Political Crossfire Forums

[ubikk]

The Democratic caucus rejected Murtha's bid for majority leader and voted to go with the more moderate and respectable Hoyer.

Meanwhile, on the other side of the aisle, the republicans resurrected hard-liner Trent Lott.

This suggest to me that the republicans did not learn much from the election, while the demcocrats did.

[jamesp]

It wasn't Murtha's bid, it was Pelosi's desire and nomination.


Lott stepped down due to immense pressure from the DEMS calling him a racist for a comment he made at a birthday party for SC SEN Thurman. ( kinda like Webb/Allen)..McKaka ? whatever that means...everyone thought it was from th Lion King...

Murtha being nominated and supported by Pelosi shows just how far removed the DEMS really are, here is a guy on an FBI tape, and she still supports him.

Lott, although I am not fan of his, has immense knowledge of how the Senate and the internal rules work. He is in a position that the R's need right now.

He was a lousy MAJ Leader, he caved on everything..hopefully he will be a better whip now that he learned HIS lesson.

in case you don't really know waht a whip does,. here is the detail..
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
whips - Assistants to the floor leaders who are also elected by their party conferences. The Majority and Minority Whips (and their assistants) are responsible for mobilizing votes within their parties on major issues. In the absence of a party floor leader, the whip often serves as acting floor leader.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The lesson learned should have been from Speaker Pelosi...don't stand behind a looser on your first order of business...

Considering that Dodd and Rangle have both come out with foolish legislation plans, it is apparant that the DEMS have NOT learned any lesson. Terrorists rights and the Draft..

Huge mistake out of the gate...

Is that what all the DEMS support, legislation to assist Terrorists in Court and to bring back the draft ?

Is that what you all voted for ? Is that what you wanted done first ?

Because that is probably what you are gonna get first...

[Eduffy80911]

ubikk wrote: The Democratic caucus rejected Murtha's bid for majority leader and voted to go with the more moderate and respectable Hoyer.

Meanwhile, on the other side of the aisle, the republicans resurrected hard-liner Trent Lott.

This suggest to me that the republicans did not learn much from the election, while the demcocrats did.

By hardliner do you mean someone who actually promotes the party's agenda? If so, why wouldn't you put a "hardliner" in the leadership spot?

What did the Dem's learn? Never take a stand? Be the other guys? Be passionate about moderation?

[U seless N ations]

Eduffy80911 wrote: ubikk wrote: The Democratic caucus rejected Murtha's bid for majority leader and voted to go with the more moderate and respectable Hoyer.

Meanwhile, on the other side of the aisle, the republicans resurrected hard-liner Trent Lott.

This suggest to me that the republicans did not learn much from the election, while the demcocrats did.

By hardliner do you mean someone who actually promotes the party's agenda? If so, why wouldn't you put a "hardliner" in the leadership spot?

What did the Dem's learn? Never take a stand? Be the other guys? Be passionate about moderation?

I dont' understand how this is even debatable considering the title is completely biased against republicans refering to them as repubes. I'm sure a topic title the Demococks would not get the same response from the Dems on here....
:roll:
I could be wrong tho but repubs has always looked like pubes to me lol

[StrangerWitCandy]

Eduffy80911 wrote: ubikk wrote: The Democratic caucus rejected Murtha's bid for majority leader and voted to go with the more moderate and respectable Hoyer.

Meanwhile, on the other side of the aisle, the republicans resurrected hard-liner Trent Lott.

This suggest to me that the republicans did not learn much from the election, while the demcocrats did.

By hardliner do you mean someone who actually promotes the party's agenda? If so, why wouldn't you put a "hardliner" in the leadership spot?

What did the Dem's learn? Never take a stand? Be the other guys? Be passionate about moderation?

Most of the country is moderate. Maybe they wanted to promote their agenda for a change.

[Eduffy80911]

StrangerWitCandy wrote: Eduffy80911 wrote: ubikk wrote: The Democratic caucus rejected Murtha's bid for majority leader and voted to go with the more moderate and respectable Hoyer.

Meanwhile, on the other side of the aisle, the republicans resurrected hard-liner Trent Lott.

