Specter Becomes Democrat

[Jeff_R]

[quote]pwilliams wrote:
pushharder wrote:
Specter is a goofy ol’ fart who was so in love with his Senate seat and all the perks that go with it that he was willing to join the party that really did reflect his views.

Snowe might as well go with him.

So let’s start a list. Who else may or should switch?

Sen. Chuck Hagel, Nebraska
Sen. John McCain, Nevada

Feel free to add congressmen and governors.

I could add another 5 or so, but who say you?

[/quote]

First of all, make sure you work on geography prior to posting. See McCain.

Second, let’s not overreact. This switch is due to politics. Pure and simple. The Republicans in Pennsylvania and elsewhere were/are PISSED that specter/snowe/collins, were the swing votes for obama’s first spending orgy.

People were/are actively working against those three due to that vote.

NO ONE WHO VOTED FOR THAT HORRIBLE MEASURE CAN CALL THEMSELVES REPUBLICANS.

It is and was against what Republicans stand for.

So let’s not get carried away with the “implications” of this switch. specter was going to get whipped by Toomey.

He reverted BACK to being a democrat in the hopes of staving off defeat.

JeffR

[dhickey]

[quote]dhickey wrote:
tme wrote:
dhickey wrote:
you’ve got to be kidding me. nobody gives a shit about gay marriage. if this is a deciding factor in anyones vote, they are a fucking idiot.

Awesome, you just described about 80% of GW’s base. You can try and argue that getting this issue on the ballot was a major factor in 2004 for Bush, but you’d be lying and you damn well know it.

80% of GWB’s votes were becuase of gay marriage? good one. you’re a real intellectual.[/quote]

i would also like you to go through a little exercize.

Please point to the states that you think have more anti-gay marriage only voters than gay marriage only voters.

Then tell us why you think that made a big enough difference to win GWB the state.

Now do the reverse for states that he did not win.

[tGunslinger]

Hey, Mufasa.

They say a picture is worth a thousand words:

I encourage everyone to look at that picture.

I want everyone to think about who the CBO is. I want you to think about the “worse than projected” GDP report from yesterday, worsening unemployment, and think about the effect on that chart.

JeffR

[/quote]

I look at that picture and see two things:

1. It looks as if we might’ve actually had a surplus in 2008 if not for those hare-brained bailouts to finish the year.

2. I seem to see a stronger correlation between spending and one party domination of Washington, either party, than spending-going-up-for-Dems and spending-going-down-for-GOP.

It’s true that the Dems are worse offenders than the GOP, but the Reps haven’t been true defenders of small government and fiscal responsibility for many, many years.

The Dems actually serve the interests of many of their constituents, however misguided, which is why they’re in power. The GOP has firmly cemented themselves as “The Lesser Evil”, and that’s why nobody really likes them. Not even their constituents.

[Gambit_Lost]

Happy 100

[pwilliams]

[quote]Jeff R wrote:
pwilliams wrote:

Sen. John McCain, Nevada

First of all, make sure you work on geography prior to posting. See McCain.

JeffR
[/quote]

Funny, thanks.

[Mufasa]

[quote]tGunslinger wrote:
Hey, Mufasa.

They say a picture is worth a thousand words:

I encourage everyone to look at that picture.

I want everyone to think about who the CBO is. I want you to think about the “worse than projected” GDP report from yesterday, worsening unemployment, and think about the effect on that chart.

JeffR

I look at that picture and see two things:

1. It looks as if we might’ve actually had a surplus in 2008 if not for those hare-brained bailouts to finish the year.

2. I seem to see a stronger correlation between spending and one party domination of Washington, either party, than spending-going-up-for-Dems and spending-going-down-for-GOP.

It’s true that the Dems are worse offenders than the GOP, but the Reps haven’t been true defenders of small government and fiscal responsibility for many, many years.

The Dems actually serve the interests of many of their constituents, however misguided, which is why they’re in power. The GOP has firmly cemented themselves as “The Lesser Evil”, and that’s why nobody really likes them. Not even their constituents.[/quote]

Exactly the point.

