PDA

View Full Version : 2010 General Election Thread


Pages : [1] 2 3 4

epicSocialism4tw
11-01-2010, 09:57 AM
A competition for the bye week.

A large conservative revolution is predicted. What say you?

Mile High Shack
11-01-2010, 10:02 AM
meet the new boss...same as the old boss

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rp6-wG5LLqE

HILife
11-01-2010, 10:06 AM
I predict this thread will implode. what's the over/under on pages? I'm guess 15.

TonyR
11-01-2010, 10:18 AM
meet the new boss...same as the old boss


Yup, people like the OP don't understand this. They also don't understand that this has very little to do with "conservatism" and very much to do with anti-encumbency and populism.

ColoradoDarin
11-01-2010, 10:31 AM
Well, in 2006 we voted the Republicans out because they spent too much, the lesson the Democrats apparently learned was to spend four times as much. Now we're going to vote the Democrats out because they spent way too much. We'll see if the Republicans actually get it and cut spending, but I have my doubts.

How about a prediction:

87 seat gain in the House
9 seat gain in the Senate

Rohirrim
11-01-2010, 10:46 AM
"Conservative?" What is conservative about any of these candidates? The last time the Republicans had control they spent like drunken sailors and collapsed the economy. And now they're conservatives? Okee dokee.

bronco militia
11-01-2010, 10:48 AM
I say we're ****ed either way

Beantown Bronco
11-01-2010, 10:51 AM
<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/0VQ8pgySec4?version=3"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/0VQ8pgySec4?version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="390"></object>

Smiling Assassin27
11-01-2010, 10:51 AM
Dems are poised to take it in the shorts, which is getting off easy given what they've brought to the table.

Repubs are poised to gain control of the House, maybe the Senate, which is nothing more than Americans telling them 'we hate you less than the Dems at this point, go out there and try not to lose the game.'

There will be great weeping and gnashing of teeth and a whole lot of noise signifying not much. America is not serious about fixing this regulatory democracy.

sisterhellfyre
11-01-2010, 10:53 AM
What say you?

I say take it back to the WARP forum where this thread belongs.

Rashomon
11-01-2010, 11:02 AM
"Conservative?" What is conservative about any of these candidates? The last time the Republicans had control they spent like drunken sailors and collapsed the economy. And now they're conservatives? Okee dokee.

It's all relative. The Republicans certainly don't fit my idea of a fiscal conservative, but Obama and the Democratic Congress' approach to spending the last two years have made Republicans look like Libertarians.

DrFate
11-01-2010, 11:08 AM
The real answer is here:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703708404575586063725870380.html?m od=rss_opinion_main

Voters don't want to be governed from the left, right or center. They want Washington to recognize that Americans want to govern themselves..

bowtown
11-01-2010, 11:14 AM
The real answer is here:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703708404575586063725870380.html?m od=rss_opinion_main

Voters don't want to be governed from the left, right or center. They want Washington to recognize that Americans want to govern themselves..

This country is full of petulant 8-year olds.

ColoradoDarin
11-01-2010, 11:19 AM
"Conservative?" What is conservative about any of these candidates? The last time the Republicans had control they spent like drunken sailors and collapsed the economy. And now they're conservatives? Okee dokee.

Well, in 2006 a lot of Republicans lost, those people are not the same people running this time around.

BTW, the economy tanked in 2008, 2 years into the Democrat congress.

Rohirrim
11-01-2010, 11:27 AM
Well, in 2006 a lot of Republicans lost, those people are not the same people running this time around.

BTW, the economy tanked in 2008, 2 years into the Democrat congress.

Yeah. I'm sure it will all be different this time.

ColoradoDarin
11-01-2010, 11:30 AM
Yeah. I'm sure it will all be different this time.

I'm pretty hopeful on the new crop of the incoming Reps/Senators, what worries me is that they will still empower the same idiots who screwed up before. I don't want any of them to go-along-get-along. We'll see, as I said above, I am doubtful.

Garcia Bronco
11-01-2010, 11:34 AM
The real answer is here:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703708404575586063725870380.html?m od=rss_opinion_main

Voters don't want to be governed from the left, right or center. They want Washington to recognize that Americans want to govern themselves..

Indeed, Doctor.

Goobzilla
11-01-2010, 11:37 AM
I just want the commercials to be over

Bronco Yoda
11-01-2010, 11:43 AM
A Republican win here points to an Obama 2nd term in two years.

ZONA
11-01-2010, 11:47 AM
The new breed of repubichairs looks even worse then those of the past, and that's saying something.

DarkHorse30
11-01-2010, 12:53 PM
whatever happens in the election - the USA needs to do 3 things:

1. Quit caring about "bi-partisanship". Let the politicians fight until they bleed.....maybe schedule UFC political fights.

2. pass a one paragraph law entitling Americans to go back to politically incorrect speech (aka-ye olde freedom of speech)

3. Limit laws to 2 pages. If it's too long for 2, it gets to be another law - a pork-sausage free republic.

✡✡ JOSHUA ✡✡
11-01-2010, 12:59 PM
I just want the commercials to be over

Amen to that.

Dudeskey
11-01-2010, 01:10 PM
"Conservative?" What is conservative about any of these candidates? The last time the Republicans had control they spent like drunken sailors and collapsed the economy. And now they're conservatives? Okee dokee.

It kills me how the republican candidates are now pissing & moaning about big government spending. It sure as hell wasn't a problem for them during the better part of the last decade when they were ruining, err running ****.

Rohirrim
11-01-2010, 01:14 PM
I'm glad O'Donnell isn't going to win. That anti-masturbation law would have been tough.

baja
11-01-2010, 01:53 PM
I'm glad O'Donnell isn't going to win. That anti-masturbation law would have been tough.

I must have missed that

Did Sarah Palin approve that message?

bronclvr
11-01-2010, 01:59 PM
That anti-masturbation law would have been tough.


LOL :yayaya: Hilarious! ^5

bombay
11-01-2010, 01:59 PM
Yup, people like the OP don't understand this. They also don't understand that this has very little to do with "conservatism" and very much to do with anti-encumbency and populism.

From what I understand the tea partiers want the government out of their social security and medicaid. At least that's what the lady's sign said.

Anyway, It's football season, so **** this thread.

bowtown
11-01-2010, 02:02 PM
From what I understand the tea partiers want the government out of their social security and medicaid. At least that's what the lady's sign said.

Anyway, It's football season, so **** this thread.

Also less taxes for everyone except gays and mexicans.

Kaylore
11-01-2010, 02:03 PM
Get ready to get cornholed, Dems. I will be relishing Wednesday morning.

bombay
11-01-2010, 02:08 PM
When the next round of useless douchebags are in office everything will change!

You can count on it.

Sir_Robin
11-01-2010, 02:16 PM
I'm done voting for career politicians. My number one criteria for voting tomorrow is lack of political experience. I'd rather have a man or woman who knows about working to be my voice.

Goobzilla
11-01-2010, 02:19 PM
"The rent is too damn high" guy!

Killericon
11-01-2010, 02:21 PM
http://membres.lycos.fr/fredrichung/forum/i%20like%20were%20this%20thread%20is%20going.jpg

baja
11-01-2010, 02:22 PM
Get ready to get cornholed, Dems. I will be relishing Wednesday morning.

Ya that bunch on your ticket should make you proud al right.

Get ready for part XXX of dumbing down America by the numbers.

epicSocialism4tw
11-01-2010, 02:41 PM
<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/ZzsZz3XjknQ?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/ZzsZz3XjknQ?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

Garcia Bronco
11-01-2010, 02:56 PM
http://membres.lycos.fr/fredrichung/forum/i%20like%20were%20this%20thread%20is%20going.jpg

A ship for the card carrying republicans and democrats

Pseudofool
11-01-2010, 03:10 PM
As far as an anti-incumbent election, I don't see much fervor, like there has been in the past. I think in general turnout will be lower than even in past midterm elections. It's pretty likely Republicans take the House and if they end up with the Senate to, it sets up the Dems nicely for 2012, because there will be more of the same anti-incumbency that will motivate voters. Where the republicans look to make real gains is among governorships.

Elections every two years are stupid anyway. It doesn't give enough time for any one party to implement their vision (passing laws isn't implementation). As long as the economy keeps on struggling (how could it not?), the incumbent party will continue to lose.

I don't even know what the Republicans are running on, and I don't know what kind of changes they would even seek to make. Keep the Bush tax cuts and complain about deficit spending?

Cito Pelon
11-01-2010, 03:10 PM
Interesting story - I was on my way to vote early and got a speeding ticket for over the limit in a school zone, then the deputy added failure to yield to an emergency vehicle because I didn't pull over and stop in a traffic lane. And the County Sheriff was running for reelection unopposed.

Pseudofool
11-01-2010, 03:13 PM
Get ready to get cornholed, Dems. I will be relishing Wednesday morning.You don't strike me as a guy who would buckle to pride and sensationalism (the way you've phrased it is you're celebrating the defeat of people you don't like, than a victory by those whom you admire); what tangible affects will the Republicans actually bring that's worth relishing for you?

Pseudofool
11-01-2010, 03:18 PM
A large conservative revolution is predicted. What is revolutionary about conservatism anyway? Isn't its notions predicated on adhering to traditional values and maintaining the status quo as far as civil rights, the free market driven economy, etc.? What exactly will the elected conservatives revolutionize?

epicSocialism4tw
11-01-2010, 03:24 PM
What is revolutionary about conservatism anyway? Isn't its notions predicated on adhering to traditional values and maintaining the status quo as far as civil rights, the free market driven economy, etc.? What exactly will the elected conservatives revolutionize?

Well, if you use context clues, you can see that I was talking about a revolution concerning the power structure in Washington.

Cito Pelon
11-01-2010, 03:24 PM
Get ready to get cornholed, Dems. I will be relishing Wednesday morning.

You never served a day for your country have you, Kaylore.

It's all about what the country can do for you, not about what you can do for the country.

Cito Pelon
11-01-2010, 03:28 PM
You don't strike me as a guy who would buckle to pride and sensationalism (the way you've phrased it is you're celebrating the defeat of people you don't like, than a victory by those whom you admire); what tangible affects will the Republicans actually bring that's worth relishing for you?

Good question.

colonelbeef
11-01-2010, 03:31 PM
Yup, people like the OP don't understand this. They also don't understand that this has very little to do with "conservatism" and very much to do with anti-encumbency and populism.

yep

lol @ the current GOP being 'conservative' in any form

I love conservatism, the current Republican party is not conservative at all

Pseudofool
11-01-2010, 03:44 PM
Well, if you use context clues, you can see that I was talking about a revolution concerning the power structure in Washington.A change doesn't constitute a revolution. At best conservatives regain infrastructural power they possessed only four years ago. But I am heartened that, at least, you didn't try to argue that conservatives actually revolutionize anything.

Pseudofool
11-01-2010, 03:49 PM
I love conservatism, the current Republican party is not conservative at allThe Republican party is beginning to suffer what the Democratic party has suffered through since at least the sixties: being made up of disparate groups who have different goals but band together because they disagree with the competing party more than they agree with each other.

Kid A
11-01-2010, 03:54 PM
A competition for the bye week.

A large conservative revolution is predicted. What say you?

GOP will do well. Not sure I would call the minority party gaining a large number of seats during midterms (especially during a bad economy) a revolution. More like a historical pattern.

Rohirrim
11-01-2010, 04:04 PM
We seem to have a systemic problem in this country that goes beyond parties, and even government: Wall Street is raking in cash (billions) and America continues to hemorrage jobs. Communities are suffering. Anybody watch that 60 Minutes about Newton, Iowa last night? Unbelievable what is happening to some Americans and their communities. Whole towns are being shut down and these hedge fund managers on Wall Street last week announced that they had a brand new $14 billion to spread amongst themselves. Something is wrong with this picture. The Market is disconnected from Main Street.

Cito Pelon
11-01-2010, 04:05 PM
What is revolutionary about conservatism anyway? Isn't its notions predicated on adhering to traditional values and maintaining the status quo as far as civil rights, the free market driven economy, etc.? What exactly will the elected conservatives revolutionize?

Good question.

Rohirrim
11-01-2010, 04:09 PM
What is revolutionary about conservatism anyway? Isn't its notions predicated on adhering to traditional values and maintaining the status quo as far as civil rights, the free market driven economy, etc.? What exactly will the elected conservatives revolutionize?

Conservatives don't seem to understand that supply side economics itself was revolutionary and completely upended the status quo. That's why Bush Sr. called it "voodoo economics." And supply side economics is the fundamental cause of the disaster we're living through right now. The Right is selling extremist politics as conservatism. I don't know why people don't see that.

Kaylore
11-01-2010, 04:15 PM
You don't strike me as a guy who would buckle to pride and sensationalism (the way you've phrased it is you're celebrating the defeat of people you don't like, than a victory by those whom you admire); what tangible affects will the Republicans actually bring that's worth relishing for you?

Absolutely none. But It'll feel good!

Pseudofool
11-01-2010, 04:15 PM
The Right is selling extremist politics as conservatism. I don't know why people don't see that.Because they put a cross on it, and a gun and its hand, the backdrop of a nuclear plume in the background. They dress it up in status quo and traditional values and pair with the notion that their are enemies that we must fear and therefore eliminate. So we never address what there policies are.

How many posters have expressed their excitement for Republicans getting elected, but have yet to mention one specific piece of policy that merits that excitement.

Jesterhole
11-01-2010, 04:25 PM
If anyone out there honestly thinks there is some huge difference between Democrats and Republicans at the highest level, then you're kidding yourself.