This suggest to me that the republicans did not learn much from the election, while the demcocrats did.

By hardliner do you mean someone who actually promotes the party's agenda? If so, why wouldn't you put a "hardliner" in the leadership spot?

What did the Dem's learn? Never take a stand? Be the other guys? Be passionate about moderation?

Most of the country is moderate. Maybe they wanted to promote their agenda for a change.

What's a moderate's agenda?
Please everyone?
Good luck with that.

Most people describe themselves as moderate because it's easier than actually putting any thought into the fundamentals of an issue.

If one person insists that 2+2 =4 and another insists that 2+2=6, the moderate would say, let's agree that 2+2=5.

[U seless N ations]

Eduffy80911 wrote: StrangerWitCandy wrote: Eduffy80911 wrote: ubikk wrote: The Democratic caucus rejected Murtha's bid for majority leader and voted to go with the more moderate and respectable Hoyer.

Meanwhile, on the other side of the aisle, the republicans resurrected hard-liner Trent Lott.

This suggest to me that the republicans did not learn much from the election, while the demcocrats did.

By hardliner do you mean someone who actually promotes the party's agenda? If so, why wouldn't you put a "hardliner" in the leadership spot?

What did the Dem's learn? Never take a stand? Be the other guys? Be passionate about moderation?

Most of the country is moderate. Maybe they wanted to promote their agenda for a change.

What's a moderate's agenda?
Please everyone?
Good luck with that.

Most people describe themselves as moderate because it's easier than actually putting any thought into the fundamentals of an issue.

If one person insists that 2+2 =4 and another insists that 2+2=6, the moderate would say, let's agree that 2+2=5.

:lol: good question I would like to see what a moderate says to this :lol:

[StrangerWitCandy]

Eduffy80911 wrote: StrangerWitCandy wrote: Eduffy80911 wrote: ubikk wrote: The Democratic caucus rejected Murtha's bid for majority leader and voted to go with the more moderate and respectable Hoyer.

Meanwhile, on the other side of the aisle, the republicans resurrected hard-liner Trent Lott.

This suggest to me that the republicans did not learn much from the election, while the demcocrats did.

By hardliner do you mean someone who actually promotes the party's agenda? If so, why wouldn't you put a "hardliner" in the leadership spot?

What did the Dem's learn? Never take a stand? Be the other guys? Be passionate about moderation?

Most of the country is moderate. Maybe they wanted to promote their agenda for a change.

What's a moderate's agenda?
Please everyone?
Good luck with that.

Most people describe themselves as moderate because it's easier than actually putting any thought into the fundamentals of an issue.

If one person insists that 2+2 =4 and another insists that 2+2=6, the moderate would say, let's agree that 2+2=5.

Maybe they were just looking for someone without partisan blinders?

A moderate's beliefs are varied. They're a combination of left and right, which is why they can usually only be described individually.

[JLB]

A moderate is a person who does not know what his own core beliefs consist of.

[Otacon]

Trent Lott happens to be a distant cousin of mine. :lol:

[Ozzone]

JLB wrote: A moderate is a person who does not know what his own core beliefs consist of.

True. You hit the baseline definition. My definition explains yours to some degree.

A moderate is a person that leans left on some issues and leans right on other issues and sometimes doesn't lean at all or doesn't care about the issue. The balance usually puts them somewhere near the middle.

[Alizard]

Eduffy80911 wrote: [What did the Dem's learn?

How easy it is to vaporize the ground out from under republicans. All you have to do is give them what they want (a moderate in a leadership position) which completely takes away the repubs ability to call the democrats arrogant and disageeable, abusing their position of leadership (in other words, what the GOP did for the last decade).

The democrats use of simple logic and common sense to destroy all the GOP whining points makes me think they may participate in these forums.... since I've been doing the same thing for months. :lol:

[Ek0nomik]

I don't like moderates. :?

[Alizard]

Ozzone wrote: A moderate is a person that leans left on some issues and leans right on other issues and sometimes doesn't lean at all .

In other words, they don't evaluate issues simply on "left" or "right" and use conscience and reason to decide their position?

God help us if any of those get into the government.

[Rankor and Pissing]

Alizard wrote: Eduffy80911 wrote: [What did the Dem's learn?

