Lets look at what's happening around the country.
Dims are running away from him faster than any POTUS in history, the recent vote of 414-0 confirms this.
Then you have a rebuke of socialism or anything liberal. The leftists tried their damnedest to kill Rush and talk radio in general by a threat to their advertisers, which actually completely backfired, now these same advertisers that ran are feeling the backlash from their customers.
Then we have SCOTUS and Husseincare and the left is already trying to spin defeat as a win.

This is only the beginning of the end of liberalism as we know it, I predict what were going to see in the following months will be a Rightward move by many Dims trying to save their seat in the House, but to no avail, the left is dead, the media just hasn't gotten the invite for the wake yet.

Am I the only one that sees this, or just the first to broach the issue?

Quote from: Solar on March 29, 2012, 11:15:20 AM
Lets look at what's happening around the country.
Dims are running away from him faster than any POTUS in history, the recent vote of 414-0 confirms this.
Then you have a rebuke of socialism or anything liberal. The leftists tried their damnedest to kill Rush and talk radio in general by a threat to their advertisers, which actually completely backfired, now these same advertisers that ran are feeling the backlash from their customers.
Then we have SCOTUS and Husseincare and the left is already trying to spin defeat as a win.

This is only the beginning of the end of liberalism as we know it, I predict what were going to see in the following months will be a Rightward move by many Dims trying to save their seat in the House, but to no avail, the left is dead, the media just hasn't gotten the invite for the wake yet.

Am I the only one that sees this, or just the first to broach the issue?

I doubt seriously you're the only or the first.  But you could be wrong, too.  He's not a lame duck until he loses in November. Which you predicted, and you may be right.  But will Romney be that much different? And if he is what has emerged from the cauldron of right wing cannibalism, how right wing is the right wing?

Quote from: elmerfudd on March 29, 2012, 11:34:54 AM
I doubt seriously you're the only or the first.  But you could be wrong, too.  He's not a lame duck until he loses in November. Which you predicted, and you may be right.  But will Romney be that much different? And if he is what has emerged from the cauldron of right wing cannibalism, how right wing is the right wing?

Ummmmm, a "lame duck" is a sitting president...  Wow.

Quote from: Solar on March 29, 2012, 11:15:20 AM
Lets look at what's happening around the country.
Dims are running away from him faster than any POTUS in history, the recent vote of 414-0 confirms this.
Then you have a rebuke of socialism or anything liberal. The leftists tried their damnedest to kill Rush and talk radio in general by a threat to their advertisers, which actually completely backfired, now these same advertisers that ran are feeling the backlash from their customers.
Then we have SCOTUS and Husseincare and the left is already trying to spin defeat as a win.

This is only the beginning of the end of liberalism as we know it, I predict what were going to see in the following months will be a Rightward move by many Dims trying to save their seat in the House, but to no avail, the left is dead, the media just hasn't gotten the invite for the wake yet.

Am I the only one that sees this, or just the first to broach the issue?

Totally.  This marxist takeover is being fought.  This has been a good past few days...

Quote from: taxed on March 29, 2012, 11:36:36 AM
Ummmmm, a "lame duck" is a sitting president...  Wow.

I am pleased to be the one to correct you.  A lame duck is an incumbent who sought re-election but lost, making him a "lame duck" for the period between the election and the inauguration of his successor.  Look it up.  My turn to say "wow."

Some say a lame duck is also an office holder who cannot seek re-election, like a president in his second term.  But that is not a lame duck.  That's a fellow who doesn't have to be quite as careful with his politics.  And he will never be a lame duck because he cannot seek re-election. 

Quote from: elmerfudd on March 29, 2012, 11:34:54 AM
I doubt seriously you're the only or the first.  But you could be wrong, too.  He's not a lame duck until he loses in November. Which you predicted, and you may be right.  But will Romney be that much different? And if he is what has emerged from the cauldron of right wing cannibalism, how right wing is the right wing?

LOL, As Taxed pointed out, you have to be POTUS to be a lame duck.
Romney? Nice shot at derailing the obvious.
If its been broached, it wasn't done in the media, at least the leftist media.
Got a link to this purported broaching of the lame duck story?

Quote from: elmerfudd on March 29, 2012, 11:43:33 AM
I am pleased to be the one to correct you.  A lame duck is an incumbent who sought re-election but lost, making him a "lame duck" for the period between the election and the inauguration of his successor.  Look it up.  My turn to say "wow."

Some say a lame duck is also an office holder who cannot seek re-election, like a president in his second term.  But that is not a lame duck.  That's a fellow who doesn't have to be quite as careful with his politics.  And he will never be a lame duck because he cannot seek re-election. 

Though that is only partially true, note the qualifier from wiki.

Lame duck (politics), an elected official who is approaching the end of his or her tenure, and especially an official whose successor has already been elected.

Quote from: taxed on March 29, 2012, 11:37:38 AM
Totally.  This marxist takeover is being fought.  This has been a good past few days...

People are pissed, both Right and Left.

