Even If Brown Wins The Dem’s Still Have Plenty Of Options To Pass ObamaCare…We Need To Keep Our Eyes On The Ball

This is a win all or lose all election, and dirty politics will be the word of the day. This corrupt administration will do everything to win, to hell with the electorate. If Brown wins every democratic seat in the House and Senate will be in jeopardy and they know it. all stops will be pulled out lying, cheating and stealing will be in place. Heaven help us if Brown loses because this administration will bury us in taxes and corruption will rule this country!

Very well said b-rob. There are so many experts on this forum who know why things won’t work. It is amazing. They have no expertise why things WILL work just why things won’t work. Scott Brown has it in the bag and this is a very very big deal. The experts on this forum are trying to tell us that even if Scott Brown wins (which he will) it won’t ake any difference.

One starts really questioning the experts’ motives. they seem more interested in negating Scott Brown than achieving victory.

You could ask Snowe how is that Stimulus package working out for you …

Mata —

Loud and wrong . . . as usual!

http://www.bostonherald.com/business/healthcare/view.bg?articleid=1224249

“The U.S. Senate ultimately will schedule the swearing-in of Kirk’s successor, but not until the state certifies the election.

“Friday, a spokesman for Secretary of the Commonwealth William Galvin, who is overseeing the election but did not respond to a call seeking comment, said certification of the Jan. 19 election by the Governor’s Council would take a while.

“’Because it’s a federal election,’ spokesman Brian McNiff said. ‘We’d have to wait 10 days for absentee and military ballots to come in.’”

“Another source told the Herald that Galvin’s office has said the election won’t be certified until Feb. 20 – well after the president’s address.”

* * * * *

They allow 10 days after the election for the absentee ballots to come in and be counted. It’s part of the post Bush v. Gore federal statutes to standardize how ballots are handled in federal elections. So, as I said, mid February at the earliest. And that ASSUMES there are no recounts. If there is a recount, it could be like Franken — a couple months.

bill-tb — according to the economists, the stimulus is not doing too badly. It added dollars into the economy at a time when the economy was shrinking. I know you cons wanted us to go all Calvin Coolidge and everything, but the Keynesians won about 70 years ago. Get used to it . . . .

Chihuahua — Nikki Tsongas was put into the House — and her election was not close. The Senate has different rules. That is why Franken was not sworn in for months after the election HAD BEEN CERTIFIED — because the Senate requires the Secretary of State to sign off. Similar thing with Roland Burris and Sec. of State Jesse White not quickly certifying Burris’ selection to the Senate.

Another thing I find fascinating about you cons — you are talking about 60 people in the Senate “ramming through” a piece of legislation that started getting worked on in February of last year. It’s been a year. And you are talking about a supermajority of the senior house, representing about 75% of the US population, acting on a bill that is a year old — but you cons spin it as if this is some secret rushed thing being put together by a bare majority. You cons seem to want the petty grievances of the shrunken GOPer Party to dictate what the majority party does. That makes no sense. If you had won the last two election cycles, then we could have it your way — do nothing and swear that everything is A-OK. But you lost, cons . . . and you lost big time. So get over yourselves.

@B-Rob: And another thing… you keep saying “cons” as if you don’t know more cons than we do.

If those bills weren’t a secret then why didn’t everyone, including Senate Democrats in the leadership, know what was in them?

If you were a smarter person and perhaps had gone to a school which didn’t give you a pass based on race you might not have made that point.

“Hand the dems the robe, and they’ll hang themselfs”. I am a firm believer, that whatever crooked way they use will cause more backlash in November. I think this is the time, where aermican voters scream ‘enough is enough’.
Sit back, and enjoy the movie1

Mike’s America —

In 2009, the GOP got its collective a$$es kicked in special Congressional elections in Mississippi, Louisiana, California and New York. In fact . . . have you cons won a SINGLE special election this year?

Ay Chihuahua — You threw out so much b.s., I had to go to my garage and get a shovel.