How easy it is to vaporize the ground out from under republicans. All you have to do is give them what they want (a moderate in a leadership position) which completely takes away the repubs ability to call the democrats arrogant and disageeable, abusing their position of leadership (in other words, what the GOP did for the last decade).

The democrats use of simple logic and common sense to destroy all the GOP whining points makes me think they may participate in these forums.... since I've been doing the same thing for months. :lol:

So your logic = trolling. Got it.

[Centrist]

JLB wrote: A moderate is a person who does not know what his own core beliefs consist of.

That's patently false as a generalization.

Ozzone wrote: A moderate is a person that leans left on some issues and leans right on other issues and sometimes doesn't lean at all or doesn't care about the issue. The balance usually puts them somewhere near the middle.

That's far more accurate.

To expand it even further, a lot of moderates, myself included, separate our own code of conduct and personal standards from what we feel we can reasonably demand of others.

[Eduffy80911]

StrangerWitCandy wrote: Eduffy80911 wrote: StrangerWitCandy wrote: Eduffy80911 wrote: ubikk wrote: The Democratic caucus rejected Murtha's bid for majority leader and voted to go with the more moderate and respectable Hoyer.

Meanwhile, on the other side of the aisle, the republicans resurrected hard-liner Trent Lott.

This suggest to me that the republicans did not learn much from the election, while the demcocrats did.

By hardliner do you mean someone who actually promotes the party's agenda? If so, why wouldn't you put a "hardliner" in the leadership spot?

What did the Dem's learn? Never take a stand? Be the other guys? Be passionate about moderation?

Most of the country is moderate. Maybe they wanted to promote their agenda for a change.

What's a moderate's agenda?
Please everyone?
Good luck with that.

Most people describe themselves as moderate because it's easier than actually putting any thought into the fundamentals of an issue.

If one person insists that 2+2 =4 and another insists that 2+2=6, the moderate would say, let's agree that 2+2=5.

Maybe they were just looking for someone without partisan blinders?

A moderate's beliefs are varied. They're a combination of left and right, which is why they can usually only be described individually.

why do you have to be partisan to believe strongly in something?

I have a core set of beliefs that I'm not the least bit moderate about and I didn't have to refer to any party platform to find them.

[TheGirlNextDoor]

U seless N ations wrote: Eduffy80911 wrote: StrangerWitCandy wrote: Eduffy80911 wrote: ubikk wrote: The Democratic caucus rejected Murtha's bid for majority leader and voted to go with the more moderate and respectable Hoyer.

Meanwhile, on the other side of the aisle, the republicans resurrected hard-liner Trent Lott.

This suggest to me that the republicans did not learn much from the election, while the demcocrats did.

By hardliner do you mean someone who actually promotes the party's agenda? If so, why wouldn't you put a "hardliner" in the leadership spot?

What did the Dem's learn? Never take a stand? Be the other guys? Be passionate about moderation?

Most of the country is moderate. Maybe they wanted to promote their agenda for a change.

What's a moderate's agenda?
Please everyone?
Good luck with that.

Most people describe themselves as moderate because it's easier than actually putting any thought into the fundamentals of an issue.

If one person insists that 2+2 =4 and another insists that 2+2=6, the moderate would say, let's agree that 2+2=5.

:lol: good question I would like to see what a moderate says to this :lol:

I would say that's a baseless and false charge.

Moderates are people that do not want to please everyone. They are however, people that can see issues from all sides, weigh the pros and cons and make an informed decision from the information available.

Moderates also don't believe in swallowing everything they are spoon fed. Too bad people think we are appeasers. We just happen to not take one side over another just to "fit in" to a party platform and we tend to think for ourselves, instead of being TOLD what to think.

I believe it's called being informed.

Sign me -

Moderate Republican with libertarian leanings.

[TheGirlNextDoor]

JLB wrote: A moderate is a person who does not know what his own core beliefs consist of.

What a load of crap.

[Eduffy80911]

TheGirlNextDoor wrote: JLB wrote: A moderate is a person who does not know what his own core beliefs consist of.

What a load of crap.

you mean

"what an undetermined amount of some kind of substance"