CUT next year. Also while nothing is free some things are worth the cost. A just society and a working economy are WORTH a pretty steep cost. So we will see if the Plans Obama has SUCCEED. THEN we will see if they change their minds. I hope we see success and it will be worth it.
March 18th, 2009 at 3:22 pmYou couldn’t get through one post without name calling. You are the superior one here.
March 18th, 2009 at 3:22 pmjay Says:
Right Eugene and what do you sound like? You sound like you. Name caller and very irritated. Yup, the superior one for sure.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
And what do YOU sound like? Veiled insults, post dripping with contempt and snide condescension. You sound like YOU. Yeah you are the MORON that is certain.
March 18th, 2009 at 3:23 pmSo, Habib… do you consider yourself the victim here?
March 18th, 2009 at 3:26 pmEugeneDebs Says:
jay Says:
Right Eugene and what do you sound like? You sound like you. Name caller and very irritated. Yup, the superior one for sure.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
And what do YOU sound like? Veiled insults, post dripping with contempt and snide condescension. You sound like YOU. Yeah you are the MORON that is certain.
Right. You just go on being you Eugene.
I expect nothing less. I have read your posts for months and they all end up the same way. If you disagree then you post as you just did. You and many others here do the same. It’s not me Eugene, it’s you.
March 18th, 2009 at 3:27 pmjay Says:
Then let the discussion begin. One thing though Eugene, the first one to call the other names loses.
What do you say?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I say lets go and NO I am not accepting YOUR right to frame the debate. I will NOT put up with your condescension and contempt and veiled insults without being me. That is HONEST hostility. IF you are reasonable and keep YOUR posts free of such garbage so will I. But no, calling names may be YOUR Rubicon but it isnt mine. We arent playing YOUR game where you are rude behind a false mask and it is somehow soooo mean if I am just in your face rude.
March 18th, 2009 at 3:27 pmEugeneDebs Says:
jay Says:
Then let the discussion begin. One thing though Eugene, the first one to call the other names loses.
What do you say?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I say lets go and NO I am not accepting YOUR right to frame the debate. I will NOT put up with your condescension and contempt and veiled insults without being me. That is HONEST hostility. IF you are reasonable and keep YOUR posts free of such garbage so will I. But no, calling names may be YOUR Rubicon but it isnt mine. We arent playing YOUR game where you are rude behind a false mask and it is somehow soooo mean if I am just in your face rude.
So you don’t accept? Civility is not important to you, right?
March 18th, 2009 at 3:30 pmI have been nothing but civil to you.
162 jay Says:
You are concern trolling. That is a tactic used by the fascist Republican propaganda machine, strait out of the Rove dirty tricks manual. I am sorry if you do not like to be compared to a fascist, but there aren’t to many other words to describe what has become of the grand old party.
I don’t really know if you personally are hard core wingnut fascist, but if you concern troll here, I have to believe you are. From my study on the subject of fascism, it seems that the Republican party started adopting fascist tactics during the Reagan years, and as Rove gained power, the tactics became more obvious.
You gotta hand it to the Republicans though, they bought their own cable news program, and several radio networks to spread their propaganda. They cut education spending to keep the young as stupid as possible, so they could be more susceptible to propaganda brainwashing. They even recruited volunteers to spread their propaganda talking points even on hostile progressive web sites.
I am also not sure why you think I disagreed with you anywhere. I don’t like concern trolling, but other than expressing a disagreement with Republican wingnuttery in general, I never said I disagreed with you personally on anything. Frankly, I am far more conservative than any Republican, because I have a very different definition of conservatism than any Republican. See, I believe in fiscal conservatism, something the Republicans don’t offer. I believe in morality and personal responsibility, another place where Republicans are sorely lacking.
March 18th, 2009 at 3:31 pmI don’t post with hostility. Never do. I’m a grown up and don’t have to. I post what is on my mind.
March 18th, 2009 at 3:31 pmjay Says:
The name is Jay always is and always will be.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Personally. I dont care. To me it is about WHAT is said not who says it but the above is a non denial denial. That MAY be your name but is it the only SCREEN NAME or nick you have used?
March 18th, 2009 at 3:31 pmjay Says:
First I posted this BEFORE I read your offer of discussion second
Now what?
>>>>>>>>>>
Probably rinse and repeat unless you start talking TO us instead of aiming contempt AT us.
I didn’t think so.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Exactltly. You have no INTENTION of having an actual discussion and just want to frame the debate. You WANT to keep aiming contempt AT us instead of talking TO us and then whine and snivel in a way that would humiliate any self respecting Girl Scout that we are treating YOU the way YOU treat us. With contempt. You really are a piece of work but you arent very bright and really arent very good at this.
March 18th, 2009 at 3:35 pmSo… let’s go thru this again, shall we?
______________
jay Says:
Hey, except for a few people in the Senate, we are pretty much unified. Nothings perfect. You, however, make a big deal of a few who disagree with the policies they see and choose to not be followers. Your problem, not mine.
______________
Actaully, I personally DIDN’T make a big deal of it.
YOU DID, by posting the comments you did, and using it as an excuse to start labeling and condemning people here.
Not an excuse, just joining in the discussion.
____________
Actually, you started insulting us immediately, and you’re being hypocritical and disingenuous by pretending otherwise…
____________
THAT is YOUR problem, but you appear to be in denial about what your own behavior says about you.
Let’s go back to this “lockstep” nonsense, again, shall we?
If you insist. A term used most affectionately by Liberals here when referring to Conservatives
Are you actually trying to claim, w/ a straight face, that a 188-0 vote on the part of the House GOOPers, including bullying stray members back into place, is NOT ‘lockstepping” and ideological rigidity?
I don’t really care. You call it “Lockstepping” we call it unity.
______________
Clearly, you don’t care. Again, you simply come across as hypocritical and disingenuous, even silly.
If “we” don’t like Dems who stray from the fold, we’re demanding lockstep obedience? BUT, when the GOOP bullies ALL 188 Reps into voting unanimously, not a single dissenter… THAT’S NOT lockstep thinking? NOT ideological rigidity?
Sorry, it’s impossible to NOT laugh at you.
_______________
A complete ONE HUNDRED percent stance… not a single GOOPer voting outside the fold?
And that’s NOT lockstepping?
You call it “Lockstepping” we call it unity.
_______________
Repeating the same silly comment doesn’t make true, Jay.
Quite a double standard you’ve got there.
I suggest you run w/ it.
March 18th, 2009 at 3:36 pmWhat the hell was this about again? Oh yea, the Republicans that have a D next to their names.
March 18th, 2009 at 3:36 pmjay Says:
You couldn’t get through one post without name calling. You are the superior one here.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Everyone is superior to you. Remember you are a moron. First you are a LIAR I have made several posts to you without namecalling when responding to REASONABLE posts. Second it isnt my GOAL to get through a post without namecalling. I have already made this clear. I will post honest hostility to your passive aggressive veiled insults and snide condescendint posts dripping with contempt. I dont know what it is about the FACT that you are NOT going to frame the debate here that you are too stupid to understand. You do what you do. It is pathetic. I will call you on it in my way. I couldnt care LESS what you think about that.
March 18th, 2009 at 3:38 pmLevi the Oracle Says:
162 jay Says:
If You think that a person who disagrees with you is a propagandist then that’s too bad. What did I say was propaganda?