To start with, you falsely paraphrased what I said. I noted that the racist White Citizens Council became the still racist Conservative Citizens Council; they equated “white” with “conservative” — not me. Although, we should note that people who tend to identify themselves as “conservative” are overwhelmingly White, not the rainbow you get if you look at the moderate, independent or liberal. What do YOU conclude from that, Chi?

The fact that you did not know about the post Bush v. Gore changes proves that you, in fact, had no clue what the hell you are talking about before you opined. Its called the Help America Vote Act, you dipsh*t . . . . use the Google and learn something before you spout off.

And on the Franken thing, you do know that the election was in November of 2008, don’t you? You do know that the initial call by the state had Coleman winning, right? Using your “logic” where Brown and Coakley are concerned, Coleman should have been sworn in and voting long before the court battles ceased. But that proves my point — the bill will probably come up before February 1 and no one, not Brown or Coakley, will be certified or sworn in by then. And the idea of waiting until someone is certified to vote on health care reform . . . that’s just retarded. What if it takes a year to sort out? Why stall this bill and not stall, for example, the defense appropriation on the same grounds — that Brown might vote differently? It makes no sense.

And no, it is not apples and oranges comparing them to Burris. Jessie White originally hedged are certifying the selection of Burris. And the Senate would not seat Burris until White signed off on Burris. That, son, is the same thing I am talking about — the Senate rules are different than the House rules. It’s why Tsongas got seated in a few days and neither Coakley nor Brown will. Indeed, since the seat is not empty, there is no need to “rush” the certification as you cons want, because Massachusetts is fully represented in the Senate right now. Minnesota went more than six months with an empty chair. And if the Senate did not seat Franken as soon as he pulled ahead and Coleman started suing, what makes you think they should or will do anything differently in Massachusetts? In fact . . . using Minnesota as the precedent, depending on what happens Tuesday, Paul Kirk might be the junior Senator from Massachusetts for some time to come.

Bush in 2000 was close — less than 500 votes in a state of 20 million people. Al Franken’s election was close –he won by less than 400. Obama’s win in North Carolina was close — his margin statewide was about 5,000 and there was no recount. Ditto McCain in Missouri. By that measure, Tsongas’ 6500 votes margin in a congressional district was a walk.

On the stimulus, a quote that says it all —

“The economy was weaker than we thought at the time, so maybe in retrospect we could have used a little bit more and little bit more front-loaded,” said Joel Prakken, chairman of Macroeconomic Advisers, another financial analysis group, in St. Louis.

From Mark Zandy, McCain’s former economics advisor:

“Among Democrats in the White House and Congress, ‘there was a considerable amount of hand-wringing that it was too small, and I sympathized with that argument,’ said Mark Zandi, chief economist of Moody’s Economy.com and an occasional adviser to lawmakers.

“'[T]he stimulus is doing what it was supposed to do — it is contributing to ending the recession,’ he added, citing the economy’s third-quarter expansion by a 3.5 percent seasonally adjusted annual rate. ‘In my view, without the stimulus, G.D.P. would still be negative and unemployment would be firmly over 11 percent. And there are a little over 1.1 million more jobs out there as of October than would have been out there without the stimulus.’”

Another quote:

“So the stimulus has not ‘supercharged’ transportation construction as was hoped, said Charles Gallagher, an asphalt company owner, speaking for the American Road and Transportation Builders Association, but it has nonetheless been ‘a welcome Band-Aid’ to offset state cuts.

“’Many contractors across the nation have been able to sustain, if not add to, their work force,’ he said.

“That sort of impact is what makes federal aid to state governments rank high in economists’ reckoning of the stimulus value of various proposals. Every dollar of additional infrastructure spending means $1.57 in economic activity, according to Moody’s, and general aid to states carries a $1.41 “bang” for each federal buck.

“Even more effective are increases for food stamps ($1.74) and unemployment checks ($1.61), because recipients quickly spend their benefits on goods and services.”

Indeed, can you find a single economist who would say that unemployment would have been lower without the stimulus, or that GDP would be higher? No, I bet you can’t. And that is why I say it “worked.”

