Discussion: The REPUBLICAN Party

[StorminNorman]

No. More must be said. Much more.

[DACrowe]

The Sanford case proves once again how hypocritical some conservatives are with their self-righteous BS about "values". No one should care about private affairs for the simple fact that every human being has its secrets, but to use tax payer money to live that "secret" life should not be done, that's corruption. He should be expelled from his party if they really care so much about "values", actions count more than empty words.

I do enjoy the irony that he voted to impeach President Clinton and said in the late '90s that it was unforgivable and if it were in business (as he said that is where he came from) he would "be gone, no question." Now he says there is no reason he should have to resign and deserves a second chance. :hehe:

[DACrowe]

Don't forget to throw Gingrich, Spitzer, and and
McGreevey on that list of cheaters.

Craig as well.

Actually let's do it for some of our ex-presidents as well.

Let's see...

Harding
FDR
JFK

Come up take a bow. Well the last two were good presidents. ;)

[StorminNorman]

Not in my book.

[hippie_hunter]

Craig as well.

Actually let's do it for some of our ex-presidents as well.

Let's see...

Harding
FDR
JFK

Come up take a bow. Well the last two were good presidents. ;)

JFK was not a good President. As a matter in fact, he was one of the worst.

[Kelly]

JFK was an impact through his speeches....he did very little as far as policy. We will never know how good of a President he would have been.

He did give a good speech during the Missile Crisis, but not sure how well he would have done with that speech had he been sober, so to speak....

[Kelly]

http://img170.imageshack.us/img170/4527/capandtax804.jpg (http://img170.imageshack.us/i/capandtax804.jpg/)


I'm very disappointed in Mark Kirk....he's planning on running for the Senate, but he might have just slammed the door on that....not sure he could get through the Republican Primary now...'


Another Repubican Rep Flake was not there to vote, because "his daughter was in a beauty pageant"...*major face palm*

[StorminNorman]

GOP leadership needs to do everything they can to force these individuals to leave the party.

If the Republican Party wants to win election, they need to start making the GOP label mean something...and that means throwing out those that spit in the face of GOP principals.

[Matt]

I think the Republicans need Ah'nold. If the moderate, small government, fiscally conservative sect of the Republican Party wants to beat the far right neo cons in 2010 and 2012 (and there will be a Republican civil war these years), they need a face and icon to stand behind. I know Schwarzenegger hasn't been the best government, but the fact is, he has the star power to run for Senate and become the new face of the Republican Party until 2012. He could with relative ease become the minority leader and if his strategists play the celebrity appeal in a manner similiar to the way Obama did, no one will be able to defy him. I maintain he could be crucial to reshaping the party and attracting new members.

[Paradoxium]

Fiscal conservatism no longer exists nowadays. It's called extremism, or fringe minority lunatics or unelectable.

Republicans talk like fiscal conservatives but act like fiscal liberals.

Democrats talk like fiscal liberals and spend even harder.

If nothing else, this subprime and prime meltdown is a good representation of the fail that we have today; spending beyond our means and "investing" in things that has no payoff or substantial value.

[Hobodeluxe]

GOP leadership needs to do everything they can to force these individuals to leave the party.

If the Republican Party wants to win election, they need to start making the GOP label mean something...and that means throwing out those that spit in the face of GOP principals.

yeah you guys need a purity test and anyone not in lock step needs to be taken out.
sounds like a winning strategy for the 27%'ers.

Let Michelle Bachmann make the questions for the test.

[Kelly]

lol....oh lord....

[StorminNorman]

yeah you guys need a purity test and anyone not in lock step needs to be taken out.
sounds like a winning strategy for the 27%'ers.

Let Michelle Bachmann make the questions for the test.

You aren't even attempting to comprehend what I am saying.

The Republican Party needs to make the focus of the party small government principals.

If you support government intervention into our lives, you cannot be a Republican. If you have no problem spending this country into destruction, you cannot be a Republican. If you have no problem prompting class warfare, you have no business being a Republican. If you have no problem taxing Americans into poverty, you have no business being a Republican.

Social politics, like abortion and slavery, should not define the party. There should be room inside the party for both pro-lifers and pro-choicers, pro-gays and anti-gays.

The Republican Party must become the party of small government and not the party of Christians. When you limit yourself to one set of moral standards, you limit your possible voter base and damage the potential of your party.