Pseudofool
11-01-2010, 04:38 PM
Absolutely none. But It'll feel good!:rofl: Well, then. Touche'

Requiem
11-01-2010, 04:42 PM
I know the media has been suggesting a rampant blowout of the Democrats, which is likely, but I wonder if it will be to the extent some are suggesting. Several outlets have even talked of 60+ seat gains in the House, which just seems unreasonable at this time.

~ 50 -- with 7-8 likely in the Senate. I wonder how much juice the Dems are putting into the flow in Nevada, Colorado, Illinois. Those are their best bets right now to try and hold onto some seats. Looks like Wisconsin and Pennsylvania are more than likely going Republican, even with some polls being within the margin of error for the sample.

lostknight
11-01-2010, 04:50 PM
The Democrats have poured almost all of their money into three remaining states - Washington, Nevada and Colorado. Here they are outspending the Republicans close to 10:1. If the Republicans still get elected tommorow in this state, you will have a pretty good clue just how big a Tsunami it was.

Pseudofool
11-01-2010, 04:54 PM
I also wonder how cell phones affect polling; I imagine is much easier to get a hold of people using landlines which tend to be older, established, and therefore, to make an ugly generalization, more conservative.

I also think turnout will be low; i can't remember such universal apathy about an election. The low turnout could hurt the Dems, though it might also cut into the pollsters sense of what is motivating people to vote the Dems out.

Pseudofool
11-01-2010, 04:55 PM
The Democrats have poured almost all of their money into three remaining states - Washington, Nevada and Colorado. Here they are outspending the Republicans close to 10:1. If the Republicans still get elected tommorow in this state, you will have a pretty good clue just how big a Tsunami it was.Where'd you read that, just curious, because that's quite a disparity in spending.

Garcia Bronco
11-01-2010, 04:57 PM
I also wonder how cell phones affect polling; I imagine is much easier to get a hold of people using landlines which tend to be older, established, and therefore, to make an ugly generalization, more conservative.

I also think turnout will be low; i can't remember such universal apathy about an election. The low turnout could hurt the Dems, though it might also cut into the pollsters sense of what is motivating people to vote the Dems out.

It's all relative in the statistical world.

Pseudofool
11-01-2010, 04:58 PM
I know the media has been suggesting a rampant blowout of the Democrats, which is likely, but I wonder if it will be to the extent some are suggesting. Several outlets have even talked of 60+ seat gains in the House, which just seems unreasonable at this time.

~ 50 -- with 7-8 likely in the Senate. I wonder how much juice the Dems are putting into the flow in Nevada, Colorado, Illinois. Those are their best bets right now to try and hold onto some seats. Looks like Wisconsin and Pennsylvania are more than likely going Republican, even with some polls being within the margin of error for the sample.Nate Silver has a nice discussion of this. http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/01/agreeing-to-disagree-size-of-republican-wave-hard-to-predict/

Requiem
11-01-2010, 04:58 PM
The Democrats have poured almost all of their money into three remaining states - Washington, Nevada and Colorado. Here they are outspending the Republicans close to 10:1. If the Republicans still get elected tommorow in this state, you will have a pretty good clue just how big a Tsunami it was.

Well, of course. They know they are going to lose the House (Dems) so they will do what is necessary to hold up any possible surprises in the Senate.

Losing in Washington would be damaging. Most polls I see have Murray and Rossi extremely close, with the edge to Murray by a few percentage points; though that doesn't mean much because it is still within the margin of error.

Same goes for Colorado, with Bennett being in the position Rossi is heading into tomorrow, within a few points but still trailing.

I think Nevada will be the most interesting race. Democrats have so many more registered voters in the state, which really isn't being accounted for in the generic polls that are being made. He will probably still lose though, which he deserves, but losing to who his opponent would be beyond embarrassing.

Case in point, the Democrats need to at least win one of these states because it possible that Nelson or Lieberman might try and pull an Specter and switch sides which could make for an stalemate in the Senate with no majority at all. However, I doubt they would do that jump considering what happened to Specter in the primaries. He was dumped.

It should be interesting.

Garcia Bronco
11-01-2010, 04:59 PM
You don't strike me as a guy who would buckle to pride and sensationalism (the way you've phrased it is you're celebrating the defeat of people you don't like, than a victory by those whom you admire); what tangible affects will the Republicans actually bring that's worth relishing for you?

Gridlock

Requiem
11-01-2010, 05:03 PM
Nate Silver has a nice discussion of this. http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/01/agreeing-to-disagree-size-of-republican-wave-hard-to-predict/

538 rocks. Hadn't seen this article yet, thank you.

I've been working an Excel document the past few days with predictions as far as seat gains go and the average roughly comes out to ~ 47 in the House for the Republicans, which is smaller than what they did in 1994 and what the Democrats were able to muster up in 2006 and 2008.

Some posters have mentioned this as unprecedented, though history seems to refute their claims quite easily. Revolutionary my ass. Nothing out of the ordinary, and actually a few seats below some of the largest swings in recent history.

The Democrats should be stoked they are going to lose the House. It will just give them the same ammunition the Republicans have been using this past year and will likely give Obama the second-term he strongly desires. Unless the Republicans can actually put up and keep their suggested "promises" from this past election cycle. Doubtful though.

Requiem
11-01-2010, 05:05 PM
Gridlock

I should not assume, but I am guessing you would relish the gridlock because you feel it would have a strong impact on reducing spending. Would that be fair to say? Just curious as to how you feel the gridlock would be beneficial moving forward, because I happen to feel the opposite way.

Pseudofool
11-01-2010, 05:05 PM
The Democrats should be stoked they are going to lose the House. It will just give them the same ammunition the Republicans have been using this past year and will likely give Obama the second-term he strongly desires. Unless the Republicans can actually put up and keep their suggested "promises" from this past election cycle. Doubtful though. That's how I see it as well. The Dems will fight for the Senate seats because of the length of appointments, but they can't be too concerned about losing the House, and will be relieved from having control of both houses and the presidency.

TonyR
11-01-2010, 05:28 PM
How many posters have expressed their excitement for Republicans getting elected, but have yet to mention one specific piece of policy that merits that excitement.

Fairly common theme, isn't it? The GOP has done a fantastic job of selling all of these talking points and themes that you'll hear these people parrot but they can't explain any of it beyond generalities. They have an effective propaganda machine, I'll give them that. And one of the Obama admin's biggest failures has been countering it.

Garcia Bronco
11-01-2010, 05:33 PM
I should not assume, but I am guessing you would relish the gridlock because you feel it would have a strong impact on reducing spending. Would that be fair to say? Just curious as to how you feel the gridlock would be beneficial moving forward, because I happen to feel the opposite way.

I am of the opinion that less government is better for all. With gridlock, there is less on the table. Further, banks and businesses are hording capital because of general uncertainty in the government. Gridlock will stabilize this for a time. You are a younger guy. I think you'll find as you get older that moving a little slower pays benefits.

Garcia Bronco
11-01-2010, 05:38 PM
I also don't think it will reduce spending, req. Unless we do something about the defense spending, healthcare, and SS there is little hope. These 3 items consume some 95 percent of our budget. It's obscene. We need to invest in infrastructure, we invest less than a percent.

Hercules Rockefeller
11-01-2010, 05:49 PM
I'll miss all the commercials telling me why I just can't vote for Ken Buck.

Cito Pelon
11-01-2010, 05:53 PM
Conservatives don't seem to understand that supply side economics itself was revolutionary and completely upended the status quo. That's why Bush Sr. called it "voodoo economics." And supply side economics is the fundamental cause of the disaster we're living through right now. The Right is selling extremist politics as conservatism. I don't know why people don't see that.

No doubt about it.

Cito Pelon
11-01-2010, 05:59 PM
Absolutely none. But It'll feel good!

?????

Why would it feel good.

gunns
11-01-2010, 06:10 PM
A competition for the bye week.

A large comical revolution is predicted. What say you?

Fixed it for you and I say can't wait!

gunns
11-01-2010, 06:13 PM
I also don't think it will reduce spending, req. Unless we do something about the defense spending, healthcare, and SS there is little hope. These 3 items consume some 95 percent of our budget. It's obscene. We need to invest in infrastructure, we invest less than a percent.

Absolutely and we have a guy running for Senator who says we need to cut 40% of the budget. We're still waiting to hear where that 40% is going to come from.

WolfpackGuy
11-01-2010, 06:14 PM
We're all screwed.

Hell, in my state, a witch might become a Senator, and I'm only voting for her because the other guy is a taxaholic.

Politicians only care about getting elected and staying in office.

Term limits are what this country needs.

Archer81
11-01-2010, 06:15 PM
This thread should be interesting.

I did early voting. Oddly enough that made the commercials and radiospots backround noise. Its been pleasant.

:Broncos:

TheElusiveKyleOrton
11-01-2010, 06:18 PM
Dear Drama Llama:

http://www.orangemane.com/BB/forumdisplay.php?f=25

Pull your head out of your ass.

Love,

Everyone Else

Archer81
11-01-2010, 06:18 PM
We're all screwed.

Hell, in my state, a witch might become a Senator, and I'm voting for her because the other guy is a taxaholic.

Politicians only care about getting elected and staying in office.

Term limits are what this country needs.



This I am actually ok with. We limit the president to 2 four year terms. Any particular reason we did not apply this to senators or congressmen?

Why should a man be senator for 48 years? Its public service, not a career. If you cant get what you want done in 12 years as a senator, why give you another 36? I think that is part of the problem. The congressmen and senators have been in office for so long that they forget they come from somewhere else with actual people with concerns different then inside the beltway.

:Broncos:

WolfpackGuy
11-01-2010, 06:31 PM
This I am actually ok with. We limit the president to 2 four year terms. Any particular reason we did not apply this to senators or congressmen?

Why should a man be senator for 48 years? Its public service, not a career. If you cant get what you want done in 12 years as a senator, why give you another 36? I think that is part of the problem. The congressmen and senators have been in office for so long that they forget they come from somewhere else with actual people with concerns different then inside the beltway.

:Broncos:

Not sure why term limits were never enacted in the legislative branch other than it was some sort of compromise way back in the day?

Senators should be limited to two terms. Agreed, 12 years is PLENTY of time for any official. Once you get elected in both houses, you already get retirement, so what incentive is there other than staying in office and reap the rewards?

The House should change to 4 year terms with a maximum of 2 terms because let's face it, a good portion of that current 2 year term is spent on reelection efforts, not representing. Plus, it would save campaign donors a lot of money...

It's an old practice that needs to change because the world changes QUICKLY these days.

frerottenextelway
11-01-2010, 06:33 PM
They need to do away with the 17th Amendment and stop letting the public vote on who their Senators are.

Archer81
11-01-2010, 06:35 PM
Not sure why term limits were never enacted in the legislative branch other than it was some sort of compromise way back in the day? Senators should be limited to two terms. Agreed, 12 years is PLENTY of time for any official. Once you get elected in both houses, you already get retirement, so what incentive is there other than staying in office and reap the rewards?

The House should change to 4 year terms with a maximum of 2 terms because let's face it, a good portion of that current 2 year term is spent on reelection efforts, not representing. Plus, it would save campaign donors a lot of money...

It's an old practice that needs to change because the world changes QUICKLY these days.


Dude, when we hear that both parties spent 1.7 BILLION dollars combined on midterm elections its hard to fight off cynacism. The term political elite pisses me off too. There should never be a political elite in the United States. Thats counter to how this country should work.


:Broncos:

Garcia Bronco
11-01-2010, 06:37 PM
They need to do away with the 17th Amendment and stop letting the public vote on who their Senators are.

That's why that claim in one of the ads about not letting people vote for their Senators is laughable. I can't remember who, but it'll never happen. So the criticism is hollow.

Archer81
11-01-2010, 06:38 PM
They need to do away with the 17th Amendment and stop letting the public vote on who their Senators are.


Ken Buck is considered too extreme for holding this view in Colorado.

"He wants to take away our right to vote for our senators..."

Listen lil buddy, that "right" did not exist in the original constitution. It was designed to give the states a greater voice in the direction of federal affairs. By voting for state legislatures, you could determine in principle how your senators would lean politically...

I hate campaign adds...

:Broncos:

WolfpackGuy
11-01-2010, 06:43 PM
I hate campaign adds...

:Broncos:

Ditto.

But the ones around here (DE, PA, NJ) are hilarious in a sick sort of way.

Archer81
11-01-2010, 06:50 PM
Ditto.

But the ones around here (DE, PA, NJ) are hilarious in a sick sort of way.


Its amazing to me how down home country western Hickenlooper, Bennet and Salazar are getting around election time. According to Hickenlooper anyone outside the 6 counties around Denver are unsophisticated and backwards thinking, Bennet goes to Colo Springs wearing cowboy boots and a bollero tie and Salazar only refers to being a 5th generation rancher when he is hitting the west slope.

Frauds.

:Broncos:

WolfpackGuy
11-01-2010, 06:57 PM
Here's a good one from DE.

Wicked witch O'Donnell bashing on Coons

Sort of a play on that "Huntsville Rapist" video that was out awhile back.

"Hide your will. Hide your lights. Cause he's taxing everything out here."

LOL

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T5aJAyBp_S8

Archer81
11-01-2010, 07:01 PM
The best/scariest add is the one with a Chinese college professor lecturing college students about the downfall of America as a great power and how we work for them.

Whoever created that add needs an award.