You are concern trolling. That is a tactic used by the fascist Republican propaganda machine, strait out of the Rove dirty tricks manual. I am sorry if you do not like to be compared to a fascist, but there aren’t to many other words to describe what has become of the grand old party.
I don’t really know if you personally are hard core wingnut fascist, but if you concern troll here, I have to believe you are. From my study on the subject of fascism, it seems that the Republican party started adopting fascist tactics during the Reagan years, and as Rove gained power, the tactics became more obvious.
You gotta hand it to the Republicans though, they bought their own cable news program, and several radio networks to spread their propaganda. They cut education spending to keep the young as stupid as possible, so they could be more susceptible to propaganda brainwashing. They even recruited volunteers to spread their propaganda talking points even on hostile progressive web sites.
I am also not sure why you think I disagreed with you anywhere. I don’t like concern trolling, but other than expressing a disagreement with Republican wingnuttery in general, I never said I disagreed with you personally on anything. Frankly, I am far more conservative than any Republican, because I have a very different definition of conservatism than any Republican. See, I believe in fiscal conservatism, something the Republicans don’t offer. I believe in morality and personal responsibility, another place where Republicans are sorely lacking.
Look Levi. I’m not part of any machine as you keep saying. I’m one person who doesn’t see things the same way as you do. I don’t usually call people names but do make observations and post them however. I’m not rolling Levi, no more than you. I’m a member here. I have been for quite some time. I have met many Dems here and have had some great conversations with them. I don’t converse with people who call names and try to belittle me. That’s just stupid.
Some some points you are trying to make above are highlighted. Which are you? In all of our post to each other you never asked me what I believed. You assumed I was a fascist and that was good enough for you.
So did you make a judgment of me? I think you did.
March 18th, 2009 at 3:41 pmjay Says:
So you don’t accept? Civility is not important to you, right?
I have been nothing but civil to you.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You are a LIAR. You are not civil. Your veiled insults with Nazi imagry and dripping contempt are not civil. YOU dont get to define YOUR crude passive aggressive insulting posts as civil. We arent as stupid as you. You are being a jerk so I am treating you like a jerk it is that simple
March 18th, 2009 at 3:41 pmjay Says:
Right. You just go on being you Eugene.
I expect nothing less. I have read your posts for months and they all end up the same way. If you disagree then you post as you just did. You and many others here do the same. It’s not me Eugene, it’s you.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
And you can keep on being YOU. A snivelling punk who levels his contemptuouss snide remarks at us then whines like a litte girl that we are mean to YOU. WWWWAAAHHHHHHHHHHH
March 18th, 2009 at 3:42 pmEugeneDebs Says:
jay Says:
You couldn’t get through one post without name calling. You are the superior one here.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Everyone is superior to you. Remember you are a moron. First you are a LIAR I have made several posts to you without namecalling when responding to REASONABLE posts. Second it isnt my GOAL to get through a post without namecalling. I have already made this clear. I will post honest hostility to your passive aggressive veiled insults and snide condescendint posts dripping with contempt. I dont know what it is about the FACT that you are NOT going to frame the debate here that you are too stupid to understand. You do what you do. It is pathetic. I will call you on it in my way. I couldnt care LESS what you think about that.
You have to be what you are Eugene. I understand that. Did I ever think I was going to change that? Never. You just go on with what you do. You are superior to no one. You can’t rise above who you are.
March 18th, 2009 at 3:44 pmjay Says:
I don’t post with hostility. Never do. I’m a grown up and don’t have to. I post what is on my mind.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
You are a liar. Your posts are saturated with contempt, snide veiled insults and condescension and NO you are not grown up except MAYBE physically. Your posts are nasty. Mine are the same just honestly so.
March 18th, 2009 at 3:45 pmYou are right about one thing Jay, I am prejudiced against trolls.
March 18th, 2009 at 3:45 pmjay Says:
.
You have to be what you are Eugene. I understand that.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I dont care if you change but I will keep calling you on how YOU act. You are the moron. You cant rise above THAT.
March 18th, 2009 at 3:49 pmI can see my own hatred, and the hatred of the other progressives here for Republicans. We lash out, perhaps sometimes unfairly, at anyone that defends them, or is seen to be attacking us. Americans are angry, and I am sorry if you became the target of that anger Jay, but people want to punish Republicans for the hell they put America through.
March 18th, 2009 at 3:49 pmLevi the Oracle Says:
You are right about one thing Jay, I am prejudiced against trolls.
Everyone who disagrees with you is a troll or am I wrong about that? Like I said, I’m a member here. I have been for quite some time. I enjoy discussing things with many here. It’s an intellectual pursuit. What I usually find are people like eugene who thinks it’s some kind of duty to chase people away.
You kinda started out that way also. If I have you wrong then accept my apologies, but being called a Troll and a Fascist usually gets the desired response from me. I do refrain from character assassinations to a certain point. I will never become another Eugene in any case.
March 18th, 2009 at 3:51 pmYou really do seem to be hung up over Eugene, “Jay.”
March 18th, 2009 at 3:56 pmWhy do you keep repeating you are a member here? Who the hell cares? It’s not like the membership here is restricted. (At least as far as I know it’s not) I have not been a member here very long, but I have seen so much in the way of internet trolling, here and elsewhere, I tend to react aggressively. If you are not a troll, I expect you won’t be repeating that you are a member here any more because it has no bearing on your alleged trolliness.
March 18th, 2009 at 4:00 pmjay Says:
You kinda started out that way also. If I have you wrong then accept my apologies, but being called a Troll and a Fascist usually gets the desired response from me. I do refrain from character assassinations to a certain point. I will never become another Eugene in any case.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You ARE a troll in that you toss contempt AT us instead of talking TO us and continue with button pushing provocation posts. THAT is the very definition of being a troll and you are already every bit as bad as me just not as honest. You can try forever to pull the wool over our eyes that your VEILED insults. Condescending and contempt dripping posts are all well and good but calling you names is SOOOO mean. We arent stupid enough to fall for it. You WANT to frame the debate so that YOU can treat us with contempt while WE have to treat you with respect. I am not going for it. IF you want to engage in honest discussion do so but when you treat us with contempt when you treat us condescendingly when you describe us with Nazin imagry everyone knows what you are doing and the constant snivelling and omnipresent WWWWAAAHHHHH is just pathetic
March 18th, 2009 at 4:01 pmLevi the Oracle Says:
I can see my own hatred, and the hatred of the other progressives here for Republicans. We lash out, perhaps sometimes unfairly, at anyone that defends them, or is seen to be attacking us. Americans are angry, and I am sorry if you became the target of that anger Jay, but people want to punish Republicans for the hell they put America through.
That’s very honest Levi. I try to not hate anyone but It’s hard. I don’t hate anyone. Hate can become all consuming. Do I get aggravated sometimes, you bet.
I enjoy many people here. It makes me think. I do come here for a reason though. I come here to talk to people who see things differently than I do. It’s called a learning experience, not “Trolling”. I never heard of the term on any other site that I post on. Many sites I just sit back and read what is being said. I do that often here. The attacks get to vicious on this site. It doesn’t help your cause.
It does divide the country as much as what the Right wing sites do. I look for the middle ground where people can talk things out. It’s not important to agree with each other, just agree that we do not agree will bring people together.