B-Rob #28 – Obama probably paid someone to take tests for him; after all, he doesn’t do anything as president or Commander-in-Chief. He sends his goons, thugs, criminal friends, etc to do everything for him. He is a lazy, affirmative action POS that is not even eligible to be president. Are you willing to accept facts? I have personally asked many black voters why they voted for Obama; their answer: He’s black. Not one said they thought he would do a good job. Poor excuse for putting someone in such a high office with no experience, no background, and no military service. Thanks to a lot of racist black people, we are stuck with a no-good, no account shell of a person demanding we treat him like royalty. NO THANKS!! I’ll take George and Laura over O’stupd and Sasquatch any day!
Madalyn

And Chihuahua —

On the stimulus, you failed, dude. I asked you to cite an economist who believed that unemployment woudl have been lower and GDP higher without the stimulus. Instead, you reposted the year old predictions of where the economy MIGHT be without a stimulus package. But as the economist in the article I linked to mentioned, no one thought it would be as sharp a contraction as what occurred. So, no, you did not identify a contrarian economist who thinks we would have been better off without the stimulus. Instead, you just linked to something that merely showed that the Obama folks were not nearly pessimistic enough in projecting where the economy was headed.

Franken — let me use a better term than “certified” — he was DECLARED the winner months before the litigation ended. That’s what the Coleman lawsuit was all about — keeping him from being officially certified. They has seven months of protracted litigation before Franken was sworn in. Now for whatever reason, you GOPers seemed to have no problem with that delay of the certification process. In fact, I remember GOPers threatening to challenge Franken’s eligibility if he was seated before all the litigation ended. But now, since you cons (inaccurately) think that Brown would turn the tide, you want to follow a different set of rules.

Why was Nikki Tsongas sworn in a couple days after the election? I have no idea. It may be that they don’t require an official certification in the House the way they do in the Senate. But the Senate, as I explained using the Jesse White/Roland Burris example, requires Secretary of State certification. You can try to compare Tsongas and Brown, but it is a bogus comparison. The proper comparison is Burris and Franken.

B-Rob spouts a lie, Mata refutes it, B-Rob parses the truth Mike’s A refutes it, B-Rob B-Rob B-Rob… the Rob stands for robs everyone of their time refuting his silly-assed assertions. This is an exercise in futility, like thinking you can reason with an insane person.

The “conservatives” BLOB suggests were blocking civil rights WERE ALL DEMOCRATS!

Has he forgotten that Robert KKK Byrd was the Exalted Cyclops of the Klan?

B-Rob, As I recall it was Southern Democrats that blocked desegregation in the south.
Get outa here until you get your “facts” straight. I honestly don’t know where you get
your info but you quite frankly are ill informed, misinformed and obnoxious as hell to boot.

I am a minority and have kinfolk that still live on Reservations and they are Red, not Black.

Their forbearers were here before the slave trade or colonization of North America. They were massacred by the thousands, had US Government Treaties repeatedly broken, had their lands stolen and I could go on but that was very real. Civil Rights? Get off of that crap.
What about theirs?

What you know about anything besides an agenda driven line of left wing talking points would be about the size of a suppository for a gnat’s a$$ as evidenced by your rantings here. Do some homework before you grace Us with any more of your BS.

Old Trooper —

“As I recall it was Southern Democrats that blocked desegregation in the south.
Get outa here until you get your ‘facts’ straight.”

Your recall is faulty. George H.W. Bush and Barry Goldwater voted against the desegregation efforts, Chuck Percy voted for them, the NYC Dem delegation voted for them, and the Southern Dems voted against them. The more accurate way to describe the support and opposition to the civil rights statutes is that CONSERVATIVES of both parties voted against the desegregation efforts. Liberals and moderates of both parties voted for them.

In that sense, the National Review crowd cast its lot with the Ku Klux Klan. And the conservative Southern Dems, and Southern GOPers, too, aligned themselves with the White Citizens Council.