:Broncos:

~Crash~
11-01-2010, 07:03 PM
"Conservative?" What is conservative about any of these candidates? The last time the Republicans had control they spent like drunken sailors and collapsed the economy. And now they're conservatives? Okee dokee.

bla bla bla:thumbs:

RhymesayersDU
11-01-2010, 07:04 PM
This thread should be interesting.

I did early voting. Oddly enough that made the commercials and radiospots backround noise. Its been pleasant.

:Broncos:

I did this as well. No lines, the entire process took like 10 minutes. Nice to (1) vote and (2) do it quick and painlessly.

WolfpackGuy
11-01-2010, 07:05 PM
The best/scariest add is the one with a Chinese college professor lecturing college students about the downfall of America as a great power and how we work for them.

Whoever created that add needs an award.

:Broncos:

Pretty much true.

I'm guilty of perpetuating that by being a Wal-Mart shopper.

The deficit we're into with them pales in comparison to how much knowledge they've stolen from us.

~Crash~
11-01-2010, 07:07 PM
I plain on voting early and often....R R R R R R

Garcia Bronco
11-01-2010, 07:12 PM
Pretty much true.

I'm guilty of perpetuating that by being a Wal-Mart shopper.

The deficit we're into with them pales in comparison to how much knowledge they've stolen from us.

China wouldn't exist anymore if it wasn't for us.

Archer81
11-01-2010, 07:18 PM
China wouldn't exist anymore if it wasn't for us.


Im sure they think that every time they write us another check or steal our technology.


:Broncos:

WolfpackGuy
11-01-2010, 07:23 PM
China wouldn't exist anymore if it wasn't for us.

Agreed, but they don't need us anymore since they started building their own nuke plants.

Due to "techonology twansfah"

Garcia Bronco
11-01-2010, 07:37 PM
Even going back to the Boxer Rebellion, we kept Japan and Russia from carving them up.

Rohirrim
11-01-2010, 07:46 PM
Ken Buck is considered too extreme for holding this view in Colorado.

"He wants to take away our right to vote for our senators..."

Listen lil buddy, that "right" did not exist in the original constitution. It was designed to give the states a greater voice in the direction of federal affairs. By voting for state legislatures, you could determine in principle how your senators would lean politically...

I hate campaign adds...

:Broncos:

The system became so corrupt that Senate seats were just going to the highest bidders, basically at auction. Massive corruption.

Requiem
11-01-2010, 07:53 PM
I am of the opinion that less government is better for all. With gridlock, there is less on the table. Further, banks and businesses are hording capital because of general uncertainty in the government. Gridlock will stabilize this for a time. You are a younger guy. I think you'll find as you get older that moving a little slower pays benefits.

I am of the same opinion, but I am still failing to see where gridlock correlates to there being less on the table.

Archer81
11-01-2010, 08:25 PM
The system became so corrupt that Senate seats were just going to the highest bidders, basically at auction. Massive corruption.


Yeah...


Its improved SO much...


:Broncos:

broncocalijohn
11-01-2010, 08:37 PM
The real answer is here:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703708404575586063725870380.html?m od=rss_opinion_main

Voters don't want to be governed from the left, right or center. They want Washington to recognize that Americans want to govern themselves..

BS! That would be anarchy or a tad libertarian. Too many people need the government. It is just if the country wants less of it then what we get now.

SoCalBronco
11-01-2010, 09:25 PM
SoCal's ballot for tomorrow. Almost identical to what it was early this week, with the exception that I'm no longer going to vote for Jerry Brown. I still find Whitman extremely distateful and I continue to refuse to vote for her, Republican or not.

Governor- NO VOTE
Lt. Governor- Abel Maldonado (R)
Secretary of State- Damon Dunn (R)
Controller-John Chiang (D)
Treasurer-Mimi Walters (R)
Attorney General-Steve Cooley (R)
Insurance Commissioner-Mike Villines (R)
Board of Equalization-Jerome Horton (D)
US Senator- Carly Fiorina (R)
US Representative-David Dreier (R)
State Assembly-Alvaro Day (R)

State Measures
Prop 19 NO-The Mary Jane proposition is a worthless one, since the federal government will still enforce what it has on the books.
Prop 20 YES- I'd much rather have the bipartisan redistricting commission draw the lines rather than elected representatives.
Prop 21 YES- An 18 dollar vehicle fee is not excessive in order to help preserve our state parks and wildlife programs. The fact that it operates as a true "fee" rather than a tax, by returning a specific benefit to the surcharged vehicles (free admission) makes it easier to take, too.
Prop 22 YES- I'm very tired of the legislature (and Governor) playing games with the budget and raiding local funds to help balance the state budget.
Prop 23 NO- While I am generally pro-business, its not realistic to believe that this state's unemployment rate to drop below 5.5% anytime in the next five years (maybe not in the next ten years), so that's not a proper barometer to use to suspend air pollution laws in this state. I would be willing to suspend them for just the very short term to stimulate growth, but this basically would put environmental protection completely on the back burner for the forseeable future. That's a bit too far for a moderate Republican like me.
Prop 24 NO- I don't have a problem with businesses keeping some of the recently enacted tax breaks for them. This is not a State that is generally friendly towards business, so providing them with reasonable incentives to do business here is rational.
Prop 25 NO- There's a couple things I don't like about this. First, I don't want to change the budget requirement from 2/3 to a simple majority. I was frustrated by this a little while ago, but I've come to see that since the Dems will control all parts of government in this state, you've got to keep a check on them for spending purposes. The 2/3 requirement will do that, even though its frustrating at times. Also, I don't think the idea that withholding legislators pay if they don't get a budget in on time is a great idea. It sounds great on paper and on soundbytes, but you'd be incentivizing less than wealthy lawmakers to simply give in on their principles when they have to pay mortgages. I'd rather have a good budget than a bad one, or one brought about solely because a legislator wants to get it done so he/she can get their paycheck.
Prop 26 YES- Higher levels of voter approval for certain fees.
Prop 27 NO-This would eliminate the Prop 20 commission.

Cito Pelon
11-01-2010, 09:49 PM
SoCal's ballot for tomorrow. Almost identical to what it was early this week, with the exception that I'm no longer going to vote for Jerry Brown. I still find Whitman extremely distateful and I continue to refuse to vote for her, Republican or not.

Governor- NO VOTE
Lt. Governor- Abel Maldonado (R)
Secretary of State- Damon Dunn (R)
Controller-John Chiang (D)
Treasurer-Mimi Walters (R)
Attorney General-Steve Cooley (R)
Insurance Commissioner-Mike Villines (R)
Board of Equalization-Jerome Horton (D)
US Senator- Carly Fiorina (R)
US Representative-David Dreier (R)
State Assembly-Alvaro Day (R)

State Measures
Prop 19 NO-The Mary Jane proposition is a worthless one, since the federal government will still enforce what it has on the books.
Prop 20 YES- I'd much rather have the bipartisan redistricting commission draw the lines rather than elected representatives.
Prop 21 YES- An 18 dollar vehicle fee is not excessive in order to help preserve our state parks and wildlife programs. The fact that it operates as a true "fee" rather than a tax, by returning a specific benefit to the surcharged vehicles (free admission) makes it easier to take, too.
Prop 22 YES- I'm very tired of the legislature (and Governor) playing games with the budget and raiding local funds to help balance the state budget.
Prop 23 NO- While I am generally pro-business, its not realistic to believe that this state's unemployment rate to drop below 5.5% anytime in the next five years (maybe not in the next ten years), so that's not a proper barometer to use to suspend air pollution laws in this state. I would be willing to suspend them for just the very short term to stimulate growth, but this basically would put environmental protection completely on the back burner for the forseeable future. That's a bit too far for a moderate Republican like me.
Prop 24 NO- I don't have a problem with businesses keeping some of the recently enacted tax breaks for them. This is not a State that is generally friendly towards business, so providing them with reasonable incentives to do business here is rational.
Prop 25 NO- There's a couple things I don't like about this. First, I don't want to change the budget requirement from 2/3 to a simple majority. I was frustrated by this a little while ago, but I've come to see that since the Dems will control all parts of government in this state, you've got to keep a check on them for spending purposes. The 2/3 requirement will do that, even though its frustrating at times. Also, I don't think the idea that withholding legislators pay if they don't get a budget in on time is a great idea. It sounds great on paper and on soundbytes, but you'd be incentivizing less than wealthy lawmakers to simply give in on their principles when they have to pay mortgages. I'd rather have a good budget than a bad one, or one brought about solely because a legislator wants to get it done so he/she can get their paycheck.
Prop 26 YES- Higher levels of voter approval for certain fees.
Prop 27 NO-This would eliminate the Prop 20 commission.

That Prop 25 would bring the state into alignment with most other states, yes?

broncocalijohn
11-01-2010, 09:50 PM
MY Props:
Prop 19 NO (voted yes for medical marijuana and that has become a joke)
Prop 20 Yes (redistricting that wont look like the parties did the mapping)
Prop 21 NO! (More fees tied to the highest car fees already! State should have had money already for our parks and left it alone.
Prop 22 YES Dont mess with the budget. Idiots in Sac Town.
Prop 23 YES!!!!!! (No other state is putting in reg. like Calif. wants too and it wont help a hill of beans. All other states will get the benefits of it though.
Prop 24 -25 NO!
Prop 26 Yes
Prop 27 Hell no (If you like Prop 20, u dont want this BS)

SoCal - hope u will be happy when the Green Solutions act comes around and wipes out jobs here and puts them in surrounding states. Concrete companies will either move out a state or charge a crapfull of money to build anything with concrete. Most retarded law passed and will do nothing to protect the Earth when we are less than 1/10 of 1 percent. This law does nothing to stop India and China from producing coal plants 3 times a month. Horrible law and everyone will be laughing at California again for being the dead guinea pig.

Cito Pelon
11-01-2010, 09:55 PM
Its amazing to me how down home country western Hickenlooper, Bennet and Salazar are getting around election time. According to Hickenlooper anyone outside the 6 counties around Denver are unsophisticated and backwards thinking, Bennet goes to Colo Springs wearing cowboy boots and a bollero tie and Salazar only refers to being a 5th generation rancher when he is hitting the west slope.

Frauds.:Broncos:

Frauds = Politicians. Nobody goes into politics as a career unless they can't be trusted in any other career.

Which is why we have to keep a sharp eye on them regardless of affiliation.

Paladin
11-01-2010, 09:58 PM
Dems are poised to take it in the shorts, which is getting off easy given what they've brought to the table.


Yeah. Well, let's see.....

Obama and the Democrats did:

1. Credit Card Reform.
2. Americorps enhancements and expansion
3. Wall Street reforms
4. Laws which included ability to sue to obtain equal pay (For women)
5. Reformed Student loan program
6. Included homsexual murders in Hate Crime laws
7. Major tax cuts for middle class (found in the paychecks, not in a one time show boat check as Bush did
8. Three major bills that enhanced services to wounded and disabled Veterans and the Iraq/Afganistan returnees and their families
9. Health Insurance Refom Bill, the first since LBJ (Medicare)
10, Stimulus Bills (which have been shown lately to be working) to fight the deepest recession since the Depression inherited from Bush and the Repugnicans inherited. And the Fross Domestic Product is inceasing, just ot a s fast as we would want. REmeber, Bush and the Repugnicans saw the greatest exodus (outsourcing) of American jobs in history
11. Clunker Recovery laws that actually worked as teh auto companies are back on their feet
12. The Deficit has actually been paid down this year....
13. Funding of Alternitive Energy laws

And others others. I am sure you can remember them.

All this while the Goofy Old Party (erstwhile conservatives?) sat with their thumbs up their asses because they petulantly wanted to just "stop Obama".

This Congress did more for the American people than any since LBJ and even before. The "connservatives" will benefit from the economic cycle nursed and birthed by Obama and the Democratic Congress.


Sure. What they brought to the table. Compare that to the Bush and Repugnican "accomplishments". Remember Enron? Remember Iraq? Remember the meltdown and the Repugnican TARP? All those scandals. Valerie Wilson? 2000? The culture of corruption?

Dumbass. Critical thinking isn't your long suit, is it?

Cito Pelon
11-01-2010, 10:14 PM
Yeah. Well, let's see.....

Obama and the Democrats did:

1. Credit Card Reform.
2. Americorps enhancements and expansion
3. Wall Street reforms
4. Laws which included ability to sue to obtain equal pay (For women)
5. Reformed Student loan program
6. Included homsexual murders in Hate Crime laws
7. Major tax cuts for middle class (found in the paychecks, not in a one time show boat check as Bush did
8. Three major bills that enhanced services to wounded and disabled Veterans and the Iraq/Afganistan returnees and their families
9. Health Insurance Refom Bill, the first since LBJ (Medicare)
10, Stimulus Bills (which have been shown lately to be working) to fight the deepest recession since the Depression inherited from Bush and the Repugnicans inherited. And the Fross Domestic Product is inceasing, just ot a s fast as we would want. REmeber, Bush and the Repugnicans saw the greatest exodus (outsourcing) of American jobs in history
11. Clunker Recovery laws that actually worked as teh auto companies are back on their feet
12. The Deficit has actually been paid down this year....
13. Funding of Alternitive Energy laws

And others others. I am sure you can remember them.

All this while the Goofy Old Party (erstwhile conservatives?) sat with their thumbs up their asses because they petulantly wanted to just "stop Obama".

This Congress did more for the American people than any since LBJ and even before. The "connservatives" will benefit from the economic cycle nursed and birthed by Obama and the Democratic Congress.