March 18th, 2009 at 4:01 pmEugeneDebs Says:
jay Says:
You kinda started out that way also. If I have you wrong then accept my apologies, but being called a Troll and a Fascist usually gets the desired response from me. I do refrain from character assassinations to a certain point. I will never become another Eugene in any case.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You ARE a troll in that you toss contempt AT us instead of talking TO us and continue with button pushing provocation posts. THAT is the very definition of being a troll and you are already every bit as bad as me just not as honest. You can try forever to pull the wool over our eyes that your VEILED insults. Condescending and contempt dripping posts are all well and good but calling you names is SOOOO mean. We arent stupid enough to fall for it. You WANT to frame the debate so that YOU can treat us with contempt while WE have to treat you with respect. I am not going for it. IF you want to engage in honest discussion do so but when you treat us with contempt when you treat us condescendingly when you describe us with Nazin imagry everyone knows what you are doing and the constant snivelling and omnipresent WWWWAAAHHHHH is just pathetic
Ya, Ya, Eugene. I know where you stand. You are who you are.
March 18th, 2009 at 4:02 pmJay says
Ya, Ya, Eugene. I know where you stand. You are who you are.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Yeah and YOU are who YOU are.
March 18th, 2009 at 4:05 pmMores the pity
March 18th, 2009 at 4:06 pmMy bullsh*tometer just done gone exploded.
March 18th, 2009 at 4:08 pmYou will have to forgive the progressives that post here because they feel they have been under assault. When someone posts a Republican talking point, they have a responsibility to refute it, and neither side refrains from insults.
The division in America runs deep, and no one election is going to resolve it. This nation could easily be facing a civil war in the near future, right along partisan lines. Ironically its the deep south and Appalachia, the last bastion of Republicanism, that we fought a civil war with once before.
I believe what is happening here is a rebirth of democracy, via the Internet. Individual Americans are just now beginning to realize the potential of the Internet to influence our government. When Republicans began to disregard our constitution, people flocked to the Internet to find a way to prevent it. We chose Obama over McCain because the voters got the information themselves, rather than accept the word of propagandists.
March 18th, 2009 at 4:15 pmYou see Levi. This is what I mean.
March 18th, 2009 at 4:16 pm****sob****
March 18th, 2009 at 4:23 pmIf you don’t want to get attacked, just lurk on progressive sites, don’t post. If you post something that the readers don’t like, you have to expect the attacks. Americans bear a lot of malice towards Republicans and conservatism in general. When you identify yourself as such, you draw their hatred, deserved or not.
March 18th, 2009 at 4:23 pmBesides, whack-a-troll is a fun game to play!
March 18th, 2009 at 4:26 pmLevi the Oracle Says:
You will have to forgive the progressives that post here because they feel they have been under assault. When someone posts a Republican talking point, they have a responsibility to refute it, and neither side refrains from insults.
The division in America runs deep, and no one election is going to resolve it. This nation could easily be facing a civil war in the near future, right along partisan lines. Ironically its the deep south and Appalachia, the last bastion of Republicanism, that we fought a civil war with once before.
I believe what is happening here is a rebirth of democracy, via the Internet. Individual Americans are just now beginning to realize the potential of the Internet to influence our government. When Republicans began to disregard our constitution, people flocked to the Internet to find a way to prevent it. We chose Obama over McCain because the voters got the information themselves, rather than accept the word of propagandists.
So be it. McCain wasn’t my choice for President. I saw propaganda on both sides Levi, didn’t you?
The Constitution is my basis for many of my arguments. I keep a copy on my desk. Presidents do many things that are questionable under the Constitution, even Obama. (Hillary Clinton’s appointment for one) If the Judiciary don’t object then they get away with it. I don’t blame the Democratic or Republican people in this country. I blame the politicians on both sides. Most of the people in this country have no idea what is going on except for what they get from the media.
So if people can’t discuss things with each other, then where do we go from here? The revolt? Another civil war? We need to get over the hate Levi. Talk to each other without judging them.
Without the hate. That will be the salvation of this country.
March 18th, 2009 at 4:27 pmLevi the Oracle Says:
If you don’t want to get attacked, just lurk on progressive sites, don’t post. If you post something that the readers don’t like, you have to expect the attacks. Americans bear a lot of malice towards Republicans and conservatism in general. When you identify yourself as such, you draw their hatred, deserved or not.
So you fall to the will of the others. I thought you were different.
You don’t tell me what to do Levi. I’m a member here. I’m not going anywhere.
Levi the Oracle Says:
Besides, whack-a-troll is a fun game to play!
So you are what you are.
March 18th, 2009 at 4:30 pmAnd what’s funny (ironic, sad, tragic) is that Rahm Emanuel, President Obama’s Blue Dog chief of staff, helped create this monster within the Democratic Party through his participation in the Democratic Leadership Council, a 666 beast that is just another gnarly arm of the Republican Party, with the same perverse un-American anti-democracy anti-working class corporatist agenda for our country.
And now this corrupt conservative Blue Dog bloc in Congress is seeking to sabotage President Obama’s (and maybe even Rahm Emanuel’s) efforts to pull our nation out of the econmic and moral nose-dive the Republicans (and their Blue Dog coconspirators) put us in.
In other words, the Blue Dog bloc looks more and more like the “Cheney” branch of the liberal, progressive Democratic Party, with all the corruption that this implies, and until this Cheney cancer is exorcised from the Democratic Party, then the Democratic Party will continue to be undermined from within by this Fifth Column of corrupt conservative corporatists.
March 18th, 2009 at 4:30 pm204 jay Says:
No, I saw a highly organized propaganda campaign of misinformation and outright lies from the Republicans. It was extremely transparent and Americans saw right through it. I did not see the Democratic Party engage in the use of propaganda.
204 jay Says:
If you are trying to convince me you are not a propagandist, you will have to do a little better than to suggest that Hillary Clinton’s appointment is unconstitutional. Perhaps you could explain where you got that from, and give links to unbias sources to back it up.
205 jay Says:
Please explain where I “fell to the will of the others”. I am trying to stay above the fray here by offering you an olive branch. I did not tell you what to do, nor did I tell you where to go, I simply made a suggestion for you if you want to avoid being attacked.
Why do you keep repeating that you are a member here? Is there some significance to being a member of a public web site that I am unaware of? I am very new here, but I don’t feel compelled to repeat that I am a member here, why do you?
March 18th, 2009 at 4:50 pmLevi the Oracle Says:
If you don’t want to get attacked, just lurk on progressive sites, don’t post. If you post something that the readers don’t like, you have to expect the attacks. Americans bear a lot of malice towards Republicans and conservatism in general. When you identify yourself as such, you draw their hatred, deserved or not.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
I dont attack him because I disagree with him. I LIKE people who disagree and tell us why. Those who stop by to tell us we are goosesteppers and who toss contempt bombs at us to provoke us. Those who want to show their contempt for us instead of making THIER case are a completly different thing altogether. I disagree with backup all the time. I rarely attack him however because he seems to at least make the EFFORT to talk TO us. To make an argument about the issue and not an argument about what is wrong with us. That is a huge difference. Nettles and Keltoi are other examples of those engaging in the discussion not tossing contempt bombs at us and trying to yank our chains. Jay does NOT qualify. He is a troll plain and simple
March 18th, 2009 at 4:55 pmjay Says:
So you are what you are.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
And you are what you are. A condescending, snivelling, punk troll
March 18th, 2009 at 4:59 pmLevi the Oracle Says:
You see him trying to manipulate you? Accept his frame of debate which is HIM dripping with contempt, condescension and veiled insults while YOU are supposed to treat HIM with respect or YOU become the target of the condescension and contempt. It is a weak form of emotional blackmail and its frankly stupid. The guy is pure troll.