Yep it is funny how you “forgot” to mention the Southern GOPers who voted against the civil rights act and sided with Bull Connor. But now that the facts are clearly stated, you can revise your paragraph above to more accurately reflect the actual history.

George H.W. Bush and Barry Goldwater voted against the desegregation efforts, Chuck Percy voted for them

Percy was a conservative Republican.

Goldwater voted for 9 of the 11 sections of the CR/64 bill, and wanted to vote for the bill but thought two of the sections were unconstitutional. Pres. George H. W. Bush wasn’t elected to Congress until 1966, two years after the Civil Rights Act of 1964 passed.

One shouldn’t mention Chuck Percy and forget Senator Everett Dirksen-REPUBLICAN who risked his health working up to 16 hours a day and finally after Senator Robert Byrd-DEMOCRAT KKK performed his legendary filibuster against the Civil Rights Act of 64, Dirksen, hero of my state, finished off the democratic opposition.

Dirksen arrived at the Senate just as Robert C. Byrd (D-WV) was completing his marathon address of 14 hours and 13 minutes, the longest speech in the entire debate. It ended at 9:51 a.m, just nine minutes before the Senate was scheduled to convene for the pivotal vote on cloture.

Dirksen had the last word. In poor health, drained from working fourteen, fifteen, and sixteen-hour days, his words came quietly. Twice he gulped pills handed him by a Senate page. In his massive left hand, he held a 12-page speech he had typed the night before on Senate stationery . “I have had but one purpose,” Dirksen intoned, “and that was the enactment of a good, workable, equitable, practical bill having due regard for the progress made in the civil rights field at the state and local level.”

http://www.congresslink.org/print_basics_histmats_civilrights64_cloturespeech.htm

I found this interesting:

The DNC Web site section labeled “Party History,” linked here, is in fact scrubbed clean of the not-so-little dirty secret that fueled Democrats’ political successes for over a century and a half and made American life a hell on earth for black Americans. Literally, the DNC official history, which begins with the creation of the party in 1800, gets to the creation of the DNC itself in 1848 and then–poof!–the next sentence says: “As the 19th Century came to a close, the American electorate changed more and more rapidly.” It quickly heads into a riff on poor immigrants coming to America.

In a stroke, 52 years of Democratic history vanishes. Disappeared faster than the truth in the Clinton administration. Why would this be? Allow me to sketch in a few facts from those missing 52 years. For that matter, lets add in the facts from the party history before and after those 52 years, since they aren’t mentioned by the Democrats’ National Committee either.

* * *

So what’s missing?

There is no reference to the number of Democratic Party platforms supporting slavery. There were six from 1840 through 1860.

There is no reference to the number of Democratic presidents who owned slaves. There were seven from 1800 through 1861

There is no reference to the number of Democratic Party platforms that either supported segregation outright or were silent on the subject. There were 20, from 1868 through 1948.

There is no reference to “Jim Crow” as in “Jim Crow laws,” nor is there reference to the role Democrats played in creating them. These were the post-Civil War laws passed enthusiastically by Democrats in that pesky 52-year part of the DNC’s missing years. These laws segregated public schools, public transportation, restaurants, rest rooms and public places in general (everything from water coolers to beaches). The reason Rosa Parks became famous is that she sat in the “whites only” front section of a bus, the “whites only” designation the direct result of Democrats.

There is no reference to the formation of the Ku Klux Klan, which, according to Columbia University historian Eric Foner, became “a military force serving the interests of the Democratic Party.” Nor is there reference to University of North Carolina historian Allen Trelease’s description of the Klan as the “terrorist arm of the Democratic Party.”

There is no reference to the fact Democrats opposed the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments to the Constitution. The 13th banned slavery. The 14th effectively overturned the infamous 1857 Dred Scott decision (made by Democratic pro-slavery Supreme Court justices) by guaranteeing due process and equal protection to former slaves. The 15th gave black Americans the right to vote.

There is no reference to the fact that Democrats opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1866. It was passed by the Republican Congress over the veto of President Andrew Johnson, who had been a Democrat before joining Lincoln’s ticket in 1864. The law was designed to provide blacks with the right to own private property, sign contracts, sue and serve as witnesses in a legal proceeding.