Sure. What they brought to the table. Compare that to the Bush and Repugnican "accomplishments". Remember Enron? Remember Iraq? Remember the meltdown and the Repugnican TARP? All those scandals. Valerie Wilson? 2000? The culture of corruption?

Dumbass. Critical thinking isn't your long suit, is it?

I'm not big on the GOP, unfortunately half my family is big on the GOP. Politics can be hell on earth.

broncocalijohn
11-01-2010, 10:35 PM
That Prop 25 would bring the state into alignment with most other states, yes?

it keeps it at 2/3rds and if you dont know how nutty those in Sacramento are, best they keep fighting and not screwing up anymore laws already made or will be put to vote. Yes, it isnt like most states in that you normally need a simple majority.

Pseudofool
11-01-2010, 10:39 PM
Yeah. Well, let's see.....

Obama and the Democrats did:

1. Credit Card Reform.
2. Americorps enhancements and expansion
3. Wall Street reforms
4. Laws which included ability to sue to obtain equal pay (For women)
5. Reformed Student loan program
6. Included homsexual murders in Hate Crime laws
7. Major tax cuts for middle class (found in the paychecks, not in a one time show boat check as Bush did
8. Three major bills that enhanced services to wounded and disabled Veterans and the Iraq/Afganistan returnees and their families
9. Health Insurance Refom Bill, the first since LBJ (Medicare)
10, Stimulus Bills (which have been shown lately to be working) to fight the deepest recession since the Depression inherited from Bush and the Repugnicans inherited. And the Fross Domestic Product is inceasing, just ot a s fast as we would want. REmeber, Bush and the Repugnicans saw the greatest exodus (outsourcing) of American jobs in history
11. Clunker Recovery laws that actually worked as teh auto companies are back on their feet
12. The Deficit has actually been paid down this year....
13. Funding of Alternitive Energy laws

And others others. I am sure you can remember them.

All this while the Goofy Old Party (erstwhile conservatives?) sat with their thumbs up their asses because they petulantly wanted to just "stop Obama".

This Congress did more for the American people than any since LBJ and even before. The "connservatives" will benefit from the economic cycle nursed and birthed by Obama and the Democratic Congress.


Sure. What they brought to the table. Compare that to the Bush and Repugnican "accomplishments". Remember Enron? Remember Iraq? Remember the meltdown and the Repugnican TARP? All those scandals. Valerie Wilson? 2000? The culture of corruption?

Dumbass. Critical thinking isn't your long suit, is it?Honestly, as a liberal, so much of these laws passed were half-measures, comprised to meaninglessness. Liberals had the moral high ground and they screwed the pooch. Honestly we should be ashamed. The Dems would be voted out, without ever really doing what they felt needed to be done.

The Democratic party acts as a soporific to liberals; however, it doesn't excuse the pure excess and greed that Republicans fight for. While I'm disappointed that the people I voted for last time are shells of who they said they'd be, at least, I don't vote for unmitigated selfishness, an ideology so greedy and privileged that it thinks it deserves its riches.

Not one conservative has said one specific way that conservatives will make the world better through specific policy. That should say something about such conservatives values--where their morality actually lies. At best, conservatives want less taxes so they can buy more crap they don't need--at the expense of people they simply don't want to look at and pretend don't exist. The notion that "I deserve this opulent living" is one of the most pervasive forms of evil I know.

The Dems clearly don't have the answers, but at least they don't run the government towards some selfish end that benefits the few who already are benefited. I don't see how any moral person votes for the dollar in their pocket rather than the dollar that attempts (if even fails) to do good for others.

broncocalijohn
11-01-2010, 10:58 PM
The Dems clearly don't have the answers, but at least they don't run the government towards some selfish end that benefits the few who already are benefited. I don't see how any moral person votes for the dollar in their pocket rather than the dollar that attempts (if even fails) to do good for others.

How old are you? 15? Wake up and smell the coffee sister. I vote to pay less taxes, put more money in my own pocket so I can spend how I see fit and invest in what I want with my money. I also can give to charity with more money in my pocket. Many voters do the same. You are naive if people do the bleeding heart thing. BTW, how many of those voters vote to get more freebies?

Champagne Powder
11-01-2010, 11:23 PM
MY Props:
Prop 19 NO (voted yes for medical marijuana and that has become a joke)


You asshole.

broncocalijohn
11-01-2010, 11:30 PM
You a-hole.

Get some of that pot and maybe u wont be so angry. You really need a law to get your fix?
Plus, it is You ARE an ahole. If you would stop smoking the stuff I helped you get, you would have a proper understanding of posting and being clear of the mind.

Requiem
11-01-2010, 11:48 PM
There is no reason that a natural growing plant that has been used by societies the world over for thousands of year should be illegal in the first place.

You bitch and moan about overarching government, yet are all for it here.

Put the needle to the record.

Plus, "Stop smoking the stuff I helped you get."

WTF is that supposed to mean?

Dur.

Cito Pelon
11-01-2010, 11:52 PM
How old are you? 15? Wake up and smell the coffee sister. I vote to pay less taxes, put more money in my own pocket so I can spend how I see fit and invest in what I want with my money. I also can give to charity with more money in my pocket. Many voters do the same. You are naive if people do the bleeding heart thing. BTW, how many of those voters vote to get more freebies?

It always comes down to whether or not you want to live in a Third World country or a First World country.

In a First World country everybody is taxed and the tax laws are set in stone. In a Third World country only force is the rule. Graft is paid in lieu of taxes.

Sounds to me like you want to live in a Third World country. As I've said many a time - don't snivel about paying your taxes in the USA. Those taxes allow you to live in a First World country. If you want to live in a Third World country move to Mexico, we won't miss you at all.

Requiem
11-01-2010, 11:55 PM
Mexico?

Try Malawi.

He might be a hit there.

baja
11-02-2010, 12:41 AM
China wouldn't exist anymore if it wasn't for us.

Ya a 5000 year old culture with 1 billion citizens exist at our whim. Brilliant Garcia!

broncocalijohn
11-02-2010, 01:44 AM
It always comes down to whether or not you want to live in a Third World country or a First World country.

In a First World country everybody is taxed and the tax laws are set in stone. In a Third World country only force is the rule. Graft is paid in lieu of taxes.

Sounds to me like you want to live in a Third World country. As I've said many a time - don't snivel about paying your taxes in the USA. Those taxes allow you to live in a First World country. If you want to live in a Third World country move to Mexico, we won't miss you at all.

yeah, that's the rational of wanting more money in my pocket. Why dont u come to Orange County where there are a ton of conservatives in our county. We live in the state that taxes us at the highest rate. Here, we voted not once, but twice (to extend it) a 1/2 cent on sales tax to improve our transportation. We had the worst freeway (22 freeway) to one of the best. LA has some of the worst freeways and blows any money from taxes. If it works, we like it as proof of our Orange County freeways. We just dont like when we pay and get **** for it which is LA for you. See the difference? Probably not. Funny a lib would describe first world to third world. If your type keep running California, it will become a third world nation.

Rausch 2.0
11-02-2010, 02:40 AM
I plain on voting early and often....

So do I.

Vs. every ****ing incumbent I can...

Pseudofool
11-02-2010, 05:52 AM
How old are you? 15? Wake up and smell the coffee sister. I vote to pay less taxes, put more money in my own pocket so I can spend how I see fit and invest in what I want with my money. I also can give to charity with more money in my pocket. Many voters do the same. You are naive if people do the bleeding heart thing. BTW, how many of those voters vote to get more freebies?Charity is retarded. It only sustains poverty so you can get that moral high ground smirk off your face. You may think there's maturity in your view, but it's nothing but unmitigated greed and pride ("spending as I see fit").

In the words of George Costanza, "We're living in a Society!" If you don't want to be here, go some place where they pave the roads with the skulls of poor people rather than tax dollars.

Garcia Bronco
11-02-2010, 06:57 AM
Ya a 5000 year old culture with 1 billion citizens exist at our whim. Brilliant Garcia!

That's not what I meant. Obviously

Garcia Bronco
11-02-2010, 07:01 AM
Good grief. Obama did not lower taxes for anyone. The ****ing rate stayed the same.

Jetmeck
11-02-2010, 07:05 AM
meet the new boss...same as the old boss

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rp6-wG5LLqE



Pretty much true dat however I DO NOT WANT BACK THE IDIOTS
that put us in this major hole for eight long years !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

Jetmeck
11-02-2010, 07:05 AM
Good grief. Obama did not lower taxes for anyone. The ****ing rate stayed the same.

Pull your head out, you got more money on every paycheck. For christ sake people wake up.

Jetmeck
11-02-2010, 07:11 AM
It kills me how the republican candidates are now pissing & moaning about big government spending. It sure as hell wasn't a problem for them during the better part of the last decade when they were ruining, err running ****.

Capitalize this, enlarge it and post it everywhere. The ones doing all the bitching were the freaking retards that voted Bush in TWICE !~!
Why weren't you questioning that idiocracy ???????

OBAMA is trying to dig out of the freaking landfill dumbass Bush put us in and maybe spend a little on the middle and try to help them out just a bit instead of Bush helping the rich and big business !

Jetmeck
11-02-2010, 07:13 AM
Get ready to get cornholed, Dems. I will be relishing Wednesday morning.

Fine lets go foolishly back to Bush politics where everybody except the rich and big business got cornholed !!! Brilliant !!!

Garcia Bronco
11-02-2010, 07:24 AM
Fine lets go foolishly back to Bush politics where everybody except the rich and big business got cornholed !!! Brilliant !!!

George Bush is the only modern day President to lower taxes for 100 percent of Americans in all tax brackets. Sorry

Garcia Bronco
11-02-2010, 07:27 AM
Pull your head out, you got more money on every paycheck. For christ sake people wake up.

You are being dense. He changed the with holding but the rate stayed the same. Meaning you paid the same amount. Meaning NO TAX CUT. Goodnight

ColoradoDarin
11-02-2010, 07:41 AM
Charity is retarded. It only sustains poverty so you can get that moral high ground smirk off your face. You may think there's maturity in your view, but it's nothing but unmitigated greed and pride ("spending as I see fit").

In the words of George Costanza, "We're living in a Society!" If you don't want to be here, go some place where they pave the roads with the skulls of poor people rather than tax dollars.

Yeah! The "War on Poverty" has been a HUGE success!!!

ColoradoDarin
11-02-2010, 07:44 AM
Capitalize this, enlarge it and post it everywhere. The ones doing all the b****ing were the freaking retards that voted Bush in TWICE !~!
Why weren't you questioning that idiocracy ???????

OBAMA is trying to dig out of the freaking landfill dumbass Bush put us in and maybe spend a little on the middle and try to help them out just a bit instead of Bush helping the rich and big business !

Let me ask you a question, say you are spending $100 more a month than you are taking in, not good right? You're going the wrong direction. You make a change, you start spending $10,000 more a month than you are taking in, are you better off now, or before?

Google "Porkbusters" there was a group of us who stood against Bush, the Republicans AND Democrats who spent too much, every one else is welcome even if they are late to the party.

SonOfLe-loLang
11-02-2010, 08:05 AM
Let me ask you a question, say you are spending $100 more a month than you are taking in, not good right? You're going the wrong direction. You make a change, you start spending $10,000 more a month than you are taking in, are you better off now, or before?

Google "Porkbusters" there was a group of us who stood against Bush, the Republicans AND Democrats who spent too much, every one else is welcome even if they are late to the party.

You cannot equate government debt with personal or business debt. It just doesn't work that way. I really dont have time to inject myself into this debate, it'll only make my blood pressure raise, but stop assuming your credit card debt or whatever is the same as running the country on deficits

ColoradoDarin
11-02-2010, 08:08 AM
You cannot equate government debt with personal or business debt. It just doesn't work that way. I really dont have time to inject myself into this debate, it'll only make my blood pressure raise, but stop assuming your credit card debt or whatever is the same as running the country on deficits

Yes, I know that, much like corporate debt, you don't ever have to pay it off as long as the interest payments are easily met. And some level of government debt is great for stability in the bond/interest rate markets. I wasn't speaking to that, just the level of spending, but thanks for replying anyways.

Garcia Bronco
11-02-2010, 08:09 AM
You cannot equate government debt with personal or business debt. It just doesn't work that way. I really dont have time to inject myself into this debate, it'll only make my blood pressure raise, but stop assuming your credit card debt or whatever is the same as running the country on deficits

I get where you are coming from, but fundamentally it is the same. Anything else is playing games with reality and this so called creative finance has gotten us exactly where we are today.

SonOfLe-loLang
11-02-2010, 08:10 AM
Yes, I know that, much like corporate debt, you don't ever have to pay it off as long as the interest payments are easily met. And some level of government debt is great for stability in the bond/interest rate markets. I wasn't speaking to that, just the level of spending, but thanks for replying anyways.

Sorry for the misunderstanding. I'm a believer in Keynesian economics and judging by what happened in Japan, the economy needs a cash infusion to get **** going again (not more tax cuts, but investment!) Our inflation rate is so friggin low that we're in virtual zero danger of inflation effecting us. Its not the 1970's anymore. To create jobs we're gonna need to spend. Plain and simple.

Rohirrim
11-02-2010, 08:10 AM
The price tag on this election is $4 billion. Most expensive mid-term in history.

Jetmeck
11-02-2010, 08:11 AM
George Bush is the only modern day President to lower taxes for 100 percent of Americans in all tax brackets. Sorry

I AM SORRY FOR YOU IF you believe Bush was in anyway a good president. Most of his tax cuts and policies were aimed at who ?
You know whom ? Want to address this ?