March 18th, 2009 at 5:01 pmgood – at least you guys are fighting each other instead of bagging on D’s.
that’s more like it.
carry on.
March 18th, 2009 at 5:01 pmIf you are trying to convince me you are not a propagandist, you will have to do a little better than to suggest that Hillary Clinton’s appointment is unconstitutional. Perhaps you could explain where you got that from, and give links to unbias sources to back it up.
Well I get my information from a completely unbiased source. Maybe you heard of it Levi. It’s called the “Constitution of The United States” Article 1 Section 6.
Please explain where I “fell to the will of the others”. I am trying to stay above the fray here by offering you an olive branch. I did not tell you what to do, nor did I tell you where to go, I simply made a suggestion for you if you want to avoid being attacked.
I was trying to have a conversation with you and you come up with”
Levi the Oracle Says:
Besides, whack-a-troll is a fun game to play!
Why do you keep repeating that you are a member here? Is there some significance to being a member of a public web site that I am unaware of? I am very new here, but I don’t feel compelled to repeat that I am a member here, why do you?
Yes. I’m a registered member here with all the rights as you have. I say it every time someone like you and Eugene and others try to chase me off because you hate Conservatives.
March 18th, 2009 at 5:15 pmEugeneDebs Says:
Levi the Oracle Says:
You see him trying to manipulate you? Accept his frame of debate which is HIM dripping with contempt, condescension and veiled insults while YOU are supposed to treat HIM with respect or YOU become the target of the condescension and contempt. It is a weak form of emotional blackmail and its frankly stupid. The guy is pure troll.
Or Levi you can become more like Eugene.
March 18th, 2009 at 5:17 pmtombaker Says:
D’s can use some bagging on. They have pretty much marginalized the liberals in the party for a long time. Long enough that I left the Democratic Party almost a decade ago but not for this. I have no problem that Bahy thinks he should disagree and organize the more conservative Dems to help him. THAT is the price of having a big tent party. It has its plusses and minuses. The left is not only never going to be the party of ideological purity I think that is a good thing.
March 18th, 2009 at 5:20 pmEither or, ey Jay?
March 18th, 2009 at 5:21 pmalpuz3 Says:
Either or, ey Jay?
If you mean being civil to others or doing what Eugene does, yes.
March 18th, 2009 at 5:23 pmWhen you call someone a “sockpuppet,” would that be civil, Jay?
March 18th, 2009 at 5:24 pmjay Says:
Yes. I’m a registered member here with all the rights as you have. I say it every time someone like you and Eugene and others try to chase me off because you hate Conservatives.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
My GOD you are such a lying snivelling punk. I dont hate conservatives I despise trolls who want to screw with the conversation instead of tying to add to it and either cough up where I told you to leave and that you shouldnt be here or ADMIT you are a liar and a snivelling punk
March 18th, 2009 at 5:26 pmYes if that person accuses me of being one.
March 18th, 2009 at 5:26 pmjay Says:
Or Levi you can become more like Eugene.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Let me translate from the native language of passive aggresive cowardly punk trolls. WWWWAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHH
March 18th, 2009 at 5:27 pmjay Says:
If you mean being civil to others or doing what Eugene does, yes.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
You are a liar. You are not civil you are a coward whose snide condescension is thick as pea soup. THAT is not civil. You just seem to HATE that I expose your little game and call you on your dishonesty. What a punk you are.
March 18th, 2009 at 5:29 pmcivil?
March 18th, 2009 at 5:30 pmWould the tone of this post be a civil one, Jay?
March 18th, 2009 at 5:32 pmBlue Dog Democrats and the New Democrat Coalition want those corporate bribes the Republicans have been getting. Envy is the reason for their existence.
March 18th, 2009 at 5:33 pm212 jay Says:
Hey, we are getting closer to an actual discussion. I am going to do the legwork here and quote Article 1, Section 6 of the US constitution verbatim.
Now please explain how Hillary Clinton’s appointment violates the article and section you specified.
212 jay Says:
I don’t think I was trying to chase you off, I do remember suggesting you don’t post, so you don’t draw the attacks, but I never tried to chase you off. While many Americans do loathe Republicans, we don’t really want to chase you off. Without the Republican trolls we would not have anyone to play with.
Take Republican web sites. They always delete the posts of anyone that has any dissenting opinion. The Republicans can’t handle dissent, anyone that dissents has to apologize to Rush. Progressive web sites don’t prevent Republicans from posting their propaganda, but a game has developed to deal with them when they do.
Don’t blame the players, blame the game.
March 18th, 2009 at 5:41 pmalpuz3 Says: 222 & 223
Exactly so alpuz3. I dont know why anyone would expect us to just take that without responding in kind. Jay wants us to take it then ask if we can have another and WHINES piteously if we dont. Its transparent and its pathetic
March 18th, 2009 at 5:42 pmDivide and conquer… the oldest trick in the freakin’ book.
March 18th, 2009 at 5:48 pmalpuz3 Says:
Divide and conquer… the oldest trick in the freakin’ book.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Truer words were never spoken. It is how the few have ruled the many for millenia
March 18th, 2009 at 5:51 pmalpuz3 Says:
jay Says:
Ya. Where were they? Hiding then also. You guys whip them into shape and make them march in lockstep. Teach them how to get those boots high in the air. You can do it.
Would the tone of this post be a civil one, Jay?
More civil than this:
My GOD you are such a lying snivelling punk. I dont hate conservatives I despise trolls who want to screw with the conversation instead of tying to add to it and either cough up where I told you to leave and that you shouldnt be here or ADMIT you are a liar and a snivelling punk
or this:
That is a lie. I have dont other things my first two posts didnt call you any names. Who cares if you are intimidated we mop the floor with you. Keep coming back for future floormoppings I couldnt care less. It isnt ALL I have it is all most of your posts call for. You arent going to manipulate me. YOU are doing the same thing just in a more cowardly, passive aggressive way. Contempt drops from 90% of your posts. You inult us all the time with snide condescension and veiled insults. That isnt my way. YOU are a punk not me. I come right out with honest hostility. YOU can keep trying to DEFINE your insults as just fine and mine as SOOOO mean but we arent as weak minded and stupid as you so it just flat wont work. Have a REAL conversation you will see something else from me. Talk about us goosestepping and a return serve of contempt is all you deserve.
or this:
Yeah and others have the opposing view. They are allowed THEIR opinion, others disagree like we said no ideological purity here. Also you ARE a troll. Your posts are NOT to further discussion but to show your contempt and to provoke the very DEFINITION of being a troll. Come out of the closet, you arent fooling anyone. We arent as stupid as you and you wont fool us. I know you are a troll. YOU know you are a troll everyone HERE knows you are a troll. We arent weak minded enough for your stupid tricks.
or this
You are a LIAR. You are not civil. Your veiled insults with Nazi imagry and dripping contempt are not civil. YOU dont get to define YOUR crude passive aggressive insulting posts as civil. We arent as stupid as you. You are being a jerk so I am treating you like a jerk it is that simple
or this:
March 18th, 2009 at 5:54 pmThat is a lie. I have dont other things my first two posts didnt call you any names. Who cares if you are intimidated we mop the floor with you. Keep coming back for future floormoppings I couldnt care less. It isnt ALL I have it is all most of your posts call for. You arent going to manipulate me. YOU are doing the same thing just in a more cowardly, passive aggressive way. Contempt drops from 90% of your posts. You inult us all the time with snide condescension and veiled insults. That isnt my way. YOU are a punk not me. I come right out with honest hostility. YOU can keep trying to DEFINE your insults as just fine and mine as SOOOO mean but we arent as weak minded and stupid as you so it just flat wont work. Have a REAL conversation you will see something else from me. Talk about us goosestepping and a return serve of contempt is all you deserve.