There is no reference to the Democrats’ opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1875. It was passed by a Republican Congress and signed into law by President Ulysses Grant. The law prohibited racial discrimination in public places and public accommodations.

There is no reference to the Democrats’ 1904 platform, which devotes a section to “Sectional and Racial Agitation,” claiming the GOP’s protests against segregation and the denial of voting rights to blacks sought to “revive the dead and hateful race and sectional animosities in any part of our common country,” which in turn “means confusion, distraction of business, and the reopening of wounds now happily healed.”

There is no reference to four Democratic platforms, 1908-20, that are silent on blacks, segregation, lynching and voting rights as racial problems in the country mount. By contrast the GOP platforms of those years specifically address “Rights of the Negro” (1908), oppose lynching (in 1912, 1920, 1924, 1928) and, as the New Deal kicks in, speak out about the dangers of making blacks “wards of the state.”

There is no reference to the Democratic Convention of 1924, known to history as the “Klanbake.” The 103-ballot convention was held in Madison Square Garden. Hundreds of delegates were members of the Ku Klux Klan, the Klan so powerful that a plank condemning Klan violence was defeated outright. To celebrate, the Klan staged a rally with 10,000 hooded Klansmen in a field in New Jersey directly across the Hudson from the site of the convention. Attended by hundreds of cheering convention delegates, the rally featured burning crosses and calls for violence against African-Americans and Catholics.

There is no reference to the fact that it was Democrats who segregated the federal government, at the direction of President Woodrow Wilson upon taking office in 1913. There \is a reference to the fact that President Harry Truman integrated the military after World War II.

There is reference to the fact that Democrats created the Federal Reserve Board, passed labor and child welfare laws, and created Social Security with Wilson’s New Freedom and FDR’s New Deal. There is no mention that these programs were created as the result of an agreement to ignore segregation and the lynching of blacks. Neither is there a reference to the thousands of local officials, state legislators, state governors, U.S. congressmen and U.S. senators who were elected as supporters of slavery and then segregation between 1800 and 1965. Nor is there reference to the deal with the devil that left segregation and lynching as a way of life in return for election support for three post-Civil War Democratic presidents, Grover Cleveland, Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt.

There is no reference that three-fourths of the opposition to the 1964 Civil Rights Bill in the U.S. House came from Democrats, or that 80% of the “nay” vote in the Senate came from Democrats. Certainly there is no reference to the fact that the opposition included future Democratic Senate leader Robert Byrd of West Virginia (a former Klan member) and Tennessee Senator Albert Gore Sr., father of Vice President Al Gore.

Last but certainly not least, there is no reference to the fact that Birmingham, Ala., Public Safety Commissioner Bull Connor, who infamously unleashed dogs and fire hoses on civil rights protestors, was in fact–yes indeed–a member of both the Democratic National Committee and the Ku Klux Klan.

Reading the DNC’s official “Party History” of the Democrats and the race issue and civil rights is not unlike reading “In Through the Looking Glass”: ” ‘When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean–neither more nor less.’ ”

Here’s this line from the DNC: “With the election of Harry Truman, Democrats began the fight to bring down the final barriers of race . . .” Truman, of course, was elected in 1948, and to his great credit he did in fact, along with then-Minneapolis Mayor Hubert Humphrey, begin to push the Democrats towards a pro-civil-rights stance. This culminated in the passage of the 1960s civil rights laws–legislation that redid what had been done by Republicans a hundred years earlier but undone by the Democrats’ support for segregation. But the notion that “Democrats began to bring down the final barriers of race” raises the obvious questions. What were these barriers doing there in the first place? And who exactly was responsible for creating them?

more:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121856786326834083.html

You desperately tag the racists of the past as conservatives, they were not, they were bullies that grouped together to prevent the freedom and rights of blacks. They were like pit bulls guarding their turf, which is just exactly what the democrats are doing today. They care not what the public wants or that they are trampling on their right to live free.