While the GOP and Dems may differ in their public rhetoric; and while they may, on some issues, vote differently (and that actually depends on what is to the greatest advantage for the individual Congressman or Senator)…they simply don’t differ that much in how much spending they support.

Even the most conservative people on this Forum recognize that.

Mufasa

[jsbrook]

The GOP and the Dems take pretty much the same irresponsible stance to spending and fiscal responsibility. These days, they only differ on social issues.

[Jeff_R]

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
tGunslinger wrote:
Hey, Mufasa.

They say a picture is worth a thousand words:

I encourage everyone to look at that picture.

I want everyone to think about who the CBO is. I want you to think about the “worse than projected” GDP report from yesterday, worsening unemployment, and think about the effect on that chart.

JeffR

I look at that picture and see two things:

1. It looks as if we might’ve actually had a surplus in 2008 if not for those hare-brained bailouts to finish the year.

2. I seem to see a stronger correlation between spending and one party domination of Washington, either party, than spending-going-up-for-Dems and spending-going-down-for-GOP.

It’s true that the Dems are worse offenders than the GOP, but the Reps haven’t been true defenders of small government and fiscal responsibility for many, many years.

The Dems actually serve the interests of many of their constituents, however misguided, which is why they’re in power. The GOP has firmly cemented themselves as “The Lesser Evil”, and that’s why nobody really likes them. Not even their constituents.

Exactly the point.

While the GOP and Dems may differ in their public rhetoric; and while they may, on some issues, vote differently (and that actually depends on what is to the greatest advantage for the individual Congressman or Senator)…they simply don’t differ that much in how much spending they support.

Even the most conservative people on this Forum recognize that.

Mufasa
[/quote]

tTy/mufasa/jsbrook:

Are you looking at the same chart? Saying that “they don’t simply differ that much in how much spending they support” is like saying there’s not much difference between a 100 and a 900 pound deadlift. Or, tme’s johnson is kind of like John Holmes’. Or, poindexter’s arm looks kind of like Arnold’s circa 1975.

LOOK AT THE CHART!!!

For clarification, if one of you leftie’s said that “both parties are guilty of spending irresponsibly” I’d agree.

But, when you attempt to compare the DEGREE of malfeasance, it’s Apple’s and Oranges.

Again, see chart.

JeffR

[tom63]

One thing to remember if the Dems think that Specter is just going to give them everything they want, they’re sadly mistaken, he’s going to love getting his ass kissed and being the man.

I can seriously see Specter giving them a big screwing. Especially on health care an carbon taxes. Bankrupt the coal industry anyone? and where is most of the anthracite coal. Pa. would get drilled by carbon taxes.

Specter most likely will screw the Dems more than the Republicans.

[jsbrook]

[quote]tom63 wrote:
One thing to remember if the Dems think that Specter is just going to give them everything they want, they’re sadly mistaken, he’s going to love getting his ass kissed and being the man.

I can seriously see Specter giving them a big screwing. Especially on health care an carbon taxes. Bankrupt the coal industry anyone? and where is most of the anthracite coal. Pa. would get drilled by carbon taxes.

Specter most likely will screw the Dems more than the Republicans.[/quote]

Specter’s not screwing anyone. Specter will vote as Specter believes. As he always has. That’s never been along party lines, though sometimes it is in keeping with the party label he currently puts himself in. Everyone recognizes this.

[jsbrook]

[quote]Jeff R wrote:
Mufasa wrote:
tGunslinger wrote:
Hey, Mufasa.

They say a picture is worth a thousand words:

I encourage everyone to look at that picture.

I want everyone to think about who the CBO is. I want you to think about the “worse than projected” GDP report from yesterday, worsening unemployment, and think about the effect on that chart.

JeffR

I look at that picture and see two things:

1. It looks as if we might’ve actually had a surplus in 2008 if not for those hare-brained bailouts to finish the year.

2. I seem to see a stronger correlation between spending and one party domination of Washington, either party, than spending-going-up-for-Dems and spending-going-down-for-GOP.

It’s true that the Dems are worse offenders than the GOP, but the Reps haven’t been true defenders of small government and fiscal responsibility for many, many years.