I think it is this part.
No Senator or Representative shall, during the time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil office under the authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the emoluments whereof shall have been increased during such time
The point being that Cabinet officers got a pay raise while she was Senator. It is a decent argument. I dont think it was the AIM of the writers to keep Senators from cabinet posts. It is a cogent argument however IF they did get a pay raise during her tenure. The thing is pay gets raised long serving Congressmen would automatically be kept from those jobs. Where the argument goes awry is that Clinton will be making LESS than Condaleeza Rice so that her pay will NOT be above what it was when she took office.
March 18th, 2009 at 6:00 pmuh, Jay… Eugene wasn’t the one playing the civil card. That was you.
March 18th, 2009 at 6:00 pmNo Senator or Representative shall, during the time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil office under the authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the emoluments whereof shall have been increased during such time:
Hillary was a Senator when the positions pay was increased.
March 18th, 2009 at 6:02 pmThat is, under this “Emoluments Clause,” members of Congress are expressly forbidden to take any appointed position within the government which was created or whose pay has been increased during their current term in office.
jay Says:
Ah YEAh jay the difference is I never CLAIMED I am treating you civilly. The REASON is the posts alpuz3 cited. So either cough up the post where I CLAIMED I was being civil or admit you have NO ARGUMENT. YOU are a liar who SAYS you are civil while busting out the rude and nasty posts cited.
March 18th, 2009 at 6:02 pmIn post 230 I wasnt clear at this part.
Where the argument goes awry is that Clinton will be making LESS than Condaleeza Rice so that her pay will NOT be above what it was when she took office.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
What I mean to say is the office she took Secretary of State will NOT pay HER more than it paid when she took office.
March 18th, 2009 at 6:02 pmYou don’t have to make his arguments for him. If he has a point, let him make it for himself. Generally I don’t bother looking things up for wingnuts, because they like to states things as facts without supporting anything with evidence. I have learned to let them hang themselves. They are very good at it.
March 18th, 2009 at 6:03 pmalpuz3 Says:
uh, Jay… Eugene wasn’t the one playing the civil card. That was you.
You can read can’t you? I will continue to be civil even when others are not, but I’m only human. How about you?
March 18th, 2009 at 6:03 pmEugeneDebs Says:
jay Says:
Ah YEAh jay the difference is I never CLAIMED I am treating you civilly. The REASON is the posts alpuz3 cited. So either cough up the post where I CLAIMED I was being civil or admit you have NO ARGUMENT. YOU are a liar who SAYS you are civil while busting out the rude and nasty posts cited.
I can honestly attest that you have been anything but civil to me. I never said you were.
March 18th, 2009 at 6:05 pm#
#
EugeneDebs Says:
In post 230 I wasnt clear at this part.
Where the argument goes awry is that Clinton will be making LESS than Condaleeza Rice so that her pay will NOT be above what it was when she took office.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
What I mean to say is the office she took Secretary of State will NOT pay HER more than it paid when she took office.
And where in the Constitution does it say that’s an exception to article 1 Section 6?
March 18th, 2009 at 6:07 pmThat has to be the most civil way anyone has ever called me a dumb*ss. My, Jay… you can’t get through a post w/out showing me what liar you really are.
March 18th, 2009 at 6:08 pmjay Says:
You are such a LIAR
You can read can’t you?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
This was civil in WHAT WAY? This is your clasic condescension and contempt.
I will continue to be civil even when others are not, but I’m only human. How about you?
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Followed by THIS delusion without even a irony buffering sentence between them. then followed by ANOTHER rude bit of nastiness, how about you ALSO without the irony buffering sentence. I will take your word that YOU are only human but YOUR rude posts came BEFORE my rude posts. You do get that you arent very good at this dont you.
March 18th, 2009 at 6:08 pm#
#
EugeneDebs Says:
jay Says:
You are such a LIAR
You can read can’t you?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
This was civil in WHAT WAY? This is your clasic condescension and contempt.
I will continue to be civil even when others are not, but I’m only human. How about you?
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Followed by THIS delusion without even a irony buffering sentence between them. then followed by ANOTHER rude bit of nastiness, how about you ALSO without the irony buffering sentence. I will take your word that YOU are only human but YOUR rude posts came BEFORE my rude posts. You do get that you arent very good at this dont you.
Where?
March 18th, 2009 at 6:08 pmjay Says:
No Senator or Representative shall, during the time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil office under the authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the emoluments whereof shall have been increased during such time:
Hillary was a Senator when the positions pay was increased.
That is, under this “Emoluments Clause,” members of Congress are expressly forbidden to take any appointed position within the government which was created or whose pay has been increased during their current term in office.
I don’t see any “except for” clause in the Constitution.
March 18th, 2009 at 6:09 pmjay Says:
And where in the Constitution does it say that’s an exception to article 1 Section 6?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I didnt say it categorically did. I said you made a good and cogent argument. It is FELT for the reasons I stated that it would meet the requirements of the constitution. If you dispute that I wouldnt deny there is a good argument there. Ultimatly it would be up to the Supreme Court to decide IF anyone feels strongly enough to take it that far.
March 18th, 2009 at 6:12 pmjay Says:
I can honestly attest that you have been anything but civil to me. I never said you were.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
And I can honestly say YOU are anything but civil in the majority of your posts. You just couch your contempt differently than I bring my hostility. ToMAYto ToMAHto
March 18th, 2009 at 6:14 pmjay Says:
Where?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.
I wasnt rude in my first two posts to you. I was engaging in rational discussion then I read a few of your other posts and the gloves came off.
March 18th, 2009 at 6:16 pmEugeneDebs Says:
jay Says:
And where in the Constitution does it say that’s an exception to article 1 Section 6?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I didnt say it categorically did. I said you made a good and cogent argument. It is FELT for the reasons I stated that it would meet the requirements of the constitution. If you dispute that I wouldnt deny there is a good argument there. Ultimatly it would be up to the Supreme Court to decide IF anyone feels strongly enough to take it that far.
So you agree with me then.
But you are saying that it’s fine to go against a specific article of the Constitution as long as the Supreme court says nothing? I disagree.
March 18th, 2009 at 6:17 pmEugeneDebs Says:
jay Says:
Where?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.
I wasnt rude in my first two posts to you. I was engaging in rational discussion then I read a few of your other posts and the gloves came off.
You mean you were looking for a reason to take the gloves off?
My post were right in line with what was being posted at the time. Read some of them.