SonOfLe-loLang
11-02-2010, 08:12 AM
I get where you are coming from, but fundamentally it is the same. Anything else is playing games with reality and this so called creative finance has gotten us exactly where we are today.

But its just not that cut and dry. Plus, we're in a unique situation here (a stalled economy whose GDP just isnt moving fast enough to combat the unemployment rate. Something needs to be done and its not cutting entitlement.

SonOfLe-loLang
11-02-2010, 08:13 AM
The price tag on this election is $4 billion. Most expensive mid-term in history.

Im still in shock that Sharron Angle is going to be in the senate. Unreal. Un****ingreal

Jetmeck
11-02-2010, 08:14 AM
You are being dense. He changed the with holding but the rate stayed the same. Meaning you paid the same amount. Meaning NO TAX CUT. Goodnight

Good morning. Every working class American had more cash in his pocket after every paycheck period.

Jetmeck
11-02-2010, 08:16 AM
Im still in shock that Sharron Angle is going to be in the senate. Unreal. Un****ingreal

Look your right it is sad she even got to the primary. Something here reflects the stupidity of those around us. Maybe just maybe when these nutjobs get into mainstream and the people see what a bunch of crazies they really are it will do some good in the long run.

ColoradoDarin
11-02-2010, 08:17 AM
Sorry for the misunderstanding. I'm a believer in Keynesian economics and judging by what happened in Japan, the economy needs a cash infusion to get **** going again (not more tax cuts, but investment!) Our inflation rate is so friggin low that we're in virtual zero danger of inflation effecting us. Its not the 1970's anymore. To create jobs we're gonna need to spend. Plain and simple.

The problem is that this recession was a financial melt down and not a normal business cycle recession. In a normal recession, stimulus works very well (either Keynesian or tax cuts, personally I go for the latter, but I can see the argument for the other). Japan has been pumping the Keynes for 15-20 years now and it's still not helping them and they had the same crisis in the early 90s that we're going through now. I don't think that's the way to go. Germany OTOH has already come out of their recession with great growth (their unemployment is already back down), they followed a different path. It'll be interesting to see how it goes over the next 2 years with gridlock in DC (love me some gridlock!)

Rohirrim
11-02-2010, 08:18 AM
Im still in shock that Sharron Angle is going to be in the senate. Unreal. Un****ingreal

I can't wait to hear what Nevadans think of her six years from now. Like Jimmy Carter said, "We cannot resort to simplistic or extreme solutions which substitute myths for common sense."

Garcia Bronco
11-02-2010, 08:20 AM
I AM SORRY FOR YOU IF you believe Bush was in anyway a good president. Most of his tax cuts and policies were aimed at who ?
You know whom ? Want to address this ?

They were aimed at everyone. Everyone. Every tax payer got a tax cut under George Bush.

Garcia Bronco
11-02-2010, 08:21 AM
Good morning. Every working class American had more cash in his pocket after every paycheck period.

Oy veh. They still had to pay the same amount. A tax cut would indicate they did keep the money and not have to pay the same rate. You are making a fool of yourself.

SonOfLe-loLang
11-02-2010, 08:22 AM
The problem is that this recession was a financial melt down and not a normal business cycle recession. In a normal recession, stimulus works very well (either Keynesian or tax cuts, personally I go for the latter, but I can see the argument for the other). Japan has been pumping the Keynes for 15-20 years now and it's still not helping them and they had the same crisis in the early 90s that we're going through now. I don't think that's the way to go. Germany OTOH has already come out of their recession with great growth (their unemployment is already back down), they followed a different path. It'll be interesting to see how it goes over the next 2 years with gridlock in DC (love me some gridlock!)

Japan was inflation crazy as well in the face of deflation, so we are actually doing the same exact thing they did. And im sure we'll get the same zombie like economy for a while. But, of course, the depression was aided by the existence of world war 2, which, economically speaking, was one huge public works project. We could have run all those tanks and planes in the ocean and it would have had the same desired economic effect. So to say spending doesnt work isnt all that accurate.

And yes, ill safely assume zero will get done in the next two years, unfortunately.

Jetmeck
11-02-2010, 08:23 AM
Try this for size. Nobody with a lick of sense should be willing to debate what a cluster**** the Bush administration was and how we went from really good times to the opposite under his watch. 2 wars, etc....etc. Favored the rich, etc...etc. Spent way too much on chit he shouldn't have.

Obama is spending money but in the right places...for everyone not just the rich. Obviously we are spending money we don't have just as Bush did but at least we are spending it on good things for all of us. Healthcare should have been done when Jimmy Carter tried.

Nobody should want to go back to the Bush cluster**** !

SonOfLe-loLang
11-02-2010, 08:23 AM
I can't wait to hear what Nevadans think of her six years from now. Like Jimmy Carter said, "We cannot resort to simplistic or extreme solutions which substitute myths for common sense."

Cancer patients will be very upset when they run out of chickens and can't pay their chemo bill any more.

ColoradoBuff
11-02-2010, 08:24 AM
so fellow Coloradans...what's your take on the Amend. 60 & 61 and Prop 101? Will they pass?

Jetmeck
11-02-2010, 08:25 AM
Oy veh. They still had to pay the same amount. A tax cut would indicate they did keep the money and not have to pay the same rate. You are making a fool of yourself.

I did keep it all. As most of us do I have deductions ? I got to keep it all YEAR LONG TOO. You have to be a repubiclan. ie "a fool"

Paladin
11-02-2010, 08:31 AM
Good grief. Obama did not lower taxes for anyone. The ****ing rate stayed the same.

"The notoriously slow Congress passed the $787 billion economic stimulus package in a matter of weeks. President Barack Obama signed it into law less than one month into his presidency.
So, just how soon will Americans start reaping the benefits of tax cuts in it?

By April 1, according to the president.

"Never before in our history has a tax cut taken effect faster or gone to so many hardworking Americans," Obama said Saturday in his weekly radio and Internet address.

He said the Treasury Department has begun directing employers to reduce the amount of taxes withheld from people's paychecks in accordance with the new law, and that in six weeks, a typical family will start taking home at least $65 more every month.

Obama says his signature "Making Work Pay" tax break will affect 95 percent of working families.

The $400 credit for individuals is to be doled out through the rest of the year. Couples are slated to get up to $800. Most workers are to see about a $13 per week increase in their take home pay.

People who do not earn enough money to owe income taxes are eligible for the credit e-home pay. In 2010, the credit would be about $7.70 a week, if it is spread over the entire year, an attempt to offset the payroll taxes they pay.

Obama's expensive and ambitious package of federal spending and tax cuts is designed to revive the economy and save or create 3.5 million or more jobs. It will inject a sudden boost of cash into transportation, education, energy and health care, while aiming to help recession victims through tax cuts, extended unemployment benefits and short-term health insurance assistance. It also will add to a rapidly growing national debt.

The president signed the measure into law Tuesday.

In his weekly address, Obama said he was grateful to Congress, governors, mayors and everyday people who supported the measure."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29314485/

Goobzilla
11-02-2010, 08:33 AM
so fellow Coloradans...what's your take on the Amend. 60 & 61 and Prop 101? Will they pass?

Doesn't look like it. Latest polls I saw show the no votes at 4-1

Garcia Bronco
11-02-2010, 08:55 AM
He said the Treasury Department has begun directing employers to reduce the amount of taxes withheld from people's paychecks in accordance with the new law, and that in six weeks, a typical family will start taking home at least $65 more every month.


This is not an income tax cut. Good grief. It's a change in withholding amounts. You still had to pay the same ****ing rate on your income.

You don't seem to understand your own quoted MSNBC article.

that Obama would even refer to it as a tax cut tells you one of two things:

He thinks you are stupid

or

He's stupid to even pass it off as a tax cut.

Garcia Bronco
11-02-2010, 08:57 AM
so fellow Coloradans...what's your take on the Amend. 60 & 61 and Prop 101? Will they pass?

I had to vote no on all 3. While I like the ideas presented to a degree, the laws were poorly written.

Garcia Bronco
11-02-2010, 09:00 AM
Try this for size. Nobody with a lick of sense should be willing to debate what a cluster**** the Bush administration was and how we went from really good times to the opposite under his watch. 2 wars, etc....etc. Favored the rich, etc...etc. Spent way too much on chit he shouldn't have.

Obama is spending money but in the right places...for everyone not just the rich. Obviously we are spending money we don't have just as Bush did but at least we are spending it on good things for all of us. Healthcare should have been done when Jimmy Carter tried.

Nobody should want to go back to the Bush cluster**** !

I'll have this debate with you, but you'll have to up your game. While not every decision by the Bush Administration was good or even great, I am willing to bet the things you would cite for you arguments would be poor and easily defeated.

TailgateNut
11-02-2010, 09:00 AM
so fellow coloradans...what's your take on the amend. 60 & 61 and prop 101? Will they pass?

no

TonyR
11-02-2010, 09:26 AM
They were aimed at everyone. Everyone. Every tax payer got a tax cut under George Bush.

Thank god for Bush's tax cuts. The thriving economy we have today couldn't exist without them. Right, Garcia? Tax cuts solve all economic problems, correct?

Mile High Shack
11-02-2010, 09:28 AM
http://s-ak.buzzfed.com/static/enhanced/terminal01/2010/10/30/16/enhanced-buzz-3243-1288470705-2.jpg

~Crash~
11-02-2010, 09:34 AM
So do I.

Vs. every ****ing incumbent I can...

I do agree all the kings should fall that is for damn sure .

Rock Chalk
11-02-2010, 09:38 AM
You don't strike me as a guy who would buckle to pride and sensationalism (the way you've phrased it is you're celebrating the defeat of people you don't like, than a victory by those whom you admire); what tangible affects will the Republicans actually bring that's worth relishing for you?

Hopefully repealing Obama care and ****ing government bailouts of fiscally irresponsible companies and banks.

And ANYTHING that gets that **** Pelosi from any sort of authority other than over those ****ing numbskulls in San Francisco is a positive thing for the US.

Other than that, I dont expect anything other than to chop off Obama's balls as far as power to do whatever the **** he wants despite what the American people want.

~Crash~
11-02-2010, 09:40 AM
http://s-ak.buzzfed.com/static/enhanced/terminal01/2010/10/30/16/enhanced-buzz-3243-1288470705-2.jpg

nice sign!!!!!!!!!!!!!! he also is paying taxes for a 747 for Nancy Pelosi the Queen to go to Italy oh then she spends ten minets in Iraq to look like she was doing sometnhing for the govenment .

Taxes yes Fat cats (Queens and Kings ) no !!!!

Garcia Bronco
11-02-2010, 09:41 AM
Thank god for Bush's tax cuts. The thriving economy we have today couldn't exist without them. Right, Garcia? Tax cuts solve all economic problems, correct?

I think most people would be in worse shape without more money in their pocket. Correct.

Tax cuts do not solve all economic problems.

What were some of the reasons Bush pushed for tax cuts:

-The dotcom bust.

-9/11

Both these items put us in a recession and one reason why Bush returned money to the people to help the economy.

bronclvr
11-02-2010, 09:43 AM
Thank god for Bush's tax cuts. The thriving economy we have today couldn't exist without them. Right, Garcia? Tax cuts solve all economic problems, correct?


No, but Obozo's Economic Stimulus sure fixed the Unemployment/Recession mess-:kiss:

Garcia Bronco
11-02-2010, 09:46 AM
http://s-ak.buzzfed.com/static/enhanced/terminal01/2010/10/30/16/enhanced-buzz-3243-1288470705-2.jpg

Which taxes are you refering to because most of those items are paid for at the state and local level. Roads can be both. Police are local. Fire protection can be federal, but rarely. Many National Parks charge per visit to fund themselves.

The Coast Guard is generally Federal funds.

I don't have a problem with state and local taxes, but don't try to argue that the feds taking our money, lopping off a percentage, spending it elsewhere, and then handing you back the change is a good idea.

For every dollar we pay in federal taxes in Colorado whe get 88 cents back(roughly)

Mississippi for example....get's 3 dollars back.

Mile High Shack
11-02-2010, 09:49 AM
No, but Obozo's Economic Stimulus sure fixed the Unemployment/Recession mess-:kiss:

with the cluster **** left over from 8 years of spending like a teenager who stole a credit card.....it's hard to plug the hoover dam with bubble gum

bronclvr
11-02-2010, 09:50 AM
with the cluster **** left over from 8 years of spending like a teenager who stole a credit card.....it's hard to plug the hoover dam with bubble gum

Especially when you have broken the Bank and can't get the job done-:thumbsup:

Archer81
11-02-2010, 09:54 AM
with the cluster **** left over from 8 years of spending like a teenager who stole a credit card.....it's hard to plug the hoover dam with bubble gum


Who said Obama is plugging anything? A more apt scenario would be while Bush went at the Hoover dam with a pickaxe, Obama is going after it with C4.

In 2 years Obama spent more money than any president from Washington to Bush 41.

And this economy is all Obama. That happens when you have 2 years to put your economic policies in place with a congress overwhelmingly in your corner.

:Broncos:

TonyR
11-02-2010, 09:58 AM
Who said Obama is plugging anything?

Curious, what do you think Bush would have done differently?

broncocalijohn
11-02-2010, 09:59 AM
Charity is retarded. It only sustains poverty so you can get that moral high ground smirk off your face. You may think there's maturity in your view, but it's nothing but unmitigated greed and pride ("spending as I see fit").

In the words of George Costanza, "We're living in a Society!" If you don't want to be here, go some place where they pave the roads with the skulls of poor people rather than tax dollars.