The Dems actually serve the interests of many of their constituents, however misguided, which is why they’re in power. The GOP has firmly cemented themselves as “The Lesser Evil”, and that’s why nobody really likes them. Not even their constituents.

Exactly the point.

While the GOP and Dems may differ in their public rhetoric; and while they may, on some issues, vote differently (and that actually depends on what is to the greatest advantage for the individual Congressman or Senator)…they simply don’t differ that much in how much spending they support.

Even the most conservative people on this Forum recognize that.

Mufasa

tTy/mufasa/jsbrook:

Are you looking at the same chart? Saying that “they don’t simply differ that much in how much spending they support” is like saying there’s not much difference between a 100 and a 900 pound deadlift. Or, tme’s johnson is kind of like John Holmes’. Or, poindexter’s arm looks kind of like Arnold’s circa 1975.

LOOK AT THE CHART!!!

For clarification, if one of you leftie’s said that “both parties are guilty of spending irresponsibly” I’d agree.

But, when you attempt to compare the DEGREE of malfeasance, it’s Apple’s and Oranges.

Again, see chart.

JeffR

[/quote]

Where is this chart you’re speaking of?

[Varqanir]

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Prima facie? His party switch just in the nick of time for sheer political expediency.[/quote]

Aaaaaaaannnnnnnd… we’re back where we started.

[jsbrook]

[quote]pushharder wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
…Specter will vote as Specter believes. As he always has…

Ahhh…a man of great principle…yessiree bob…

Prima facie? His party switch just in the nick of time for sheer political expediency.[/quote]

Not saying otherwise. Specter joined the Republican party after being a Democrat decades ago because he couldn’t get the party support he needed from the Democrats to win a national electon. Same thing this time. He has a better shot as a Democrat. But he still votes as he wants and believes whatever his label and whatever his reason for party affiliation. Fault him for it or praise him for it. But that’s certainly the case.

[Jeff_R]

[quote]jsbrook wrote:
Jeff R wrote:
Mufasa wrote:
tGunslinger wrote:
Hey, Mufasa.

They say a picture is worth a thousand words:

I encourage everyone to look at that picture.

I want everyone to think about who the CBO is. I want you to think about the “worse than projected” GDP report from yesterday, worsening unemployment, and think about the effect on that chart.

JeffR

I look at that picture and see two things:

1. It looks as if we might’ve actually had a surplus in 2008 if not for those hare-brained bailouts to finish the year.

2. I seem to see a stronger correlation between spending and one party domination of Washington, either party, than spending-going-up-for-Dems and spending-going-down-for-GOP.

It’s true that the Dems are worse offenders than the GOP, but the Reps haven’t been true defenders of small government and fiscal responsibility for many, many years.

The Dems actually serve the interests of many of their constituents, however misguided, which is why they’re in power. The GOP has firmly cemented themselves as “The Lesser Evil”, and that’s why nobody really likes them. Not even their constituents.

Exactly the point.

While the GOP and Dems may differ in their public rhetoric; and while they may, on some issues, vote differently (and that actually depends on what is to the greatest advantage for the individual Congressman or Senator)…they simply don’t differ that much in how much spending they support.

Even the most conservative people on this Forum recognize that.

Mufasa

tTy/mufasa/jsbrook:

Are you looking at the same chart? Saying that “they don’t simply differ that much in how much spending they support” is like saying there’s not much difference between a 100 and a 900 pound deadlift. Or, tme’s johnson is kind of like John Holmes’. Or, poindexter’s arm looks kind of like Arnold’s circa 1975.

LOOK AT THE CHART!!!

For clarification, if one of you leftie’s said that “both parties are guilty of spending irresponsibly” I’d agree.

But, when you attempt to compare the DEGREE of malfeasance, it’s Apple’s and Oranges.

Again, see chart.

JeffR

Where is this chart you’re speaking of?[/quote]

It’s in the text you just sent.

But, I’m feeling charitable: Photobucket | The safer way to store your photos

JeffR

[jsbrook]

[quote]Jeff R wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
Jeff R wrote:
Mufasa wrote:
tGunslinger wrote:
Hey, Mufasa.

They say a picture is worth a thousand words:

I encourage everyone to look at that picture.