March 18th, 2009 at 6:18 pmjay Says:
I don’t see any “except for” clause in the Constitution.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Again I didnt say there was one. I said it was felt this would meet the constitutional requirements as they wont have profitted from any pay raise they were part of passing. You still have a decent argument it cant work that way. The other side has a decent argument that the intent wasnt to keep Senators or Congressmen from being part of a cabinet. Until the Supreme Court rules on this both arguments have their merits as far as I am concerned. Either way the SC rules will be alright with me.
March 18th, 2009 at 6:20 pmJay appears to believe that Hillary Clinton’s appointment is unconstitutional because the Senate got a pay increase. Now I am not a constitutional scholar by any means, so it is not up to me to determine what is or is not constitutional, but I find it highly hypocritical for a Republicans to complain about constitutional violations after Bush used our constitution as toilet paper.
Since the constitution is so important to you Jay, why don’t you list a few ways in which George Bush violated it. If you need help, we will be happy to list them for you. After we compile a list, we will compare the relative severity of the violations. Doesn’t that sound like fun?
March 18th, 2009 at 6:21 pmjay Says:
So you agree with me then.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I agree you have a good argument
But you are saying that it’s fine to go against a specific article of the Constitution as long as the Supreme court says nothing? I disagree.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
NOW you are twisting my words in that passive aggressive condescending way. Keep it up and I will be right back breathing fire at you. Things change. I dont see that the intent of this clause was to keep Senators from being in cabinets. I see the intent of this was to keep Senators from profitting from pay raises that they helped pass. The SC is who makes such rulings. IF no one feels it important enough to take to the SC then no one thinks it is really violating the intent of the Constitution. IF they do then the SC will rule and I dont care how it shakes out. If they think it is a violation then it is and there you go. If they dont fine.
March 18th, 2009 at 6:26 pmLevi the Oracle Says:
Jay appears to believe that Hillary Clinton’s appointment is unconstitutional because the Senate got a pay increase. Now I am not a constitutional scholar by any means, so it is not up to me to determine what is or is not constitutional, but I find it highly hypocritical for a Republicans to complain about constitutional violations after Bush used our constitution as toilet paper.
Since the constitution is so important to you Jay, why don’t you list a few ways in which George Bush violated it. If you need help, we will be happy to list them for you. After we compile a list, we will compare the relative severity of the violations. Doesn’t that sound like fun?
Not because the Senate got a pay raise Levi. Re read my post #242.
Alas, Bush is gone, Obama is here Levi.
March 18th, 2009 at 6:27 pmjay Says:
You mean you were looking for a reason to take the gloves off?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
No I dont and no I wasnt. You dont have amazing mind reading powers to give up trying to read my mind.
My post were right in line with what was being posted at the time. Read some of them.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Your post was rude and insulting to lefties in general. MY post was right in line with yours.
March 18th, 2009 at 6:28 pmThere is no statue of limitations on war crimes jay.
March 18th, 2009 at 6:28 pmBoth Houses of Congress voted and passed a resolution to Roll back the SOS pay to the level it was at the time Clinton was a Senator. Looks to me like they LEGALLY found a way to make it work without breaking the law.
Whaaaaaaaaaaaa!
March 18th, 2009 at 6:28 pmEugeneDebs Says:
jay Says:
So you agree with me then.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I agree you have a good argument
But you are saying that it’s fine to go against a specific article of the Constitution as long as the Supreme court says nothing? I disagree.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
NOW you are twisting my words in that passive aggressive condescending way. Keep it up and I will be right back breathing fire at you. Things change. I dont see that the intent of this clause was to keep Senators from being in cabinets. I see the intent of this was to keep Senators from profitting from pay raises that they helped pass. The SC is who makes such rulings. IF no one feels it important enough to take to the SC then no one thinks it is really violating the intent of the Constitution. IF they do then the SC will rule and I dont care how it shakes out. If they think it is a violation then it is and there you go. If they dont fine.
People never twist words here Eugene, do they?
What is it you meant? If no one cares, is it still a violation of the Constitution? You are all about the Constitution right? I am.
March 18th, 2009 at 6:30 pmAlas, Bush is gone, Obama is here Levi.
And that is why you are a punkass “Jay” the “I am a member” here Troll.
You are what you are.
Pathetic
March 18th, 2009 at 6:31 pmRandomChaos Says:
Both Houses of Congress voted and passed a resolution to Roll back the SOS pay to the level it was at the time Clinton was a Senator. Looks to me like they LEGALLY found a way to make it work without breaking the law.
Whaaaaaaaaaaaa!
I don’t see any “if you roll back the pay raise it’s OK” clause in the Constitution. Show me.
March 18th, 2009 at 6:32 pmRandomChaos Says:
Alas, Bush is gone, Obama is here Levi.
And that is why you are a punkass “Jay” the “I am a member” here Troll.
You are what you are.
Pathetic
What! Bush isn’t gone. What has Bush have to do with what we are talking about?
March 18th, 2009 at 6:34 pmCan you say loophole?
Whaaaaaaaaaaa!
March 18th, 2009 at 6:36 pmRandomChaos Says:
Can you say loophole?
Whaaaaaaaaaaa!
Can you say Constitution?
March 18th, 2009 at 6:37 pmYou know, it’s not really up to me, or jay, or anyone else posting here to determine if it is constitutional or not. It’s up to the Supreme Court, if I am not mistaken. Is the SCOTUS hearing any case regarding the constitutionality of Hillary’s appointment? I don’t believe they are. Maybe jay should start a petition to the attorney general, instead of accusing a US president of violating the constitution.
If jay is right there should be no problem for him to pursue legitimate means to prosecute Obama and remove Hillary. Perhaps Obama should be impeached for this alleged constitutional infraction. Of course, this infraction, if it is legitimate, is so inconsequential compared to the disaster of the Bush years, its absurd that I bother to discuss it.
March 18th, 2009 at 6:37 pmCan you say Bush?
Hey this is fun.
March 18th, 2009 at 6:38 pmoops, forgot the
Whaaaaaaaaaa!
March 18th, 2009 at 6:38 pmLevi the Oracle Says:
You know, it’s not really up to me, or jay, or anyone else posting here to determine if it is constitutional or not. It’s up to the Supreme Court, if I am not mistaken. Is the SCOTUS hearing any case regarding the constitutionality of Hillary’s appointment? I don’t believe they are. Maybe jay should start a petition to the attorney general, instead of accusing a US president of violating the constitution.
If jay is right there should be no problem for him to pursue legitimate means to prosecute Obama and remove Hillary. Perhaps Obama should be impeached for this alleged constitutional infraction. Of course, this infraction, if it is legitimate, is so inconsequential compared to the disaster of the Bush years, its absurd that I bother to discuss it.
I put it to you Levi. What about some other part of the Constitution? If you can ignore one section then you can ignore another. I thought you were in favor of the Constitution. Obama swore to uphold the Constitution of the United States on Jan 20th. I didn’t hear him say except for “Article 1 section 6″, did you? The is no “except clause” last time I read it.
Don’t discuss it Levi.
March 18th, 2009 at 6:45 pmIOKIYR hmmm “Jay”?
March 18th, 2009 at 6:45 pmjay Says:
People never twist words here Eugene, do they?
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
I am not responsible for what others do. I try to NEVER twist words I find it a juvenile way to make a point. I try hard to speak to what it seem you MEANT every time.
