That's awesome.

Just watched Stewart's 12 minute long speech. It was great, and I whole heartily agree. What a great speech abut coming together, ignoring the media and extremes and solving the country's problem. Great stuff.

It saddens me that John Stewart and his leftist agenda are being passed off as moderates by the media.

superman;540044 wrote:It saddens me that John Stewart and his leftist agenda are being passed off as moderates by the media.

That is not the point.
The point is to ignore the media, ignore the extremes of the left and right and instead reach across the aisle to solve our difficult issues. Also, America has a history of reaching across the aisle and solving our problems, but that history is lost in the current shouting match between both sides and the refusal to accept compromise.

ptown_trojans_1;540058 wrote:That is not the point.
The point is to ignore the media, ignore the extremes of the left and right and instead reach across the aisle to solve our difficult issues. Also, America has a history of reaching across the aisle and solving our problems, but that history is lost in the current shouting match between both sides and the refusal to accept compromise.

While your point is valid, it's been my experience that "compromise" or reaching across the aisle as defined by the left means that one must be in complete agreement with the liberal point of view. Not doing in even the slightest degree makes one intolerant, bigoted, racist, sexist, and mean-spirited.

I can honestly say without reservation that while both sides are guilty of participating in the shouting match, conservatives are far more likely to accept compromise than the intolerant tolerant left.

ptown_trojans_1;540058 wrote:That is not the point.
The point is to ignore the media, ignore the extremes of the left and right and instead reach across the aisle to solve our difficult issues. Also, America has a history of reaching across the aisle and solving our problems, but that history is lost in the current shouting match between both sides and the refusal to accept compromise.

I know it's the kumbaya thing to do...reach across and hug one another, but we've been doing that for a long time in DC as RINO's caved incessantly to the Left's demands time after time. The discussions and capitulations went from "should we or shouldn't we" to "how many billions can we agree to throw on this puppy to make it go away?" and "how much pork should we steal from one part of America in order to buy your vote on this important legislation?" This is referred to as "business as usual". I completely understand Stewart's play here...since his team is about to have their azzes kicked very hard, then he's going to play on sympathies. If conservatives cave again, they will only be adding to the legacy R's created in 2006.

The R's got tossed in 06 and 08 precisely because they played their positions as "business as usual" and led to what we have today...moderates, liberals, and socialists commandeering our country dangerously close to the abyss. RINO's met their match in the primaries and when the conservatives take over the House and hopefully the Senate, they will have their one Mulligan to get it right. Fail again and they will be tossed again and the prospects of avoiding complete socialism will fail as well.

BGFalcons82;540089 wrote:I know it's the kumbaya thing to do...reach across and hug one another, but we've been doing that for a long time in DC as RINO's caved incessantly to the Left's demands time after time. The discussions and capitulations went from "should we or shouldn't we" to "how many billions can we agree to throw on this puppy to make it go away?" and "how much pork should we steal from one part of America in order to buy your vote on this important legislation?" This is referred to as "business as usual". I completely understand Stewart's play here...since his team is about to have their azzes kicked very hard, then he's going to play on sympathies. If conservatives cave again, they will only be adding to the legacy R's created in 2006.

The R's got tossed in 06 and 08 precisely because they played their positions as "business as usual" and led to what we have today...moderates, liberals, and socialists commandeering our country dangerously close to the abyss. RINO's met their match in the primaries and when the conservatives take over the House and hopefully the Senate, they will have their one Mulligan to get it right. Fail again and they will be tossed again and the prospects of avoiding complete socialism will fail as well.

Without a doubt but as I pointed out above, conservatives are far more likely to compromise than liberals. You can bet the ranch that the tone of the leftist media talking heads, Hollyweird, and the new Democratic minority in the House will be more shrill than ever...and the Repubs not wanting to make waves will "play nice in the sandbox" and disappoint us once again. It's like clock work.

believer;540099 wrote:Without a doubt but as I pointed out above, conservatives are far more likely to compromise than liberals. You can bet the ranch that the tone of the leftist media talking heads, Hollyweird, and the new Democratic minority in the House will be more shrill than ever...and the Repubs not wanting to make waves will "play nice in the sandbox" and disappoint us once again. It's like clock work.

