Well he could have chucked all that pubby bullshit and rammed a decent single payer govt. takeover down the throats of the reactionary minority, but he didn’t do that did he? Where’s the gratitude from the right? They should be welcoming this bill with flowers and dancing in the street. Ungrateful bastards, the lot of em!
Early on in the process (say, before the Massachussetts election), I disagree. I think he could have gotten something more bipartisan. But once the bullying stuff happened, I think the die was cast.
“Bullying”? Obama and the Democrats groveled like crazy. It wasn’t enough.
Wrong. Except for a decent-size bump around the time of the Republican convention when Palin was announced as the VP candidate, Obama was polling ahead of McCain for a significant majority of 2008. Even before the financial crisis. McCain’s problems began long before the financial crisis, but his bungled reaction to it exacerbated them and probably led him to the Hail Mary pass of picking Palin in the first place.
I’m not going to argue anything else with you Smashy, because frankly you’re deluded. But I do feel the need to point out that your “whackjob” cites aren’t really getting any better.
I don’t want to threadjack too much, but your chart pretty much shows McCain either slightly leading or slightly behind (tied at 45.7%) as of 9/17… or 6 weeks before the election 
Fine by me.
BTW just saying my cites aren’t any better doesn’t fly with me - if not, why not? What’s the difference? I guess these are questions for the rest of the board, since you’ve self-selected out of the conversation.
The OP is whining that people are throwing bricks and making other threats. I say both sides do it. I just posted proof of that. And the response is… silence.
Yes, however your entire point that this factoid supported - that Obama was elected only because of the financial crisis and McCain being associated with Bush during it - is still wrong. As evidenced by the numbers.
If you go back and re-read my post, you’ll see that I never said it was the only reason. Just one (and IMHO, the primary) reason.
Again, the numbers were tied at 45.7% as per Realclearpolitics (one of my favorite sites by the way; it’s so hard to find objectivity on the web these days). As of 6 weeks before the election.
I need you to take a moment to go look up the word “proof”.
You’ve got three or four sketchy paragraphs about some broken windows and a bomb threat. Nobody knows or is even guessing who did it. Hell, my high school regularly got broken windows and bomb threats. Mostly from high school kids. Hardly on a par with spitting on people, or cut gas lines, or white powder in envelopes.
OK, but you first. There’s just as much chance that the Dems were doing those things to other Dems as a means to play up the victimhood line and change the subject from an unpopular bill that was just passed, as there is a chance that the GOP is self-attacking as a means to join in the victimhood and take the heat off of them as the only bad guys.
My point is: both sides do this. Both sides have whackjobs and violent thugs. ELF, IMF/anti-globalization protestors, and union toughs… or militia, skinheads, and abortion doctor killers.
If you truly believe in democracy and the rule of law then how is it you can’t get behind a president elected by the majority?
I don’t understand the whole ‘rammed it down our throats’ thing. It was passed, through both houses, by a majority - of elected officials. How is that ramming? Isn’t that how it’s prescribed to work? A majority voted for Obama, a majority passed this bill, where’s the controversy? Does the GOP think that a democratic president was elected and now he has to do their bidding?
I get that it sucks to be the 49 in a 51/49 divide, over any issue, at any time. But if you believe in democracy, as the Republican’s claim, then suck it up and hope to do better next time. How does it help them to just be obstructionist pricks?
It’s confusing to try and understand how the republicans thought any questioning of GWB’s war plans (which turned out to be built on a huge freaking lie!) was treason, but they can constantly attempt through lies, misrepresentations and shitstirring attempt to obstruct a duly elected president. And not over a war that will cost lives, no over healthcare reform which will save lives. I honestly don’t know how they sleep at night after talking such trash and behaving so badly.
I am happy I live in Canada where we try to keep guns out of the hands of every dimwit with a pulse and have Hate Speech laws that would put a halt to many of the worst of these shenanigans. It ain’t ever dull observing Amerika though.