What is it you meant? If no one cares, is it still a violation of the Constitution? You are all about the Constitution right? I am.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
I am not conceding it IS a violation of the constitution only that you have a good argument it is. This WAS addressed in a way to MAKE it meet constitutional requirements. There is a good argument on both sides. That is often the case. YOu keep pretending this is cut and dried and it isnt. Everything in the world isnt black and white. There ARE gray areas. The salary of the position was rolled back. There is also a good argument that this meets the intent of the Constitution. You seem to think you have some kind of gotcha point. You dont. You have only a good argument and that is half of the battle. You waste your time trying to convince ME since I dont care one way or another. To me the constitutional intent was met. The SC is who you have to convince. Either way they rule will be fine with me. If no one else thinks it is a violation since the intent was followed then that is fine too.
March 18th, 2009 at 6:46 pmNo gotcha Eugene. Levi wanted to know so I tried to explain it to him. He really doesn’t care though.
YOu keep pretending this is cut and dried and it isnt. Everything in the world isnt black and white. There ARE gray areas.
Yes there are many “gray” areas and I hope you feel the same on other questions and thoughts here. I’ don’t care to “convince” you of anything. I think the Constitution is something that means what it says, that’s all. It goes for everyone who ever swore to live by its words.
Eugene, if the SCOTUS makes a ruling and changes Article 1 Section 6 then it will become legal. So far they haven’t.
March 18th, 2009 at 6:54 pmjay Says:
A reasonable stance but not the ONLY reasonable stance. I also think it reasonable to follow the intent and make allowances to meet what seems constitutional requirements OF the intent. After all if the intent was to say Senators can not take cabinet posts then THAT is what they would have said.
March 18th, 2009 at 7:00 pmThe SCOTUS doesn’t have the authority to change the constitution. They would rule on any case of unconstitutional behavior on the part of the president, but there is no such case before them. This is just another Republican straw man.
March 18th, 2009 at 7:03 pmEugeneDebs Says:
jay Says:
A reasonable stance but not the ONLY reasonable stance. I also think it reasonable to follow the intent and make allowances to meet what seems constitutional requirements OF the intent. After all if the intent was to say Senators can not take cabinet posts then THAT is what they would have said.
It does.
March 18th, 2009 at 7:03 pmThat is, under this “Emoluments Clause,” members of Congress are expressly forbidden to take any appointed position within the government which was created or whose pay has been increased during their current term in office.
March 18th, 2009 at 7:07 pmjay Says:
It does.
>>>>>>>>>>
No it doesnt that langauge would be something like Senators are not eligible to take cabinet posts. Salaries rise at different rates during different time periods. What it basically says is that they cannot help RAISE the pay of a position then profit from it by taking that position.
March 18th, 2009 at 7:09 pmCongress Saxbe-Fixes Senator Hillary Clinton
edit snip
Thus, according to Article I, Section 6, she is ineligible.
Congress, however, has dealt with this problem before in what has been called “the Saxbe Fix.” President Nixon appointed Ohio Senator William Saxbe to be attorney general, but the office received a pay increase while he was serving his Senate term. In response, Congress lowered his pay to the level before he began his term. This again happened in 1993 when President Clinton appointed Texas Senator Lloyd Bentsen to be secretary of the treasury. This past Wednesday, Congress took up the issue again and passed S.J. 46, a joint resolution lowering the salary of the secretary of state to the January 2007 level before Senator Clinton was sworn in to her current Senate term. Here’s the text of the resolution, now in President Bush’s hands:
March 18th, 2009 at 7:10 pmNow if you really wanted to get around this problem and make it legal then Hillary should have resigned from the Senate then Obama could increase the pay of SOS by executive order, then appointed Hillary to the post.
That would be legal.
March 18th, 2009 at 7:11 pmRandomChaos Says:
Congress Saxbe-Fixes Senator Hillary Clinton
edit snip
Thus, according to Article I, Section 6, she is ineligible.
Congress, however, has dealt with this problem before in what has been called “the Saxbe Fix.” President Nixon appointed Ohio Senator William Saxbe to be attorney general, but the office received a pay increase while he was serving his Senate term. In response, Congress lowered his pay to the level before he began his term. This again happened in 1993 when President Clinton appointed Texas Senator Lloyd Bentsen to be secretary of the treasury. This past Wednesday, Congress took up the issue again and passed S.J. 46, a joint resolution lowering the salary of the secretary of state to the January 2007 level before Senator Clinton was sworn in to her current Senate term. Here’s the text of the resolution, now in President Bush’s hands:
Do you rally think I don’t know about the “Saxbe fix”?
It still doesn’t change the Constitution. Not one bit. The fact that others have done this in the past also doesn’t change the Constitution. Only an amendment to the Constitution or a decision from the SCOTUS can do that.
The fact that S. J. 46 Joint Resolution was passed doesn’t change the Constitution either.
March 18th, 2009 at 7:16 pmThe fact that the SCOTUS haven’t ruled on this is because there is no basis in to over rule what is in the Constitution. If it was brought before the SCOTUS they would have to uphold it.
March 18th, 2009 at 7:18 pmIt appears there is not a need to change or amend the Constitution.
March 18th, 2009 at 7:27 pmI await the outcome of your case though.
RandomChaos Says:
It appears there is not a need to change or amend the Constitution.
I await the outcome of your case though.
Like I said, it will not be heard by the SCOTUS because there is only one way to rule on it. It’s quite specific.
The Supreme Court decides what cases it will hear. This one will never be heard, at least not right now.
March 18th, 2009 at 7:30 pmWhat do you know about that. An actual discussion. Go figure.
It is possible here. Thanks.
March 18th, 2009 at 7:31 pmDid pay for SoS go up after Hillary was appointed?
‘Cause….
….that’s the only way the Emoluments Clause could preclude her appointment. It’s written in some old-timey English, but the logic is pretty straightforward.
March 18th, 2009 at 7:37 pmShe’s not been appointed to the office of Senator, the office “whereof emoluments have increased”.
March 18th, 2009 at 7:41 pmEugeneDebs Says:
jay Says:
It does.
>>>>>>>>>>
No it doesnt that langauge would be something like Senators are not eligible to take cabinet posts. Salaries rise at different rates during different time periods. What it basically says is that they cannot help RAISE the pay of a position then profit from it by taking that position.
Yes that was the intent. I agree.
But it doesn’t say “Senators are not eligible to take cabinet posts” does it? It does say:
March 18th, 2009 at 7:45 pm
tombaker Says:
She’s not been appointed to the office of Senator, the office “whereof emoluments have increased”.
Who said she was? She was appointed to SOS (a civil office) where the pay was increased while she was a Senator. Article 1 Section 6.
March 18th, 2009 at 7:50 pmtombaker Says:
Hillary was a Senator when the positions pay was increased.
That is, under this “Emoluments Clause,” members of Congress are expressly forbidden to take any appointed position within the government which was created or whose pay has been increased during their current term in office.
Did pay for SoS go up after Hillary was appointed?
‘Cause….
….that’s the only way the Emoluments Clause could preclude her appointment. It’s written in some old-timey English, but the logic is pretty straightforward.
When you get appointed to the Supreme Court then you can tell them that is what you read and understand. When I get appointed then I will say what it does say in any kind of English.
March 18th, 2009 at 7:53 pmok then – that’s what i was after – SoS pay did increase while she was in the Senate – did not know that
don’t suppose it’ll cause an unwind of the Cabinet either, though….