I want everyone to think about who the CBO is. I want you to think about the “worse than projected” GDP report from yesterday, worsening unemployment, and think about the effect on that chart.

JeffR

I look at that picture and see two things:

1. It looks as if we might’ve actually had a surplus in 2008 if not for those hare-brained bailouts to finish the year.

2. I seem to see a stronger correlation between spending and one party domination of Washington, either party, than spending-going-up-for-Dems and spending-going-down-for-GOP.

It’s true that the Dems are worse offenders than the GOP, but the Reps haven’t been true defenders of small government and fiscal responsibility for many, many years.

The Dems actually serve the interests of many of their constituents, however misguided, which is why they’re in power. The GOP has firmly cemented themselves as “The Lesser Evil”, and that’s why nobody really likes them. Not even their constituents.

Exactly the point.

While the GOP and Dems may differ in their public rhetoric; and while they may, on some issues, vote differently (and that actually depends on what is to the greatest advantage for the individual Congressman or Senator)…they simply don’t differ that much in how much spending they support.

Even the most conservative people on this Forum recognize that.

Mufasa

tTy/mufasa/jsbrook:

Are you looking at the same chart? Saying that “they don’t simply differ that much in how much spending they support” is like saying there’s not much difference between a 100 and a 900 pound deadlift. Or, tme’s johnson is kind of like John Holmes’. Or, poindexter’s arm looks kind of like Arnold’s circa 1975.

LOOK AT THE CHART!!!

For clarification, if one of you leftie’s said that “both parties are guilty of spending irresponsibly” I’d agree.

But, when you attempt to compare the DEGREE of malfeasance, it’s Apple’s and Oranges.

Again, see chart.

JeffR

Where is this chart you’re speaking of?

It’s in the text you just sent.

But, I’m feeling charitable: Photobucket | The safer way to store your photos

JeffR

[/quote]

It says something. But not sure that there can be a truly good comparison. You’d need to compare a ruling Republican’s budget after the financial criss and a Democrat’s budget after the financial crisis. Pretty ner impossible. Bush was on his way out.

Republicans voted for the bailout. But I will say that most voted against Obama’s budget. I think all of the Senate Rebpublicans did. So, I guess it’s fair to say that their degree of ‘malfeasance’ is less. Incidentally, Specter voted against the budget.

[Jeff_R]

[quote]jsbrook wrote:
Jeff R wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
Jeff R wrote:
Mufasa wrote:
tGunslinger wrote:
Hey, Mufasa.

They say a picture is worth a thousand words:

I encourage everyone to look at that picture.

I want everyone to think about who the CBO is. I want you to think about the “worse than projected” GDP report from yesterday, worsening unemployment, and think about the effect on that chart.

JeffR

I look at that picture and see two things:

1. It looks as if we might’ve actually had a surplus in 2008 if not for those hare-brained bailouts to finish the year.

2. I seem to see a stronger correlation between spending and one party domination of Washington, either party, than spending-going-up-for-Dems and spending-going-down-for-GOP.

It’s true that the Dems are worse offenders than the GOP, but the Reps haven’t been true defenders of small government and fiscal responsibility for many, many years.

The Dems actually serve the interests of many of their constituents, however misguided, which is why they’re in power. The GOP has firmly cemented themselves as “The Lesser Evil”, and that’s why nobody really likes them. Not even their constituents.

Exactly the point.

While the GOP and Dems may differ in their public rhetoric; and while they may, on some issues, vote differently (and that actually depends on what is to the greatest advantage for the individual Congressman or Senator)…they simply don’t differ that much in how much spending they support.

Even the most conservative people on this Forum recognize that.

Mufasa

tTy/mufasa/jsbrook:

Are you looking at the same chart? Saying that “they don’t simply differ that much in how much spending they support” is like saying there’s not much difference between a 100 and a 900 pound deadlift. Or, tme’s johnson is kind of like John Holmes’. Or, poindexter’s arm looks kind of like Arnold’s circa 1975.

LOOK AT THE CHART!!!

For clarification, if one of you leftie’s said that “both parties are guilty of spending irresponsibly” I’d agree.