Conservatives need to be ready for the whining of America. Every victim, real or fictitious, will be paraded daily and valiantly in front of the liberal media and the sycophants in Hollywood to demonize the conservatives for wanting to make grandma eat cat food and starve babies. The easy part is winning the election. The hard part will be to legislate as they were elected to do.

BGFalcons82;540127 wrote:Conservatives need to be ready for the whining of America. Every victim, real or fictitious, will be paraded daily and valiantly in front of the liberal media and the sycophants in Hollywood to demonize the conservatives for wanting to make grandma eat cat food and starve babies. The easy part is winning the election. The hard part will be to legislate as they were elected to do.

I had hoped the Gingrich House would have had the testicles to tell the liberals to kiss their ass but it didn't take long for the spineless rhinos to cave to the pressure.

Looks like the Repubs will get a chance to try it again but you know as well as I that they'll cave again. Sad but true.

This country is center-right but something about being inside the Beltway turns conservatives into Jello.

believer;540137 wrote:I had hoped the Gingrich House would have had the testicles to tell the liberals to kiss their ass but it didn't take long for the spineless rhinos to cave to the pressure.

Looks like the Repubs will get a chance to try it again but you know as well as I that they'll cave again. Sad but true.

This country is center-right but something about being inside the Beltway turns conservatives into Jello.

If they turn to Jell-O, we will all pay the price. My feeling is that the gridlock that will ensue will restore sanity (thanks to Jon Stewart for the phrase) to Washington, the liberal/Progressive/socialist agenda will be frozen for a period of time to allow growth to return to our economy, jobs to be created by entreprenuers and businesses (NOT OBAMA), and we will begin to pare down the debt. Obama may indeed ride this wave to re-election (unless we can get Chris Christie to change his mind), however R's will ride the wave as well. Note: In 2012, there will be 21 Dems up for re-election in the Senate and the chances for more conservative gains will be improved. Then we could have 2 more years of gridlock, which could ultimately be our saving grace.

BGFalcons82;540144 wrote:If they turn to Jell-O, we will all pay the price. My feeling is that the gridlock that will ensue will restore sanity (thanks to Jon Stewart for the phrase) to Washington, the liberal/Progressive/socialist agenda will be frozen for a period of time to allow growth to return to our economy, jobs to be created by entreprenuers and businesses (NOT OBAMA), and we will begin to pare down the debt. Obama may indeed ride this wave to re-election (unless we can get Chris Christie to change his mind), however R's will ride the wave as well. Note: In 2012, there will be 21 Dems up for re-election in the Senate and the chances for more conservative gains will be improved. Then we could have 2 more years of gridlock, which could ultimately be our saving grace.

This is PRECISELY what I'm hoping for. Although I do not relish the prospect of 8 years of Obama, I'd be willing to suck it up as long as conservatives control Congress and this country's economy gets back on track.

I would like to see the Repubs try to roll back some of the health care monster, etc. but gridlock alone would make me sleep better at night.

I didn't take it to mean cave to liberal points, but to drop the extremes of both sides and come to compromise, rational, hard decisions that both sides can agree on.
The bi-partisanship over the past 10 years has been awful as it is has not been the right form of bi-partisanship needed. Hopefully, moving forward, we can learn from our mistakes and instead of building walls of partisan bickering and blaming, can move to come to hard, rational, real choices where both sides have to give up some key issues in order to better the country.

We have done it before, and we should be able to do it again. That is the message I took away.

Automatik;539687 wrote:Not sure if this has been posted...but I lol'd.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/the-100-best-signs-at-the-rally-to-restore-sanity

LOL, Some of those are pretty good. Can we get #79 for this place?

believer;540137 wrote:I had hoped the Gingrich House would have had the testicles to tell the liberals to kiss their ass but it didn't take long for the spineless rhinos to cave to the pressure.