March 18th, 2009 at 7:57 pmThanks guys. I appreciated the discussion. Gotta go.
March 18th, 2009 at 7:57 pmeasy there big fella – i’m not a-fighin ya….
March 18th, 2009 at 7:58 pm278 jay Says:
There is no case that even could go before the supreme court, at least none I could find. Yes, the SCOTUS decides what cases it will hear, but there is not case here for them to choose from. You are right that this alleged case will never be heard because there is no case.
Where did you come up with this one Jay? Did you notice this alleged constitutional infraction yourself, or did you take it from some other source? What case is it that you keep referring to that the SCOTUS could choose to hear?
March 18th, 2009 at 8:01 pmWhere did you come up with this one Jay?
It was discussed on Meet the Press some time ago when Hillary was having her hearings for the post of SoS. I never said there was a case before the SCOTUS sorry. What I DID say was that it would never be heard by the SCOTUS. It is not “an alleged constitutional infraction” it is an infraction of the Constitution of the United States, Article 1 Section 6.
Sorry.
March 18th, 2009 at 8:18 pmIt is your opinion that it is a constitutional infraction. You do not have the authority to decide such things. It is alleged until it is proven in a court of law. Just because you say something is true does not make it so.
Just so you know, I don’t necessarily disagree with you, just your logic.
March 18th, 2009 at 8:24 pmjay Says:
The fact that the SCOTUS haven’t ruled on this is because
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Got any evidence that you have ANY idea WHY the SC hasnt ruled on it BESIDES THE FACT it hasnt been brought before them?
there is no basis in to over rule what is in the Constitution. If it was brought before the SCOTUS they would have to uphold it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You have no way of knowing this is true it is a baseless assertion. Things do NOT become true just because you post them on a message board or repeat them over and over.
March 18th, 2009 at 8:34 pmjay Says:
But it doesn’t say “Senators are not eligible to take cabinet posts” does it? It does say:
I KNOW what it says. I have a constitution right here at all times. How fast do you think salaries rose in the 1770’s?
If the intent was that they NOT profit from raising the salary of a position then it makes a good argument that as long as they DONT profit from it then it meets the constitutional requirement
March 18th, 2009 at 8:37 pmLevi the Oracle Says:
It is your opinion that it is a constitutional infraction. You do not have the authority to decide such things. It is alleged until it is proven in a court of law. Just because you say something is true does not make it so.
Just so you know, I don’t necessarily disagree with you, just your logic.
It’s not just my opinion Levi. I have the habit of reading the Constitution and believing in what it says. I’m not the only one who thinks is an infraction. They have been side stepping this issue for decades in this country.
Until the Constitution is changed (and it hasn’t) it is an infraction.
Change what the Constitution says or live by what it says Levi. You can’t pick and choose what you are going to obey and what you’re not going to obey.
Either you have to pass an amendment or have a ruling from the SCOTUS. A SCOTUS decision doesn’t change the Constitution, it only re-interprets the meaning of the Constitution. No other action can change it. It’s in the Constitution. Congress can actually change the Constitution through a “Constitutional Amendment” but it has to be ratified by the States. A two thirds majority must approve of the amendment in the House and Senate, and then it has to be ratified by the States. The President may comment on the Amendment but cannot participate in its action. He also has no Veto power over it.
A time frame of 7 years is customarily set to ratify such an Amendment by the States. This, however, can be extended as in the Equal Rights amendment which has failed to pass to date.
March 18th, 2009 at 8:47 pmEugeneDebs Says:
jay Says:
The fact that the SCOTUS haven’t ruled on this is because
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Got any evidence that you have ANY idea WHY the SC hasnt ruled on it BESIDES THE FACT it hasnt been brought before them?
there is no basis in to over rule what is in the Constitution. If it was brought before the SCOTUS they would have to uphold it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You have no way of knowing this is true it is a baseless assertion. Things do NOT become true just because you post them on a message board or repeat them over and over.
Show me where they have ruled on this. I couldn’t find it.
March 18th, 2009 at 8:51 pmEugeneDebs Says:
jay Says:
But it doesn’t say “Senators are not eligible to take cabinet posts” does it? It does say:
I KNOW what it says. I have a constitution right here at all times. How fast do you think salaries rose in the 1770’s?
If the intent was that they NOT profit from raising the salary of a position then it makes a good argument that as long as they DONT profit from it then it meets the constitutional requirement
The “Intent” has to established by the SCOTUS. Until it is changed or there is a ruling, then it still stands as written. Until it is changed, it is still the law. that’s all I’m saying. Live by it or change it.
I also have a copy of the Constitution. I read it often.
March 18th, 2009 at 8:56 pmsoutheast asian T-girl weird porn poorly educated whack off loser…
March 18th, 2009 at 9:15 pmchat Says:
In the meantime, Jay can continue convincing himself that less democracy and more uniformity are the keys to success, and that D’s are “crazy” if they don’t operate the way R’s do (never mind that R’s have been losing in every measurable way for the last few years in spite of their. thanks you
chat
chat
chat
chat
chat
Nothing to say that’s relevant to the discussion chat?
March 18th, 2009 at 9:16 pmjay Says:
chat Says:
In the meantime, Jay can continue convincing himself that less democracy and more uniformity are the keys to success,
So believing in the Constitution means Less Democracy. I never thought of it that way.
I do believe in the Constitution. I feel that it should be followed. Chat doesn’t I guess.
Well so be it.
Thanks for the discussion guys. Those who participated in it at least. Till the next time.
March 18th, 2009 at 9:33 pmGet their names out and then vote these DINOS out. Bayh is a RepubliCon stooge.
March 18th, 2009 at 9:43 pmdbearton Says:
Get their names out and then vote these DINOS out. Bayh is a RepubliCon stooge.
dbearton. If they can’t conform then vote the DINOS out.
March 18th, 2009 at 9:52 pmI read that you were out of here, Jay?
March 18th, 2009 at 10:31 pmDear Mr. Bayh, as a member of the Indiana Democratic party remember we can make you As unemployed as the average Hoosier, come election. Remember we are watching your actions and are not amused. If fairness and decency mean nothing to you, I suggest some serious self preservation. We are watching and will hold you and other obstructionists accountable on election day.
March 19th, 2009 at 12:16 amchat Says:
link spamming again, flag and ignore
March 19th, 2009 at 12:21 amVOTE YES TO S61. ON CNN LAST NIGHT THEY SAID THIS
March 25th, 2009 at 10:08 amSENATOR BAYD HAS BEEN GIVEN MONEY 123,000 TO NOT VOTE
ON THIS LEGISLATION, AND HE IS JUST SITTING ON THE SIDLINES
TO SEE HOW MUCH MORE MONEY HE CAN GET. I HAVE LEFT 2 MESSAGES
AT HIS OFFICE HOW THIS IS A BRIBE, AND HE SHOULD
STEP UP FOR THE PEOPLE WHO ARE POOR IN HIS STATE, AND
THE AVERAGE WHO ARE LOSING THEIR HOMES, WHILE HE ACCEPTS
CASH TO LET THEM GO AHEAD AND BECOME HOMELESS, AND FORCLOSE.
INDIANA CITIZENS CALL HIS NUMBER AT THE CAPITAL AND TELL
HIM TO VOTE YES TO S61 AND STOP HOLDING UP THE BILL.