Any clear, rational, intelligent leadership should be able to acknowledge this.

[Kelly]

Agreed.....

This post should actually be the first post in the thread...

[BlackLantern]

agreed as well....but how does the current Republican party shed that gung ho Christian, pro-life, anti-gay, pro-war, pro-death penalty image??

[Kelly]

agreed as well....but how does the current Republican party shed that gung ho Christian, pro-life, anti-gay, pro-war, pro-death penalty image??


Very simple, have a candidate in 2012 that totally moves away from those discussions. OR, if asked, simply give the answer of a Senator, that I would like to see as a Presidential Candidate, but damned if I can remember his name at the moment....

He answered every social question with, of course those things are important to me, but they are very personal, and my job is to represent "all" constituents in my state, and that is what I will do......we are now faced with economic problems that we have never faced before, and it will take all of my time and energy to get be the solution, not the problem.


Damn, I wish I could remember his name, I can't even remember the state.

[StorminNorman]

agreed as well....but how does the current Republican party shed that gung ho Christian, pro-life, anti-gay, pro-war, pro-death penalty image??

Carefully. I am from the Christian south, most of my political career has forced me to work almost exclusively with Republicans on the complete opposite social specter as me. Most of these men and women are rational people who love their country and believe the Republican Party is the proper choice to lead this country in the direction they want to go.

As such you make an honest appeal to those sensibilities. You make the connection between diversity on social issues with the viability of this party nationally, and for the future.

Christian Conservative are not the dumb, deaf and blind idiots they are painted as by their opponents. They have watched 6 years of Washington go by with a Christian Republican President, a Republican Congress and a Conservative Court - while they may oppose abortion, why they may want to believe there is a way to remove abortion on demand in this country, the majority would be hard pressed to defend the rationality of making it the most important issue on the ballot.

But you also counter that by introducing a new wave of Republicans into the party. There is a direction correlation between the increase of moderate Republicans and the decrease in control conservatives have on the party.

If someone can make the case for the Ron Paul supporter, the common sense libertarian, the fed up independent to side with the GOP - to join with them in a campaign to change the party - we can see the Republican Party become what I am describing. Quickly.

[Paradoxium]

The social realm is what seems to define mainstream politics for both parties. Not fiscal or economic. The moment you start talking about numbers, cost cutting measures... people curl up and cover their ears.

[StorminNorman]

The social realm is what seems to define mainstream politics for both parties. Not fiscal or economic. The moment you start talking about numbers, cost cutting measures... people curl up and cover their ears.

If the economy acts the way you expect it too, people will start paying attention out of necessity.

Depression is one of the easiest ways to spark political change.

[Kelly]

The social realm is what seems to define mainstream politics for both parties. Not fiscal or economic. The moment you start talking about numbers, cost cutting measures... people curl up and cover their ears.

I think there is a way to do, straight forward, to the point.....and where they can understand.

Many thought that "Joe the plumber" was an idiot, but what he showed me is THERE IS a desire for straight forward, common man, economic debate....

[Paradoxium]

It's easier to spend and keep/maintain, than to change and cut. This is why people have problems getting rid of their junk and crap at home. Also another reason why the weight and diet industry flourishes as much as it does. It breaks their comfort zone.

IMO it won't change - this status quo, to me the future of America is the California of now. Most of the economic and fiscal solutions for real change are "politically unacceptable" or "unelectable"; it will be sharp, painful and very radical. People want the paradox of change that does not break the comfort zone in another words. That is an impossibility.

The only thing to hope for is some other nation or place to take over as a properly calibrated economic engine with good personal liberties. Otherwise learn to adapt... this is the approach I have taken.

[StorminNorman]

It's a shame that the current Republican Leadership will not allow themselves to take full advantage of Obama.

With Obama's action towards the gay community, and the general lack of true initiative by Democratic leaders in the past, if the Republican Party would extend a true hand towards that minority community, they could win over that community - I believe.

[BlackLantern]

but they won't....I still maintain that a healthy chunk of the Republican Party considers minorities as "less than" and not worth their time

[Kelly]

I can't argue that, but that is also the group that will vote for anything Republican, just so they don't vote Democrat.

the leadership needs to figure that out, and start moving the party the right direction...

[StorminNorman]

If that is true, and I think you overstate the portion of the GOP base that believes that, then the key is attracting more, moderate people into the party to reduce the influence the bigoted aspect has.

