Cypriss PROVEN Liar - Senate Voting Records Reveal GOP has MORE Moderates

TheDanold

TheDanold

Unimatrix
Cypriss lies and claims that the GOP is purging itself of moderates, far from that being true, the GOP even has a very Liberal senator

Going over the voting records for 2005 in the senate, we find that those who are moderate (ie: voted somewhere between 30-70% for either Liberal side or Conservative)
and we have:
3 Dems (Landrieu, Salazar and Nelson (Nebraska))
7 Republicans (DeWine, Collins, Snowe, Specter, Smith, Voinovich, Coleman)
Plus Republican Lincoln Chafee who only voted a measly 12% on the Conservative side, making him very Liberal:
http://www.acuratings.org/2005Senate.htm

Far from being far right, the GOP has more than twice the moderation of the Democrat party.
Cypriss caught lying again, facts will kill him time and again.

This also highlights the real problem of why we don't see much Conservatism (as cypriss well knows) coming out of congress - because we have moderate to Liberalish GOP reps voting with Dems.
Don't assume that Republican = Conservative, though usually it does, we need more CONSERVATIVE Republicans if we ever want to see spending go down.
 
and they are PURGING themselves of the moderates.... they mounted a primary campaign against Specter and they are mounting one against Chafee... are you really that stupid or is this all an act?
 
maineman said:
and they are PURGING themselves of the moderates.... they mounted a primary campaign against Specter and they are mounting one against Chafee... are you really that stupid or is this all an act?
Click to expand...

Moron, purging doesn't mean that you give competition in a primary you dumb fuck. Should I accuse you of purging yourself of moderates because Lieberman got beat out in the primary from a further left wing guy?
Purging means getting them out of the party.

Personally I question the value of Liberalish GOP reps because they vote with Dems for more spending and then it's the "majority" Republicans who get the blame. Fucking dishonesty to the core.
 
Perhaps the voting records is why some of the moderate Republicans are falling from favor within the controlling elements of the party.
Voting records are history Dano, purging the moderates is future actions Dano, You cannot understand the difference ?
 
You vote in idiots that are left to moderate on the economics and people that are hard right fascist censoring idiots on social policy and you wonder why capitalist freedom loving individuals like myself constantly laugh at you.

"you" refers to republicans not just you specifically.
 
The biggest problem is our two party system and being forced to vote for the lesser of two evils. dewine for example is a rino. I don't want him representing me. However the lib that's running against him is ten times worse. My other choices are independent and not vote. The independents are unknown cause they don't get the coverage of the major parties.

So the choice becomes let the flaming lib get in and totally ruin the economy and ruin the military or vote in the rino cause he'll ruin it more slowly.

In voinovich's case your voting for a lib period. No choice there at all.
 
TheDanold said:
Moron, purging doesn't mean that you give competition in a primary you dumb fuck. Should I accuse you of purging yourself of moderates because Lieberman got beat out in the primary from a further left wing guy?
Purging means getting them out of the party.

Personally I question the value of Liberalish GOP reps because they vote with Dems for more spending and then it's the "majority" Republicans who get the blame. Fucking dishonesty to the core.
Click to expand...


no...purging means to get them off the ballot and out of office. Nobody forces anyone OUT of a political party in America.... if that were the case, Zell Miller would have been PURGED from the democratic party years ago.

The GOP establishment has SUPPORTED the primary opponents of sitting moderate republican US senators - MORON - and that is as close to PURGING as we allow in AMerica.

And you can accuse the democrats in Connecticut of voting against a guy who was diametrically opposed to them on their single biggest issue. I could give a fuck how moderate Joe Lieberman is on anything...he is FOR the war in Iraq and he has fully supported Bush in that war and the democrats in his home state made him pay for that.... with ZERO help from the democratic party establishment.

Chafee is being challenged by republicans with party support and approval. See the difference?...that's what's called a "purge" here in American politics. It is entirely different than a purge in other, less hospitable countries.

moron
 
maineman said:
no...purging means to get them off the ballot and out of office. Nobody forces anyone OUT of a political party in America.... if that were the case, Zell Miller would have been PURGED from the democratic party years ago.

The GOP establishment has SUPPORTED the primary opponents of sitting moderate republican US senators - MORON - and that is as close to PURGING as we allow in AMerica.

And you can accuse the democrats in Connecticut of voting against a guy who was diametrically opposed to them on their single biggest issue. I could give a fuck how moderate Joe Lieberman is on anything...he is FOR the war in Iraq and he has fully supported Bush in that war and the democrats in his home state made him pay for that.... with ZERO help from the democratic party establishment.

Chafee is being challenged by republicans with party support and approval. See the difference?...that's what's called a "purge" here in American politics. It is entirely different than a purge in other, less hospitable countries.

moron
Click to expand...

HAHAHAHAHAHA, Oh please. Comparing party hostility to Lieberman versus Chafee is a joke. It dominated the news with millions of Dems going against him trying to defeat him. Whereas you have at most a little bit of grumbling towards Chafee from Repubs.
What a spinned up world you live in...
 
dominated the news.... hmmm... same deal.... an unknown novice running a primary battle against an incumbent for being on the wrong side of major issues...I wonder why, when democrats do it, it is somehow big news, but when republicans do the exact same thing, it is no big deal? That seems somewhat hypocritical to me, dano...

but then, hypocrisy and righteous indignation were always your stock in trade.
 
only one? Are you suggesting that of all the southern democrats in congress prior to the passage of the civil rights act, only ONE switched parties?
 
Runyon said:
So you are assuming, based on your conclusion, that they will step aside and let the children rule again?
Click to expand...
Better children than moral cripples and psychotics. ;)

They aren't going to step aside. We'll have to kick them to the curb. Any gratuitous head stomping and genital kicking, while understandable, will be severely reprimanded.
 
maineman said:
only one? Are you suggesting that of all the southern democrats in congress prior to the passage of the civil rights act, only ONE switched parties?
Click to expand...

Only one senator.

I know that Trent Lott changed parties - but this was in the 80's, and he was a representative then anyway.
 
OrnotBitwise said:
Better children than moral cripples and psychotics. ;)

They aren't going to step aside. We'll have to kick them to the curb. Any gratuitous head stomping and genital kicking, while understandable, will be severely reprimanded.
Click to expand...

Your post says it all. The reason that the DNC will not take over.
 
Runyon said:
Your post says it all. The reason that the DNC will not take over.
Click to expand...
First, I'm not talking about Democrats. Not being a Democrat myself, this should be obvious. Please pay closer attention. I'm talking about the centrists, liberals and lefties alike who've been shat out by the Republican Party. That Grandiose Old Party that's swung so dangerously out of the mainstream that we're all being smacked in the face by willow limbs daily.

The Repugnants have screwed up, big time. The truly amazing thing is that they seem to believe that, if they just stay the course and continue to do the same things over and over long enough, it will somehow all work out. An extremely wise man once pointed out that this is the most pracitical definition of insanity.

One caveat is necessary at this juncture. The Dimocrats for the most part seem too spineless and parochial to take advantage of the Repugnant meltdown. It's like watching Laurel and Hardy try to outmaneuver one another.

Second, if you're concerned about my somewhat hyperbolic allusions to payback . . . give me a freakin' break. The (modern) Republican Party exists entirely on onanistic retribution, blatant Machiavellian ruthlessness and the good ol' quid pro quo.

:BKick:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top