YOU MORON! I just posted how we conservatives vote for taxes when we see that it works. We dont need skulls of poor people. Maybe liberal skulls but it has been tried and seems they are too soft to handle a Humvee tire.
Charity is retarded? Not sure where you are going with that.

Rock Chalk
11-02-2010, 10:07 AM
Charity is the lifeblood of this country and it comes in all forms. People that say Charity is retarded have no concept of what made this country great.

The charity of neighbors to watch over your **** while you are away. The charity of neighborhoods to give up their time to clean their own backyard up and make the place they live in nice. Charity of philanthropists and common people to research disease. Charity of the people of this great nation to help other nations out during natural disasters.

Charity is what makes this ****ing country great. Not democrat ideals or conservative ones. The people and their charity do.

So dont give me that **** that Charity is retarded and sustains poverty.

Archer81
11-02-2010, 10:14 AM
Curious, what do you think Bush would have done differently?


Probably the same thing he did in the early 2000's. And even then he did not run trillion dollar deficits with his budgets...of course the dems have yet to produce a budget for this year, so...

:Broncos:

Rigs11
11-02-2010, 10:18 AM
No, but Obozo's Economic Stimulus sure fixed the Unemployment/Recession mess-:kiss:

yeah and it contained $280 blillion in tax cuts.Pushed by the right.

Rigs11
11-02-2010, 10:31 AM
Who said Obama is plugging anything? A more apt scenario would be while Bush went at the Hoover dam with a pickaxe, Obama is going after it with C4.

In 2 years Obama spent more money than any president from Washington to Bush 41.

And this economy is all Obama. That happens when you have 2 years to put your economic policies in place with a congress overwhelmingly in your corner.

:Broncos:

http://www.cbpp.org/images/cms//12-16-09bud-rev6-28-10-f1.jpg

Archer81
11-02-2010, 10:34 AM
http://www.cbpp.org/images/cms//12-16-09bud-rev6-28-10-f1.jpg


Here is a question for you.

How can money the government will never get (tax revenue due to tax cuts) be considered "lost" revenue?


:Broncos:

TailgateNut
11-02-2010, 10:38 AM
Who said Obama is plugging anything? A more apt scenario would be while Bush went at the Hoover dam with a pickaxe, Obama is going after it with C4.
In 2 years Obama spent more money than any president from Washington to Bush 41.

And this economy is all Obama. That happens when you have 2 years to put your economic policies in place with a congress overwhelmingly in your corner.

:Broncos:


Talk about complete and utter HORSE****.

Pseudofool
11-02-2010, 10:38 AM
Charity is the lifeblood of this country and it comes in all forms. People that say Charity is retarded have no concept of what made this country great.

The charity of neighbors to watch over your **** while you are away. The charity of neighborhoods to give up their time to clean their own backyard up and make the place they live in nice. Charity of philanthropists and common people to research disease. Charity of the people of this great nation to help other nations out during natural disasters.

Charity is what makes this ****ing country great. Not democrat ideals or conservative ones. The people and their charity do.

So dont give me that **** that Charity is retarded and sustains poverty.I'm not talking about all charitable acts (obviously); but the specific notion of "don't tax me and I might give a dollar to poor person on my own accord bs"

The act of giving a guy a dollar on the corner is the act that keeps the guy on the corner. People do it--not to help the guy out--but to alleviate their sense of guilt.

Pseudofool
11-02-2010, 10:39 AM
YOU MORON! .

http://www.chicagonow.com/blogs/league-of-her-own/assets_c/2009/10/moran-sign-thumb-337x430-25721.jpg

Rigs11
11-02-2010, 10:40 AM
Here is a question for you.

How can money the government will never get (tax revenue due to tax cuts) be considered "lost" revenue?


:Broncos:

what? are you serious? There are budgets put in place yearly by congress.The money has to come from somewhere, so if you dont have money in the bank, and you give out tax cuts,then of course it's lost revenue.

Archer81
11-02-2010, 10:42 AM
what? are you serious? There are budgets put in place yearly by congress.The money has to come from somewhere, so if you dont have money in the bank, and you give out tax cuts,then of course it's lost revenue.


I ask again.

How can money the government will NEVER see be considered lost revenue for the government?


:Broncos:

Rigs11
11-02-2010, 10:47 AM
I ask again.

How can money the government will NEVER see be considered lost revenue for the government?


:Broncos:because you are borrowing money that does not exist, and giving it out as tax cuts.call it what you want it still adds to the deficit.

Archer81
11-02-2010, 10:51 AM
because you are borrowing money that does not exist, and giving it out as tax cuts.call it what you want it still adds to the deficit.


Maybe the budget should be revised to actually reflect the amount of revenue coming in rather than what it would be if scenario A, B and C occurs...


:Broncos:

missingnumber7
11-02-2010, 10:54 AM
Let the excuses begin for Mr Obama...this is a quote from CNN...

• President Obama addressed voters on "The Steve Harvey Morning Show" on Tuesday, saying their choices would change what the country would be able to accomplish in the next two years.

"The fact of the matter is, even though my name is not on the ballot, my ability to work with the middle-class families is hampered if I don't have people in Congress who want to cooperate," Obama said in remarks that were taped Monday and aired Tuesday. "Frankly, the other side -- their whole agenda is to spend the next two years trying to defeat me rather than move the country forward."

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/11/02/election.glance/index.html?hpt=C2

bronclvr
11-02-2010, 11:00 AM
Let the excuses begin for Mr Obama...this is a quote from CNN...

President Obama addressed voters on "The Steve Harvey Morning Show" on Tuesday, saying their choices would change what the country would be able to accomplish in the next two years.

"The fact of the matter is, even though my name is not on the ballot, my ability to work with the middle-class families is hampered if I don't have people in Congress who want to cooperate," Obama said in remarks that were taped Monday and aired Tuesday. "Frankly, the other side -- their whole agenda is to spend the next two years trying to defeat me rather than move the country forward."

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/11/02/election.glance/index.html?hpt=C2

Yep, and I hope he's offically de-nutted within the next 12 Hours, then re-elected in 2012-the Repugs won't be able to anything done anyway, and at least this way we can keep things in check-

Rohirrim
11-02-2010, 11:01 AM
Pollsters are reporting that turnout is much, much higher than they expected. Glad I voted by mail.

DrFate
11-02-2010, 11:02 AM
BS! That would be anarchy or a tad libertarian. Too many people need the government. It is just if the country wants less of it then what we get now.

When did self-government become anarchy? Anarchy implies lack of government.

Beantown Bronco
11-02-2010, 11:03 AM
with the cluster **** left over from 8 years of spending like a teenager who stole a credit card.....it's hard to plug the hoover dam with bubble gum

<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/rhs_-XOP2ZA?version=3"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/rhs_-XOP2ZA?version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="390"></object>

epicSocialism4tw
11-02-2010, 11:20 AM
Charity is retarded. It only sustains poverty so you can get that moral high ground smirk off your face.

Wow. What a sad, ignorant thing to say. You have a profound misunderstanding of charity to the point that I really question your knowledge of it, and your ability to have compassion on others.

I'd love to hear what my friend Jose (Jo-say) would think of that statement. His village was destroyed by muslim raiders in Sudan. They raped his wife, and took he and his brothers into a slave camp as bait to extort money out of their tribe. Every day the raiders would grab one of the captives, take them out in front of the group, put their head in the mud with a boot forcing it far enough down to where the blood wouldnt splatter on their clothes, and they would blow their head apart in front of their tribesmen. Jose watched day after day as they were slaughtered one by one. Their heads blown apart and their bodies thrown in a mass grave.

Jose saw his brothers killed one by one until it was his turn. They put him in the mud and put the rifle to his head. He sat and waited for his life to end. Then he heard a click. The gun had misfired. So they cleaned the rifle with his head still in the mud. Then he heard another click. Misfired again. The muslim captors took it as a sign from allah, and decided to enslave him permanently instead of killing him. Several months later, Jose was rescued by a militia and was taken to a refugee camp. It was there that charity finally found him.

Jose was chosen by Catholic Charities to be removed from Sudan and placed in America on a path to naturalization. Catholic Charities paid for him to leave Sudan, took care of his housing and living expenses. Jose received other assistance from my charity as well. Catholic Charities made sure that he was hooked up with other Dinkas (his tribe) in the area and provided him with health care including counseling and the like. They found him work. Jose worked and saved up money and bought a house. He's doing very well here.

I learned some profound lessons from him. Amazing, amazing man.

Had it not been for Catholic Charities, Jose would likely be in a slave camp again. Those refugee camps are raided all the time. Men are either enslaved or killed. Women and children are raped and killed or raped and enslaved.

You may think there's maturity in your view, but it's nothing but unmitigated greed and pride ("spending as I see fit").

Greed and pride? Seriously?

A person earns money so that they can do with it what they please. That is the motivation for earning money. Some people want to take that money and channel it into charity like the one listed above.

Who are you to decide how someone spends their own money? What right do you have? None. You dont have the right.

TonyR
11-02-2010, 11:27 AM
I'm still waiting for even one person to suggest what the GOP is going to do with their new found power. What will they "fix" and how?

epicSocialism4tw
11-02-2010, 11:31 AM
Charity is the lifeblood of this country and it comes in all forms. People that say Charity is retarded have no concept of what made this country great.

The charity of neighbors to watch over your **** while you are away. The charity of neighborhoods to give up their time to clean their own backyard up and make the place they live in nice. Charity of philanthropists and common people to research disease. Charity of the people of this great nation to help other nations out during natural disasters.

Charity is what makes this ****ing country great. Not democrat ideals or conservative ones. The people and their charity do.

So dont give me that **** that Charity is retarded and sustains poverty.


Excellent.

You can also include the volunteerism of our citizens to take care or troops' families while they were away in the World Wars, the volunteerism to make their supplies, the volunteerism to clean up Exxon Valdez, the volunteerism to staff our National Parks, the volunteerism to take terminal children places that bring them joy, the volunteerism to call the cops when someone messes with your neighborhood, the volunteerism to help out a stranger, the volunteerism to do the hard job of taking on and dealing with stray animals, on and on and on.

You are exactly right. Our exceptionalism as a nation is tied to our charitable nature and our willingness to go out of our way, out of our own will, to do things for other people who need help. Thats what makes this country great.

bowtown
11-02-2010, 11:32 AM
I'm still waiting for even one person to suggest what the GOP is going to do with their new found power. What will they "fix" and how?

They will cut spending by lowering taxes and increasing the military, duh.

Rohirrim
11-02-2010, 11:32 AM
I'm still waiting for even one person to suggest what the GOP is going to do with their new found power. What will they "fix" and how?

I think Boehner will be very upset. The Republicans have spent the last two years simply saying "No" to anything and everything. That strategy meant that they didn't even so much as have to read anything. Of course, Boehner took advantage of it by spending most of his time playing golf. He didn't get that tan from a tanning bed. Now, if they make him Speaker, he might actually have to hang around and do something.

Garcia Bronco
11-02-2010, 11:33 AM
I'm still waiting for even one person to suggest what the GOP is going to do with their new found power. What will they "fix" and how?

I hope nothing gets done. Leave the **** alone.

chawknz
11-02-2010, 11:39 AM
So I did my pre-election research looking forward to seeing some good props/amendments and found none. "No" across the board for me.

bowtown
11-02-2010, 11:43 AM
I hope nothing gets done. Leave the **** alone.

Right, because we are living in such a golden age right now.

epicSocialism4tw
11-02-2010, 11:45 AM
Right, because we are living in such a golden age right now.

I'm pretty sure that his point was that he doesnt want Obama screwing anything else up.

lostknight
11-02-2010, 11:46 AM
I think Boehner will be very upset. The Republicans have spent the last two years simply saying "No" to anything and everything.


That's what happens when the other party has a super-majority and uses it to force everything through.

. Of course, Boehner took advantage of it by spending most of his time playing golf.

I think you have the wrong party leader my friend ;-).

Now, if they make him Speaker, he might actually have to hang around and do something.

Given the rate at which regulations, laws, deficit spending, etc have increased, a few years of Congress doing nothing sounds pretty good. As PJ O'rouke recently noted, it's not a election, it's a restraining order.

Rohirrim
11-02-2010, 11:51 AM
That's what happens when the other party has a super-majority and uses it to force everything through.



I think you have the wrong party leader my friend ;-).



Given the rate at which regulations, laws, deficit spending, etc have increased, a few years of Congress doing nothing sounds pretty good. As PJ O'rouke recently noted, it's not a election, it's a restraining order.

I guess we shouldn't expect much. I know McConnell is doing what he can to lower expectations. He says the number one priority of the Republicans now is to limit Obama to one term. Most Americans probably wish that the Republican leadership would say their number one priority is the economy, or jobs, or the deficit, or something like that. But no, it's just going to be more divisive, nasty politics. Change we can believe in. ;D

gunns
11-02-2010, 11:55 AM
Let the excuses begin for Mr Obama...this is a quote from CNN...

President Obama addressed voters on "The Steve Harvey Morning Show" on Tuesday, saying their choices would change what the country would be able to accomplish in the next two years.

"The fact of the matter is, even though my name is not on the ballot, my ability to work with the middle-class families is hampered if I don't have people in Congress who want to cooperate," Obama said in remarks that were taped Monday and aired Tuesday. "Frankly, the other side -- their whole agenda is to spend the next two years trying to defeat me rather than move the country forward."

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/11/02/election.glance/index.html?hpt=C2

He won't need excuses in 2012. The "new" congress and senate will more than likely get him elected again, when the people are once again pissed.

