The City-Data Election Board Hijackers

[GOPATTA2D]

Originally Posted by geoff2v

By whose admission? I see the bill has 60-some-odd cosponsers, and was tabled in early 2007. Did Pelosi said that would be a priority once she had enough support?

As a matter of fact, yes.

[cap1717]

There is an old, and very true saying. . . "what goes around, comes around". . . Those who behave badly, without regard to either truth or civility, will reap exactly what they sow. President - elect Obama is not an evil character, he is a fine and intelligent man who will continue to gather information about every aspect of governance, and will be wise enough to "change his views" when and if he develops a new understanding of problems and possible solutions. Senator McCain is not a bad man, nor a stupid one, but with no real idea how to solve the problems that the nation now faces, he relied on a campaign of creating "fear of" the other guy, in his bid to win. Those who follow the news in an intelligent and bipartisan way, at this point of time, will see that both the current government and leaders of both political parties are supporting president-elect Obama in his effort to make wise decisions for the entire country. Please, let's give the "bashing" a rest, on both sides. . . neither one serves our nation or it's citizens well!

[geoff2v]

Originally Posted by NewMexicanRepublican

As a matter of fact, yes.

A quick search on the internets found no such thing, though in 2003, when Time Magazine asked her about extending the ban (it was about to expire), this is the response:

House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi called upon Bush to pressure G.O.P. House leaders to bring the extension of the ban to the floor, but she conceded that Democratic leaders would be leery of strong-arming their own members on such a sensitive issue. "We would probably lose some votes," she said.

As for Reid, there's this sequence from an interview of Pelosi on Fox News by Chris Wallace, also in 2004:

WALLACE: Let me ask you, Harry Reid has just taken over as the Democratic leader in the Senate.

PELOSI: Yes. Wonderful.

WALLACE: But you and he have voted on opposite sides on a number of issues. You voted on opposite sides of authorizing the Iraq war, of the $87 billion funding for it, on partial-birth abortions. I believe you're on opposite sides about the ban on assault weapons.

And this quote from an alleged letter he wrote to a constituent:

I do not support the reauthorization of the assault weapons ban because studies have not demonstrated that it has any effect on reducing crime. I voted against the original assault weapons ban when it came before the Senate in 1993. I also voted against an effort to reauthorize the ban in 2004. Please be assured that I will keep your concerns in mind should I have the opportunity to review H.R. 1022 or related legislation in the Senate."

So, Pelosi supports the bill, but won't go to the mat for it, and Reid opposes it. This doesn't seem to me like something Pelosi and Reid are going to push Obama to pass.

[Soccersupporter]

Originally Posted by oscottscotto

Anyone else pay attention to who makes certain posts, starts certain threads, etc? If you do, then you will easily notice that there are around 20 regulars (I won't name names per TOS) that constantly and almost spammishly post extreme anti-Obama sentiments in their posts/threads and have been doing this for a long time. And now, even after the American people have spoken, the same 20 or so people are still clogging up the boards with this mess.

The thing is, is that I don't think these people understand a basic psychological principle in effect ... that showed up in an extremely clear fashion during this election. The more negativity and/or hatred you spew, the more others either begin to not take you seriously, not take your opinions into account when you make them, and/or in some cases, start to feel even more passionately for the items that you spend so much time trying to degrade. It's human nature. For instance, in my opinion, Obama would have won by a smaller margin if both candidates had run a positive, respectful campaign (because of his policy stances). But instead, it was an electoral blowout for Obama because of the psychological principal I just stated above.

So, can we please stop the silliness? It's only making those who are not anti-Obama (the majority) - even more empassioned to support him and/or support him no matter what happens (which is your greatest fear, apparently). The more you show respect, the more level-headed people will respect you and take your opinions into account.

It is the American way of politics. The Dems bash the sitting President and the Repugs do the same. We are a divided country when it comes to politics. The funny thing is otherwise we are quite the same. We want what is best for our family, a good job, health and leisure time, and a bright future.

The real problem is that most voters are sheep willing to believe the party line no matter what. The fact that a President got elected on some very vague promise of change without any substance to back it up proves how desperate the voters (sheep) are. When things go wrong, and I sincerely hope they won't, the sheep will look for another politician to blindly follow. It is the only way sheep know how to act, follow the leader whomever they might be. The days of independent thinkers is a thing of the past. The media and the political machine have the country just where they want them, divided down the middle. This is the way they want it because they know what people united can do and are afraid of a united people. They are afraid because that is when people demand real change, real reform just like we did when we became a nation not the lip service we get from our corrupt 2 party system. Wake up people!

[TnHilltopper]

Originally Posted by oscottscotto

So, can we please stop the silliness? It's only making those who are not anti-Obama (the majority) - even more empassioned to support him and/or support him no matter what happens (which is your greatest fear, apparently). The more you show respect, the more level-headed people will respect you and take your opinions into account.

With cries to stop comes even greater opposition. You have just created more controversy and conflation of the situation by posting this thread.

Consider how hard it is for people to change their own minds and opinions on something, then ask, what hope have you to change the minds and opinions of others? Slim to none I would guess and to the extent that you could it usually comes in the form of discussion with other people that have minds just opened enough to consider someone elses ideas. To those that do not, you have a shouting match where the obedient believers of a given philosophy will hurl talking points and claim victory each time someones temper is raised, every time someone responds, and each time some one calls to attention the futility of such an exercise, much like I'm doing right now.

I see a whole bunch of pages of posts here of people claiming to ignore this sort of engagement, am I the only one who sees the humorous irony here? Silence is after all, one of the hardest arguments to refute.

In any event, I believe this thread has run its course.