Looks like the Repubs will get a chance to try it again but you know as well as I that they'll cave again. Sad but true.

This country is center-right but something about being inside the Beltway turns conservatives into Jello.

The Gingrich house was just fine. They smacked Clinton into shape and balanced the budget. Hastert was the one who left his testes in the drawer.

believer;540137 wrote:I had hoped the Gingrich House would have had the testicles to tell the liberals to kiss their ass but it didn't take long for the spineless rhinos to cave to the pressure.

Looks like the Repubs will get a chance to try it again but you know as well as I that they'll cave again. Sad but true.

This country is center-right but something about being inside the Beltway turns conservatives into Jello.

Remember back when the Senate was tied 50/50 after the 2000 election. Cheney had the tie breaking vote. The republicans could have controlled every committee chair, but they reached across the aisle and agreed to share chairmanships of committees with the democrats. It was quite a historic power sharing agreement if I recall. It was not more than a few months later that the whole deal unraveled when Jim Jeffords "left" the republican party and chose to caucus with the democrats. In the deal Jeffords was secured a committee chairmanship under democrat power and agreed to vote with the democrats under certain procedural matters. Republicans were thrown to the curb.

Something tells me that there is no way in hell the democrats would have accepted such a power sharing arrangement if they were in the same situation the republicans found themselves in. It would be interesting, and is in the realm of possibility, if the senate ends up divided 50/50 after Tuesday. That would put the democrats in the same situation. Biden has the tie breaking vote. How many think the democrats would agree to any such power sharing agreement?

People on here insisting that the Democrats are the evil ones and that the Republicans, those noble creatures, would never do bad things make me sad. Missed the point of this whole thing entirely if you think this was a ploy to get people to agree with the left. Either that or your one of the "no, the other guy is completely wrong" types that the rally was about.

fish82;540256 wrote:The Gingrich house was just fine. They smacked Clinton into shape and balanced the budget. Hastert was the one who left his testes in the drawer.

It was ok, but remember the economy really, really exploded thanks to the tech boom. That really helped.

majorspark;540475 wrote:Remember back when the Senate was tied 50/50 after the 2000 election. Cheney had the tie breaking vote. The republicans could have controlled every committee chair, but they reached across the aisle and agreed to share chairmanships of committees with the democrats. It was quite a historic power sharing agreement if I recall. It was not more than a few months later that the whole deal unraveled when Jim Jeffords "left" the republican party and chose to caucus with the democrats. In the deal Jeffords was secured a committee chairmanship under democrat power and agreed to vote with the democrats under certain procedural matters. Republicans were thrown to the curb.

Something tells me that there is no way in hell the democrats would have accepted such a power sharing arrangement if they were in the same situation the republicans found themselves in. It would be interesting, and is in the real of possibility, if the senate ends up divided 50/50 after Tuesday. That would put the democrats in the same situation. Biden has the tie breaking vote. How many think the democrats would agree to any such power sharing agreement?

True on 2000, but I have no faith in current R's or D's that we will return to anything close to that level of bipartisanship.

I Wear Pants;540503 wrote:People on here insisting that the Democrats are the evil ones and that the Republicans, those noble creatures, would never do bad things make me sad. Missed the point of this whole thing entirely if you think this was a ploy to get people to agree with the left. Either that or your one of the "no, the other guy is completely wrong" types that the rally was about.

Agreed. Both sides are awful and are one in the same. No one side has the edge of being better than the other.

ptown_trojans_1;540544 wrote:True on 2000, but I have no faith in current R's or D's that we will return to anything close to that level of bipartisanship.

I have no faith in the current lot as well. But the bipartisanship, at least in the situation in the senate in 2000, was on the republicans part. There was no bipartisanship on the side of the democrats.