Garcia Bronco
11-02-2010, 11:57 AM
Right, because we are living in such a golden age right now.

It doesn't suck to live in the US.

gunns
11-02-2010, 11:57 AM
I'm pretty sure that his point was that he doesnt want Obama screwing anything else up.

I'm seriously interested in what you think Obama has screwed up and what he has over spent on. Not being confrontational, I just keep hearing this from the right but they never say about what.

ColoradoDarin
11-02-2010, 11:58 AM
I guess we shouldn't expect much. I know McConnell is doing what he can to lower expectations. He says the number one priority of the Republicans now is to limit Obama to one term. Most Americans probably wish that the Republican leadership would say their number one priority is the economy, or jobs, or the deficit, or something like that. But no, it's just going to be more divisive, nasty politics. Change we can believe in. ;D

First rule of holes, stop digging.

Rohirrim
11-02-2010, 12:00 PM
He won't need excuses in 2012. The "new" congress and senate will more than likely get him elected again, when the people are once again pissed.

What I'm looking forward to is the filing of the first articles of impeachment. That will keep our 24/7/365 media vultures happy.

gunns
11-02-2010, 12:00 PM
Well, in 2006 a lot of Republicans lost, those people are not the same people running this time around.

BTW, the economy tanked in 2008, 2 years into the Democrat congress.

Hilarious! Yeah it only took 2 years to cause this much damage.

TonyR
11-02-2010, 12:02 PM
...the economy, or jobs, or the deficit, or something like that...

Yup, that's what slays me. We're going to throw out the encumbents, particularly Dem encumbents, largely because of the economy. Fine. But we're replacing the encumbents with people who've offered little, if any, substance on what they're going to do better/different? You know, beyond not being "socialists" and not "raising taxes" and all that? We're going to have "smaller government" just because they say so?

It's also interesting that you never even hear issues much beyond the economy being discussed with respect to this election, with the possible exception of health care. Why is nobody talking about the wars, immigration, Social Security, education, environment, etc.? So again, here we are electing people who have taken no positions on some of the major issues facing this country. And some people are excited about the revolution this somehow entails. Amazing.

epicSocialism4tw
11-02-2010, 12:02 PM
I'm seriously interested in what you think Obama has screwed up and what he has over spent on. Not being confrontational, I just keep hearing this from the right but they never say about what.

Obamacare and the "stimulus" (aka union payout) for starters. When Obama's not on vacation, he's playing golf. When he's not playing golf, he's campaigning on the taxpayer's dime.

Rohirrim
11-02-2010, 12:03 PM
First rule of holes, stop digging.

Damn! You're right! I wish Reagan would have applied that rule once he discovered that giving the rich a 50%+ tax break had driven this country into deficit spending. Of course, he had our social security dollars to plug the hole and Cheney telling him that, "Deficits don't matter."

ColoradoDarin
11-02-2010, 12:05 PM
Hilarious! Yeah it only took 2 years to cause this much damage.

No the seeds were sown back in 1977. Hopefully Barney Frank loses and is never heard from again, he was the main reason Fannie and Freddie weren't reformed in the early last decade.

epicSocialism4tw
11-02-2010, 12:06 PM
No the seeds were sown back in 1977. Hopefully Barney Frank loses and is never heard from again, he was the main reason Fannie and Freddie weren't reformed in the early last decade.

No doubt.

Its almost unfathomable that they ran him for that position again.

ColoradoDarin
11-02-2010, 12:08 PM
Damn! You're right! I wish Reagan would have applied that rule once he discovered that giving the rich a 50%+ tax break had driven this country into deficit spending. Of course, he had our social security dollars to plug the hole and Cheney telling him that, "Deficits don't matter."

You keep confusing taxing and spending. Do you get a pay raise and come home to say "Honey our spending just went down, I got a raise!"?

Also, you seem to keep forgetting that Congress controls spending, Reagan had a Democrat House to deal with.

Rohirrim
11-02-2010, 12:09 PM
Yup, that's what slays me. We're going to throw out the encumbents, particularly Dem encumbents, largely because of the economy. Fine. But we're replacing the encumbents with people who've offered little, if any, substance on what they're going to do better/different? You know, beyond not being "socialists" and not "raising taxes" and all that? We're going to have "smaller government" just because they say so?

It's also interesting that you never even hear issues much beyond the economy being discussed with respect to this election, with the possible exception of health care. Why is nobody talking about the wars, immigration, Social Security, education, environment, etc.? So again, here we are electing people who have taken no positions on some of the major issues facing this country. And some people are excited about the revolution this somehow entails. Amazing.

Republicans are being voted in just as a side-effect of pissed off Americans throwing incumbents out. The GOP is still polling in the basement. They actually poll worse than the Dems. You'll notice, the Republican candidates didn't run "on" any platform. Many of them refused to talk to the press at all. Those that did gave no specifics and totally refused to answer the question, "What will you do if you win?" They just did negative ads and sat tight, riding the wave of discontent.

I expect them now to simply continue with attack politics. It's all they know. They have no intention of offering policy, other than more tax cuts and less regulation on Wall Street, so they will need a diversion. I'm guessing impeachment will fill that bill.

ColoradoDarin
11-02-2010, 12:20 PM
http://i126.photobucket.com/albums/p98/IronDioPriest/donkey.jpg

Rock Chalk
11-02-2010, 12:25 PM
Im making a prediction.

House +60 seats to the GOP.
Sentate + 8 seats to the GOP
Governors + 7 to the GOP.

GOP takes back the House convincingly, and makes strong gains in the Senate which forces the remaining democrats to stop vociferously voting through every Obama measure that comes across their table.

State gains will likely go in the Rust Belt/Great Plains states but strong showings in traditional Democratic states like California will give pause enough to Democrats to curb their actions (we hope).

Taking back the House is going to force this administration into actually working with Republicans and HOPEFULLY getting real, cognizant change to come about that works and benefits the people whom they serve.

bronclvr
11-02-2010, 12:26 PM
Im making a prediction.

House +60 seats to the GOP.
Sentate + 8 seats to the GOP
Governors + 7 to the GOP.

GOP takes back the House convincingly, and makes strong gains in the Senate which forces the remaining democrats to stop vociferously voting through every Obama measure that comes across their table.

State gains will likely go in the Rust Belt/Great Plains states but strong showings in traditional Democratic states like California will give pause enough to Democrats to curb their actions (we hope).

Taking back the House is going to force this administration into actually working with Republicans and HOPEFULLY getting real, cognizant change to come about that works and benefits the people whom they serve.


:thumbs:

TonyR
11-02-2010, 12:29 PM
Taking back the House is going to force this administration into actually working with Republicans...

LOL So it's the Dems who've been the obstructionists? The GOP has been willing to work with Obama all along? This is an interesting new development.

Rock Chalk
11-02-2010, 12:33 PM
LOL So it's the Dems who've been the obstructionists? The GOP has been willing to work with Obama all along? This is an interesting new development.

Dont be a douche.

Obama has not been forced to work with the GOP, he hasn't needed to. With complete majority in both the senate and the house he has not needed to lift one ****ing finger to do what the GOP wanted to because they had no power to stop him.

He told them to basically **** off.

You listen to Obama spin it and say **** cant get done because the GOP is holding it up is bull****. They haven't been able to stop one thing at all because everything gets passed. Obama makes it seem tough but it hasn't been at all. It's like saying "That dog is mean and will bite you" (the GOP) when the dog is old and has no teeth and as arthritic so bad it can barely walk.

IF the republicans take back Congress, Obama wont be able to shove **** down the American people's throats anymore without the GOP at least being able to put up a legitimate fight instead of looking like Joe Schmoe vs Mike Tyson circa 1989.

ColoradoDarin
11-02-2010, 12:33 PM
LOL So it's the Dems who've been the obstructionists? The GOP has been willing to work with Obama all along? This is an interesting new development.

You know that until Scott Brown won, the Democrats didn't need a SINGLE Republican for anything?

Pseudofool
11-02-2010, 01:05 PM
Wow. What a sad, ignorant thing to say. You have a profound misunderstanding of charity to the point that I really question your knowledge of it, and your ability to have compassion on others.

I'd love to hear what my friend Jose (Jo-say) would think of that statement. His village was destroyed by muslim raiders in Sudan. They raped his wife, and took he and his brothers into a slave camp as bait to extort money out of their tribe. Every day the raiders would grab one of the captives, take them out in front of the group, put their head in the mud with a boot forcing it far enough down to where the blood wouldnt splatter on their clothes, and they would blow their head apart in front of their tribesmen. Jose watched day after day as they were slaughtered one by one. Their heads blown apart and their bodies thrown in a mass grave.

Jose saw his brothers killed one by one until it was his turn. They put him in the mud and put the rifle to his head. He sat and waited for his life to end. Then he heard a click. The gun had misfired. So they cleaned the rifle with his head still in the mud. Then he heard another click. Misfired again. The muslim captors took it as a sign from allah, and decided to enslave him permanently instead of killing him. Several months later, Jose was rescued by a militia and was taken to a refugee camp. It was there that charity finally found him.

Jose was chosen by Catholic Charities to be removed from Sudan and placed in America on a path to naturalization. Catholic Charities paid for him to leave Sudan, took care of his housing and living expenses. Jose received other assistance from my charity as well. Catholic Charities made sure that he was hooked up with other Dinkas (his tribe) in the area and provided him with health care including counseling and the like. They found him work. Jose worked and saved up money and bought a house. He's doing very well here.

I learned some profound lessons from him. Amazing, amazing man.

Had it not been for Catholic Charities, Jose would likely be in a slave camp again. Those refugee camps are raided all the time. Men are either enslaved or killed. Women and children are raped and killed or raped and enslaved. /face palm I love that you'll give a dollar to some Catholic charity and claim some kind of heroism but you'll whine when our hospitals will treat an illegal immigrant or when you get taxed to help pay the rent of the under/unemployed. It's laughably hypocritical. How many non-christian charities do you donate to? Cause there's nothing moral about wrapping a religious message in a dollar bill or in a meal.

I was responding to the dude's notion that he doesn't want to be taxed and with some of the money saved he'd give it to charity. Not some notion of world-wide charity, and in general, I still stand by the notion that charity helps obscure the real conditions that lead all people to poverty. People don't need handouts, they need education, the infrastructure and the means to pull themselves up. Charity gives a man meal, it doesn't teach him how to hunt. Christian charities usually (not always) come with a catch: religious proselytization.

As I said, the dollar, you give to the man on the corner is the dollar that keeps him there. I'm not suggesting you don't help him out, but the way to do so is through public programs that result in jobs on the other side, and that takes lots of money and the organizing power that charities simply lack. The government, which really is just all people within a given community deciding to work together for the public good, is a sensible way to help care for those who don't have the means to care for themselves.

Greed and pride? Seriously?

A person earns money so that they can do with it what they please. That is the motivation for earning money. Some people want to take that money and channel it into charity like the one listed above.

Who are you to decide how someone spends their own money? What right do you have? None. You dont have the right.The construction of every moral society requires people to give up their right to wealth for the common good. You're ability to earn money is interconnected and dependent on a social structure that we're all invested in. The notion that your finicial wherewithal is your own making is absurd--it's a common myth, but it's just that, a myth. I don't want to tell you what to do with your money. I want you to help me decide how we can use our money to take care of our less fortunate brothers and sisters. It's either greed or pride that keeps you coming to that table.

Rohirrim
11-02-2010, 01:11 PM
You know that until Scott Brown won, the Democrats didn't need a SINGLE Republican for anything?

Yeah, they had the sixty votes to break a filibuster, but they also had the Blue Dogs, who are basically moderate Republicans, so the point was moot. They were never going to be able to count on sixty votes. Anyway, since Brown, the GOP has obliterated the filibuster record.

Paladin
11-02-2010, 01:12 PM
This is not an income tax cut. Good grief. It's a change in withholding amounts. You still had to pay the same ****ing rate on your income.

You don't seem to understand your own quoted MSNBC article.

that Obama would even refer to it as a tax cut tells you one of two things:

He thinks you are stupid

or

He's stupid to even pass it off as a tax cut.

Oh, wow. Hold on, little guy. You don't need to be defensive. It's okay.

You know, it would be alright if you could admit that Obama and the Dems did some good things for the American People. In fact, it would probably show some intellecutal hoinesty and perhaps worldliness for you to do so. Heck, I can admit that some Conservatives have had great ideas. Don't recall one right off, but I think Ike was great. Right now, all I see is McConnel and his silly grin, and Boner (is that the right spelling?) with his ornage patina somberly implying that he knowsjust what the American people are thinking. He's wrong. Most of the American people do not knoiw what they are thinking.

Cool down dude.

Garcia Bronco
11-02-2010, 01:13 PM
Yeah, they had the sixty votes to break a filibuster, but they also had the Blue Dogs, who are basically moderate Republicans, so the point was moot. They were never going to be able to count on sixty votes. Anyway, since Brown, the GOP has obliterated the filibuster record.

So it wasn't the republicans obstructing...it was also democrats. Exactly

Paladin
11-02-2010, 01:16 PM
So it wasn't the republicans obstructing...it was also democrats. Exactly

Hilarious!

baja
11-02-2010, 01:16 PM
Look your right it is sad she even got to the primary. Something here reflects the stupidity of those around us. Maybe just maybe when these nutjobs get into mainstream and the people see what a bunch of crazies they really are it will do some good in the long run.

Question is do we even have a 'long run'

Rohirrim
11-02-2010, 01:17 PM
So it wasn't the republicans obstructing...it was also democrats. Exactly

And a flea is the same as a crocodile.