But, when you attempt to compare the DEGREE of malfeasance, it’s Apple’s and Oranges.

Again, see chart.

JeffR

Where is this chart you’re speaking of?

It’s in the text you just sent.

But, I’m feeling charitable: Photobucket | The safer way to store your photos

JeffR

It says something. But not sure that there can be a truly good comparison. You’d need to compare a ruling Republican’s budget after the financial criss and a Democrat’s budget after the financial crisis. Pretty ner impossible. Bush was on his way out.

Republicans voted for the bailout. But I will say that most voted against Obama’s budget. I think all of the Senate Rebpublicans did. So, I guess it’s fair to say that their degree of ‘malfeasance’ is less. Incidentally, Specter voted against the budget. [/quote]

Thanks for your response and checking out the chart.

I would suggest that the recession that Bush inherited and his response to it would give a pretty clear indication of the difference.

JeffR

[Mufasa]

[quote]jsbrook wrote:

Republicans voted for the bailout. But I will say that most voted against Obama’s budget. I think all of the Senate Rebpublicans did. So, I guess it’s fair to say that their degree of ‘malfeasance’ is less. Incidentally, Specter voted against the budget. [/quote]

Right…voted against it…and are prepared to spend the money faster than a Frat Boy on Spring Break…

Just this morning, The State if Utah…the State of Ultra-Conservative Orrin Hatch, and perhaps the most Conservative State in the Union…announced the greatest road construction expansion in the States history.

I understand that they even have those electronic signs up stating that the expansion is funded by the American Stimulus and Recovery Act.

Make of that what you may…but the words I would use are 1) hypocrisy and 2) demagoguery.

(Not to pick on just Utah…this is happening all over the U.S.)

Mufasa

[Mufasa]

[quote]Jeff R wrote:

Thanks for your response and checking out the chart.

I would suggest that the recession that Bush inherited and his response to it would give a pretty clear indication of the difference.

JeffR

[/quote]

You’re welcome! :)! (Yea…I know you were talking to JS…)

1. Inherited the recession from WHOM…himself??? (Let me guess…from CLINTON, I presume!)

2. Again…the chart shows very little (if anything) of what a Republican Congress and President would have spent facing the same crises.

My point is that BASED ON WHAT McCAIN WAS PROPOSING…there would have been little difference in the chart you’re so focused on, JeffR.

The distribution of SOME of those funds may have been a little different…but there would have been little difference in the total outlay.

I listened VERY closely to what both candidates, (McCain and Obama),were saying and proposing.

Mufasa

[Jeff_R]

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
Jeff R wrote:

Thanks for your response and checking out the chart.

I would suggest that the recession that Bush inherited and his response to it would give a pretty clear indication of the difference.

JeffR

You’re welcome! :)! (Yea…I know you were talking to JS…)

1. Inherited the recession from WHOM…himself??? (Let me guess…from CLINTON, I presume!)

2. Again…the chart shows very little (if anything) of what a Republican Congress and President would have spent facing the same crises.

My point is that BASED ON WHAT McCAIN WAS PROPOSING…there would have been little difference in the chart you’re so focused on, JeffR.

The distribution of SOME of those funds may have been a little different…but there would have been little difference in the total outlay.

I listened VERY closely to what both candidates, (McCain and Obama),were saying and proposing.

Mufasa
[/quote]

Mufasa:

Back in the day, you were one of the more moderate of the posters. Even if you disagreed, you usually could be counted on to acknowledge the obvious.

Perhaps things have changed.

Please show me where McCain proposed this much spending. Please show me how he voted on the spending spree (code named stimulus package) pushed through via democrats.
Show me where he would pass a budget with 9000 earmarks.
Finally, and this is critical, show me where he advocated a 3,600,000,000 Federal Budget.

With the new budget, he will have outspent EVERY SINGLE AMERICAN PRESIDENT FROM THE BEGINNING OF THE REPUBLIC, COMBINED.

Again, if you said both parties are guilty of irresponsible spending I’d agree. However, you really cannot compare the degree of spending. The democrats are so much worse as to make this an apples and oranges debate.

It just really isn’t open to any sort of debate.

JeffR