The republicans reached across the aisle and their hands were slapped a few months later when the democrats made a deal with Jeffords to secure power for themselves. I have no doubt that the controversy and the closeness of the 2000 presidential election played a part in the republicans willingness to share power in the senate. Rightfully so perhaps in this unusual instance. But in may of 2001 Jeffords left the republican party and caucused with the democrats. Negotiations were likely going on for months before that.

They made the power sharing agreement with the republicans only to find a way around the electoral process by making political deals. Their little political deal had two major consequences for the party. One the republicans will never trust them with such a deal for decades. Or any deal for that matter. Two it cost them the senate in the next cycle of elections.

As believer says the republicans were trying to play nice in the sandbox and the democrats threw sand in their eyes. I am no fan of how the republicans have governed, but when it comes to by partisanship the democrats burned some bridges with their actions in the senate in 2000. We all rightfully have legit bitches as to how our government has been run. IMO it will take revolutionary change to bring any productive change about. Otherwise we will continue in this back and forth foolishness.

I have faith that this change will come at the ballot box. Either way at some point things are going to come to a head.

I Wear Pants;540503 wrote:People on here insisting that the Democrats are the evil ones and that the Republicans, those noble creatures, would never do bad things make me sad. Missed the point of this whole thing entirely if you think this was a ploy to get people to agree with the left. Either that or your one of the "no, the other guy is completely wrong" types that the rally was about.

The fact remains (and detailed nicely by Majorspark) the Republicans (who are far from noble) are far, far more likely to reach across the aisle and compromise. They've proved it. The fact also remains that Democrats are definitely less likely to do so. For Dems it's either their way or no way...period....end of story. And the Dems know the leftist media will help them beat the "our way or the highway" drum. Hell they can't even play nice in the sandbox amongst themselves as demonstrated by their own behavior the past couple of years.

In my humble opinion it's the Dems who MUST back off and be the ones willing to reach across the aisle. The key to this government getting its house in order is reasonable moderation. I just don't think the Dems have it in them to do it.

ptown_trojans_1;540539 wrote:It was ok, but remember the economy really, really exploded thanks to the tech boom. That really helped.

Of course that's true, but TBQH I stopped using that info in arguments two years ago after being heckled by wild-eyed Clinton groupies claiming that only he brought us the economic bounty of the 90s.

fish82;540698 wrote:Of course that's true, but TBQH I stopped using that info in arguments two years ago after being heckled by wild-eyed Clinton groupies claiming that only he brought us the economic bounty of the 90s.

lol, I remember all that crap

believer;540658 wrote:The fact remains (and detailed nicely by Majorspark) the Republicans (who are far from noble) are far, far more likely to reach across the aisle and compromise. They've proved it. The fact also remains that Democrats are definitely less likely to do so. For Dems it's either their way or no way...period....end of story. And the Dems know the leftist media will help them beat the "our way or the highway" drum. Hell they can't even play nice in the sandbox amongst themselves as demonstrated by their own behavior the past couple of years.

In my humble opinion it's the Dems who MUST back off and be the ones willing to reach across the aisle. The key to this government getting its house in order is reasonable moderation. I just don't think the Dems have it in them to do it.

True, but the R's of today are also my way or the highway, especially some members of the Tea Party.

Oh....c'mon Ptown..... The tea party has no connections to the Republicans at all.......

believer;540658 wrote:The fact remains (and detailed nicely by Majorspark) the Republicans (who are far from noble) are far, far more likely to reach across the aisle and compromise. They've proved it. The fact also remains that Democrats are definitely less likely to do so. For Dems it's either their way or no way...period....end of story. And the Dems know the leftist media will help them beat the "our way or the highway" drum. Hell they can't even play nice in the sandbox amongst themselves as demonstrated by their own behavior the past couple of years.

In my humble opinion it's the Dems who MUST back off and be the ones willing to reach across the aisle. The key to this government getting its house in order is reasonable moderation. I just don't think the Dems have it in them to do it.

But you think that way because you're heavily invested in the Republican's interest. They both need to reach across the aisle more and with more genuine acceptance that compromise does not equal failure. They both need to stop sucking.