ColoradoDarin
11-02-2010, 01:19 PM
Yeah, they had the sixty votes to break a filibuster, but they also had the Blue Dogs, who are basically moderate Republicans, so the point was moot. They were never going to be able to count on sixty votes. Anyway, since Brown, the GOP has obliterated the filibuster record.

Thanks. That is exactly the point. They didn't need Republicans at all.

TonyR
11-02-2010, 01:20 PM
IF the republicans take back Congress, Obama wont be able to shove **** down the American people's throats anymore without the GOP at least being able to put up a legitimate fight...

I hear ya, but you're probably underselling what a bunch of suppy's congressional Dems are. Take health care for example. It took a long time to hammer that out and it almost failed! So it hasn't been as easy as you're stating. But agree that the politics will be very different with the GOP controlling the House.

Pseudofool
11-02-2010, 01:24 PM
So it wasn't the republicans obstructing...it was also democrats. ExactlyHow can you obstruct people who have no ideas, presented no policies, proposed no bills?

Garcia Bronco
11-02-2010, 01:26 PM
Oh, wow. Hold on, little guy. You don't need to be defensive. It's okay.

You know, it would be alright if you could admit that Obama and the Dems did some good things for the American People. In fact, it would probably show some intellecutal hoinesty and perhaps worldliness for you to do so. Heck, I can admit that some Conservatives have had great ideas. Don't recall one right off, but I think Ike was great. Right now, all I see is McConnel and his silly grin, and Boner (is that the right spelling?) with his ornage patina somberly implying that he knowsjust what the American people are thinking. He's wrong. Most of the American people do not knoiw what they are thinking.

Cool down dude.

So you admit that it's not a tax cut? It's yet to be seen if Obama or the Democrats have accomplished anything of merit, but don't try to tell us that a change in withholding amounts but the same tax rate on income is a tax cut. It's not and it never will be because 28 percent on 77 grand is still 28 percent on 77 grand.

Mile High Shack
11-02-2010, 01:26 PM
Dont be a douche.

Obama has not been forced to work with the GOP, he hasn't needed to. With complete majority in both the senate and the house he has not needed to lift one ****ing finger to do what the GOP wanted to because they had no power to stop him.

He told them to basically **** off.

You listen to Obama spin it and say **** cant get done because the GOP is holding it up is bull****. They haven't been able to stop one thing at all because everything gets passed. Obama makes it seem tough but it hasn't been at all. It's like saying "That dog is mean and will bite you" (the GOP) when the dog is old and has no teeth and as arthritic so bad it can barely walk.

IF the republicans take back Congress, Obama wont be able to shove **** down the American people's throats anymore without the GOP at least being able to put up a legitimate fight instead of looking like Joe Schmoe vs Mike Tyson circa 1989.

not for nuttin, not that it was a great bill, but a lot of the health care items were once supported by Republicans a couple years ago

Garcia Bronco
11-02-2010, 01:28 PM
How can you obstruct people who have no ideas, presented no policies, proposed no bills?

So no Republican has summitted new legislation in committee or proposed an amendment to legislation since 2008? I'll take that bet.

Rohirrim
11-02-2010, 01:28 PM
Thanks. That is exactly the point. They didn't need Republicans at all.

I'm sure the Dems have always envied how the GOP can line up its votes, no matter what. The Dems have always had that reputation for being a disorganized mob, while the Republicans are like a herd of sheep.

Rohirrim
11-02-2010, 01:30 PM
not for nuttin, not that it was a great bill, but a lot of the health care items were once supported by Republicans a couple years ago

If Nixon was alive and forwarded his health care bill from the early seventies, the modern GOP would hang him for a communist.

Phantom
11-02-2010, 01:32 PM
I hear ya, but you're probably underselling what a bunch of suppy's congressional Dems are. Take health care for example. It took a long time to hammer that out and it almost failed! So it hasn't been as easy as you're stating. But agree that the politics will be very different with the GOP controlling the House.


The only walls Obama has had to break down are those of Dems that actually listened to their constituents. Obama's policies are unfavorable by the majority, so the resistance came from Dems who wanted to get reelected. The Repubs weren't even in the 'back door deal' room.

baja
11-02-2010, 01:36 PM
Hopefully repealing Obama care and ****ing government bailouts of fiscally irresponsible companies and banks.

And ANYTHING that gets that **** Pelosi from any sort of authority other than over those ****ing numbskulls in San Francisco is a positive thing for the US.

Other than that, I dont expect anything other than to chop off Obama's balls as far as power to do whatever the **** he wants despite what the American people want.

Obama has balls? Who knew.

baja
11-02-2010, 01:37 PM
If Nixon was alive and forwarded his health care bill from the early seventies, the modern GOP would hang him for a communist.

Careful So Cal might ban you if he sees this post. ;D

BTW RE. your avatar nice answer to So Cals political avatar.

Rohirrim
11-02-2010, 01:38 PM
Careful So Cal might ban you if he sees this post. ;D

I keep this avatar just for him. :kiss:

baja
11-02-2010, 01:39 PM
I keep this avatar just for him. :kiss:

LOL see my edit I was typing while you were posting this.

Rohirrim
11-02-2010, 01:40 PM
Ha!

I know it pisses him off.

epicSocialism4tw
11-02-2010, 01:48 PM
face palm I love that you'll give a dollar to some Catholic charity and claim some kind of heroism but you'll whine when our hospitals will treat an illegal immigrant or when you get taxed to help pay the rent of the under/unemployed. It's laughably hypocritical. How many non-christian charities do you donate to? Cause there's nothing moral about wrapping a religious message in a dollar bill or in a meal.

Hospitals treating illegal immigrants is quite a different issue than giving to charity. People in our country form medical assistance groups all over the world, as well as in our country. You are confused as to what charity and forced taxation are.

They are entirely different, and arent anywhere close to being the same thing. You have virtually no choice as to where your tax money goes. You are one of millions. Forced charity is not charity, it is robbery.

We have a country founded on individual rights, and that has been the difference between us and our predecessors. By taking someone's property away from them (money), you are impeding on individual rights. Its a foundational, philosophical dichotomy and you find yourself on the side of the thieves.

I was responding to the dude's notion that he doesn't want to be taxed and with some of the money saved he'd give it to charity. Not some notion of world-wide charity, and in general, I still stand by the notion that charity helps obscure the real conditions that lead all people to poverty. People don't need handouts, they need education, the infrastructure and the means to pull themselves up. Charity gives a man meal, it doesn't teach him how to hunt. Christian charities usually (not always) come with a catch: religious proselytization.

You are also standing by your ignorance, because anyone with any exposure to Catholic Charities or any other large scale charity knows that they are designed to provide people with the resources they need to get on their own two feet and walk. My story was one of a Sudanese refugee who had every reason to stand on the corner and beg for beer money. Instead, he was one of the most faithful, God-loving men I have ever met. That strength helped him to build a life here while others floundered around him. It was charity that gave him that material platform, but it was his own faith that saved him.

People like you just dont like the idea of helping people spiritually. You think that you are some sort of superior intellect because you think that it degrades people to suggest that they need spiritual help. Having worked in charity, I can tell you that the spiritual help is the help that lasts. The money gets spent, the food gets eaten, the clothes wear out, but the time you spend with someone talking about their spiritual life lasts much longer. Some people dont have anyone to talk to about their spiritual life, and a refugee from Sudan in a new country is one of them.

As I said, the dollar, you give to the man on the corner is the dollar that keeps him there. I'm not suggesting you don't help him out, but the way to do so is through public programs that result in jobs on the other side, and that takes lots of money and the organizing power that charities simply lack. The government, which really is just all people within a given community deciding to work together for the public good, is a sensible way to help care for those who don't have the means to care for themselves.

This is wrong in many respects and suggests naivete as to what poverty is and how to address it. Its an immature suggestion.

The construction of every moral society requires people to give up their right to wealth for the common good.

A moral society requires standards, justice, and consistent ethics. It has nothing to do with giving up wealth for "the common good". It has everything to do with individuals making individual choices to provide assistance in the best way that they can. A moral government will provide incentive for such things, it will not take money away and place it in the hands of elitist bureaucrats to be redistributed to unions.

You're ability to earn money is interconnected and dependent on a social structure that we're all invested in. The notion that your finicial wherewithal is your own making is absurd--it's a common myth, but it's just that, a myth. I don't want to tell you what to do with your money. I want you to help me decide how we can use our money to take care of our less fortunate brothers and sisters. It's either greed or pride that keeps you coming to that table.

See, here's the difference between you and me. I'm doing it. I'm living a charitable life. Its part of my lifestyle, and I chose to do it on my own. You have yet to make that choice. Its still a far off imagininative dream of yours. I live it out every day. I dont need urging. I suggest you do the same, and then you may be a little less willing to steal your fellow citizens money to be dumped into a black hole.

ColoradoDarin
11-02-2010, 02:16 PM
I'm sure the Dems have always envied how the GOP can line up its votes, no matter what. The Dems have always had that reputation for being a disorganized mob, while the Republicans are like a herd of sheep.

That still wasn't the question.

Mile High Shack
11-02-2010, 02:20 PM
If Nixon was alive and forwarded his health care bill from the early seventies, the modern GOP would hang him for a communist.

holy ****, I never knew this

http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Stories/2009/September/03/nixon-proposal.aspx

gunns
11-02-2010, 02:24 PM
Obamacare and the "stimulus" (aka union payout) for starters. When Obama's not on vacation, he's playing golf. When he's not playing golf, he's campaigning on the taxpayer's dime.

Then what are we going to do about healthcare? You are either going to pay out for health care reform or you are going to have to pay out the ass as baby boomers reach retirement, unemployed needing health care, employed without health care, etc. And the stimulus cracks me up. Living in a VERY red state, hearing the complaints on Obama spending for the stimulus, but they took every dime. The last part you can apply to any President.

24champ
11-02-2010, 02:51 PM
First of all, all the politicians in California suck, so none are getting my vote. Although I am amused by the mentally crippled fight in Jerry Brown vs Whitman.

Secondly, I am looking forward to seeing what Obama does after the election. Wonder if the President follows the Clinton model, or follows the Jimmy Carter model with a "crises of confidence" type speech. It will be interesting to watch all of it unfold.

Rohirrim
11-02-2010, 02:53 PM
holy ****, I never knew this

http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Stories/2009/September/03/nixon-proposal.aspx

Here's the real kicker about this: Ted Kennedy killed it because it would have had Nixon's name on it instead of his. For a reward, he never saw health care reform again in his lifetime. Pride goeth before a fall.

If the Dems didn't have their heads up their asses, they could have put this bill forward and called it (in memorium) The Nixon Health Care Bill. Ha!

Rohirrim
11-02-2010, 02:56 PM
Then what are we going to do about healthcare? You are either going to pay out for health care reform or you are going to have to pay out the ass as baby boomers reach retirement, unemployed needing health care, employed without health care, etc. And the stimulus cracks me up. Living in a VERY red state, hearing the complaints on Obama spending for the stimulus, but they took every dime. The last part you can apply to any President.

I keep noticing that nobody on the Right ever brings up the words war, or military, when we talk about spending cuts.

baja
11-02-2010, 03:07 PM
First of all, all the politicians in California suck, so none are getting my vote. Although I am amused by the mentally crippled fight in Jerry Brown vs Whitman.

Secondly, I am looking forward to seeing what Obama does after the election. Wonder if the President follows the Clinton model, or follows the Jimmy Carter model with a "crises of confidence" type speech. It will be interesting to watch all of it unfold.

Looks like your getting Brown consider moving is my suggestion

Smiling Assassin27
11-02-2010, 03:53 PM
I keep noticing that nobody on the Right ever brings up the words war, or military, when we talk about spending cuts.

Limited government supporters would say that ALL spending options are on the table, but that government's first Constitutional mission is providing for the common defense. Currently, we have have two wars (yes, Iraq still counts)in progress, so cutting defense must be done in a way that we do not endanger those fighting the wars by, say, cutting troop levels. This can be done (the pork in the defense budget is sickening), but, like anything to do with spending, special interests on both sides of the aisle always manage to make every cut a life and death proposition.

The problem is that folks like you seem to want to cut defense for your own anti-war/political agenda while others turn it into an issue of patriotism. Neither is correct. The priority must be strategic, then economic, with political priorities bringing up the rear.

People advocating 25% across the board for defense spending are either uninformed or already have a use for that money in one of their own special interest programs.

Smiling Assassin27
11-02-2010, 04:07 PM
Rand Paul, Dan Coats and Jim DeMint given the wins in KY, IN, and SC.

baja
11-02-2010, 04:16 PM
Is Rand anything like my hero his dad?

epicSocialism4tw
11-02-2010, 04:27 PM
Is Rand anything like my hero his dad?

Yes.

TailgateNut
11-02-2010, 04:33 PM
Yes.

Does he step on heads also?

epicSocialism4tw
11-02-2010, 04:37 PM
Does he step on heads also?

Well, he stepped on that schmuck Jack Conway's head today. So I guess that counts.

epicSocialism4tw
11-02-2010, 04:39 PM
Rob Portman (R) wins Ohio Senate

epicSocialism4tw
11-02-2010, 05:02 PM
Rubio (R) wins FL senate in landslide

Ayotte (R) wins NH senate

Garcia Bronco
11-02-2010, 05:03 PM
Net 1 seat in the senate, and net 2 in house thus far

epicSocialism4tw
11-02-2010, 05:10 PM
Isakson (R) wins Georgia