So that makes it OK :dubious:
Now back to that church burning…
Well, I’m not a Republican but I never thought questioning W’s war initiatives was treason. and even something as drastic as OEF and OIF had bipartisan support.
The reasons the right thinks this was rammed are:
a) far-reaching legislation like this usually has bipartisan support
b) the GOP was largely excluded in the process
c) there were several parliamentary tricks, usually reserved for budgets only, used to get this through
d) most of the American people were against it for most of the time
As for how it helps them to be obstructionist pricks: it will help them in the next election. No doubt about it. This bill has fired up the troops as nothing I’ve seen before.
Once the decision was made to ‘ram’ it through, the die was cast. Obama needed this victory, however pyrrhic it may be, or his entire agenda was in danger (the so-called blue dogs wouldn’t give him the time of day if they cast their votes for nothing). And the GOP now has about as clear an issue as there is to run on, and since they are out of power in both houses plus the WH, there’s no muddled accountability issues.
This doesn’t get truer the more you say it.
And yeah… I’m also curious about the church burning. Are you ever going to address that?
a) far-reaching legislation like this usually has bipartisan support - except when the opposition are being obstructionist pricks
b) the GOP was largely excluded in the process - because they were being obstructionist pricks
c) there were several parliamentary tricks, usually reserved for budgets only, used to get this through - because the opposition was being obstructionist pricks, and the “tricks” were actually not used (such as deem and pass)
d) most of the American people were against it for most of the time - flat out false.
When a majority votes for something and the minority does anything they can to obstruct it, then the majority will no longer need to grovel for votes they don’t need. The GOP was being obstructionist, even after being asked to participate, provide input, concessions were made, and the bill watered down to please them. Now they and you are saying it’s not fair and it’s not right. Bullshit.
NOW WHAT ABOUT THAT CHURCH?
I NEVER said it was OK. But I feel it makes sense to fight the meme and CW in this enclave of liberalism that is the SDMB that only the right wing has whackjobs.
As for the church burning stuff, I forget where I heard that, on the radio or TV a few years ago. There’s suprising little info on the web about the motivation and racial makeup of rural black church arsonists. Here’sa doc I found from 1996. It cites one black arsonist who did it for attention, sometimes it’s pyromaniacs, sometimes it’s robbers who didn’t find anything of value and wanted to get retribution.
USA Today supposedly had an article in the July 1 1996 edition (“Black Church Burnings: Why they did it”) but I couldn’t find it.
I’m not sure how you can say this with a straight face.
The polls are clear, and have been for months.
Well, as per usual you just make up what you want to hear and repeat it for the board. The GOP was obstructionist pricks. OK, good argument. You win I guess. :rolleyes:
As for the bill being watered down: it was watered down to get the aforementioned Dems on board. You would know this if you weren’t so wrapped up in your partisanship and blind hatred.
When you say it’s false that most of America was against the bill: go read the polls I just posted. Now say let’s try that again.
About those “tricks” - How about this one?
*Jim Manley [said:] “For a second straight day, Republicans are using tricks to shut down several key Senate committees. So let me get this straight: in retaliation for our efforts to have an up-or-down vote to improve health care reform, Republicans are blocking an Armed Services committee hearing to discuss critical national security issues among other committee meetings? These political games and obstruction have to stop – the American people expect and deserve better.” *
As to the polls, I quoted one that I believe is pretty accurate, in one of my previous posts. But, it’s simple. Republicans fought this every step of the way, and then got outvoted anyhow. Deal with it.
Now back to the original subject of threats and vandalism.
Forget “they did it too”, forget the “Dems are mean and won’t play nice” crap. Don’t give me any “they are reacting to the Commie takeover of whatever is being taken over and are upset” Just answer this - Do you agree with and approve of what these ass hats are doing?
YES or NO.
Then answer about that church burning or shut up.