Quote from: Solar on March 29, 2012, 11:53:22 AM
LOL, As Taxed pointed out, you have to be POTUS to be a lame duck.
Romney? Nice shot at derailing the obvious.
If its been broached, it wasn't done in the media, at least the leftist media.
Got a link to this purported broaching of the lame duck story?

You guys need to read something other than Drudge and listen to someone other than Rush.

A lame duck is an office holder who sought re-election and lost.  It is not limited to POTUS.  If, as taxed says, a "lame duck" is a sitting president, then the term becomes meaningless because EVERY president is a "sitting president." Which would mean Bushie was a lame duck both of his terms, Clinton was, too, and Romney will be if he beats Obummer. 

A lame duck session of congress is that part of a congressional session that occurs after the November election but before January, when the new Congress starts.  It is called that because there are many "lame duck" members; members who sought re-election but lost.  They tend to have bad attitudes and gum stuff up.  Politicians are, by nature, petty, self-centered and vindictive, so when one gets "un-elected" he frequently adopts the attitude of "I'll take my ball and go home." Seldom do presidents take that attitude, but frequently congressmen and senators do.  Governors, too. 

Quote from: elmerfudd on March 29, 2012, 11:58:27 AM
You guys need to read something other than Drudge and listen to someone other than Rush.

A lame duck is an office holder who sought re-election and lost.  It is not limited to POTUS.  If, as taxed says, a "lame duck" is a sitting president, then the term becomes meaningless because EVERY president is a "sitting president." Which would mean Bushie was a lame duck both of his terms, Clinton was, too, and Romney will be if he beats Obummer. 

A lame duck session of congress is that part of a congressional session that occurs after the November election but before January, when the new Congress starts.  It is called that because there are many "lame duck" members; members who sought re-election but lost.  They tend to have bad attitudes and gum stuff up.  Politicians are, by nature, petty, self-centered and vindictive, so when one gets "un-elected" he frequently adopts the attitude of "I'll take my ball and go home." Seldom do presidents take that attitude, but frequently congressmen and senators do.  Governors, too. 

Quit obfuscating, that post had nothing to do with your comment.
Try again.

LOL, As Taxed pointed out, you have to be POTUS to be a lame duck.
Romney? Nice shot at derailing the obvious.
If its been broached, it wasn't done in the media, at least the leftist media.
Got a link to this purported broaching of the lame duck story?

Quote from: elmerfudd on March 29, 2012, 11:43:33 AM
I am pleased to be the one to correct you.  A lame duck is an incumbent who sought re-election but lost, making him a "lame duck" for the period between the election and the inauguration of his successor.  Look it up.  My turn to say "wow."

Some say a lame duck is also an office holder who cannot seek re-election, like a president in his second term.  But that is not a lame duck.  That's a fellow who doesn't have to be quite as careful with his politics.  And he will never be a lame duck because he cannot seek re-election. 

No, Elmer.  You are showing your lack of knowledge, yet again.  Like we have done before, several times, please go back and research, educate yourself, and then come back and tell me I'm right.

Quote from: elmerfudd on March 29, 2012, 11:58:27 AM
You guys need to read something other than Drudge and listen to someone other than Rush.

A lame duck is an office holder who sought re-election and lost.  It is not limited to POTUS.  If, as taxed says, a "lame duck" is a sitting president, then the term becomes meaningless because EVERY president is a "sitting president." Which would mean Bushie was a lame duck both of his terms, Clinton was, too, and Romney will be if he beats Obummer. 

A lame duck session of congress is that part of a congressional session that occurs after the November election but before January, when the new Congress starts.  It is called that because there are many "lame duck" members; members who sought re-election but lost.  They tend to have bad attitudes and gum stuff up.  Politicians are, by nature, petty, self-centered and vindictive, so when one gets "un-elected" he frequently adopts the attitude of "I'll take my ball and go home." Seldom do presidents take that attitude, but frequently congressmen and senators do.  Governors, too. 

This is rich....  I hope Bert sees this too....

Quote from: taxed on March 29, 2012, 12:09:28 PM
This is rich....  I hope Bert sees this too....

So do I. And may I say that it is folks like you, Bert, and Solar that make me realize that reasonable people need not fear the TEA party.  The average TEA party believer is no smarter than the average TEA party candidate. 

Quote from: Solar on March 29, 2012, 12:05:31 PM
Quit obfuscating, that post had nothing to do with your comment.
Try again.

LOL, As Taxed pointed out, you have to be POTUS to be a lame duck.
Romney? Nice shot at derailing the obvious.
If its been broached, it wasn't done in the media, at least the leftist media.
Got a link to this purported broaching of the lame duck story?

Okay genius. It's your board.  But if I understand you and the other genius correctly, "you have to be POTUS to be a lame duck."  Is that what you two geniuses are asserting?

Quote from: elmerfudd on March 29, 2012, 12:14:30 PM
So do I. And may I say that it is folks like you, Bert, and Solar that make me realize that reasonable people need not fear the TEA party.  The average TEA party believer is no smarter than the average TEA party candidate. 

Elmer, you are wrong.  Please quit embarrassing yourself and go learn what a lame duck is.  It's a sitting president who can't get anything done.  It's that simple.