[BlackLantern]

thats why I said 'healthy chunk'....I don't think it's as much as half, but it's a good portion of that mindset

[StorminNorman]

I can't argue that, but that is also the group that will vote for anything Republican, just so they don't vote Democrat.

the leadership needs to figure that out, and start moving the party the right direction...

It's not really that simple.

In politics you are taught to work strength to weakness. The belief is that if you can rally up your core base, the energy fuels your campaign - an energized campaign, a stronger campaign.

If the focus of your campaign is to win over new voters and not to rally your base - you are going to have problems.

It's a unique balancing act.

The key is to identify the similarities between the two groups - and to focus your campaign specifically on those similarities.

[Kelly]

The thing is, I think it is that simple.....and people are trying to make it more intellectual and complex of a problem than it really is...

[StorminNorman]

The thing is, I think it is that simple.....and people are trying to make it more intellectual and complex of a problem than it really is...

That is the problem.

The thing about politics is that most of the people involved are, in reality, not all that smart. That's why I don't put a lot of stalk into conspiracy theories. I have had personal interaction with several politicians in Washington, several of them true Republican leaders. None of them are smart enough to pull off any grand scheme.

[Paradoxium]

I really dislike that term "intellectual".

Anyhow: Modern politics is the art of misdirecting blame, and creating new problems to solve an old problem.

[StorminNorman]

I really dislike that term "intellectual".

Anyhow: Modern politics is the art of misdirecting blame, and creating new problems to solve an old problem.

I actually those sort of politics are going to be phased out. Americans today have access to information they couldn't dream of 30, 20, even 10 years ago. With increased access to information, I believe you will see a rise in accountability.

[BlackLantern]

and also making your side look good while making the other side look to be at fault

[Paradoxium]

Here are some numbers (http://www.crfb.org/documents/LongTermOutlook.pdf) in terms of long term outlook.Last week, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released its Long-Term Budget Outlook. The reports suggests a brief window in which deficits subside a bit, after which the effects of health care cost growth and population aging will drive them rapidly upward and bring the national debt to unprecedented and intolerable levels.

Under current law, CBO projects debt held by the public will rise from less than 40 percent of GDP before the economic crisis to nearly 100 percent by 2040 and 300 percent by 2083. If current policies are continued, CBO projects the debt will rise to 100 percent by the early 2020s, to 200 percent before 2040, and eventually to 750 percent.

Ultimately, revenue increases and/or spending cuts will be necessary to prevent “a vicious cycle in which the government had to issue ever-larger amounts of debt in order to pay ever-higher interest charges.”The CBO is of course non-partisan.

The point is, if a Republican wins... no matter how well meaning, they will get the blame for the rising economic costs of debts, and simultaneously blamed for taking the painful initiatives for making cost cuts. This is what I mean by misdirection and blame.

After all this blame and misdirection, how would you reconcile this? Common sense tells you of course cuts needs to be made, but it is politically unacceptable because it breaks public comfort zones. And thus you are out of power.

It's a vicious game.

[Paradoxium]

A few months ago I told Malice Obama will be like LBJ (an observation others have noted as well in the intarwebs), that his so called "investments" are all long term dead weights.

The idea is, once an "investment" is made, they can never kill the project/program/deparment/whatever, and it needs to be continually feed. In the case of LBJ, it is new "Departments". And these Departments continue to persist today. Ergo "long term" dead weights.

This is what Obama is doing. And this is the very nature of "Progressive Change". The politicians will always say: "we will pull back, it's only short term pain for long term gain", but it seldom works that way.

There is no way to kill these things without inciting public furor and losing power. It is only until the house of cards (as cliche as this sounds) absolutely collapses.

[Kelly]

A few months ago I told Malice Obama will be like LBJ (an observation others have noted as well in the intarwebs), that his so called "investments" are all long term dead weights.

The idea is, once an "investment" is made, they can never kill the project/program/deparment/whatever, and it needs to be continually feed. In the case of LBJ, it is new "Departments". And these Departments continue to persist today. Ergo "long term" dead weights.

This is what Obama is doing. And this is the very nature of "Progressive Change". The politicians will always say: "we will pull back, it's only short term pain for long term gain", but it seldom works that way.

There is no way to kill these things without inciting public furor and losing power. It is only until the house of cards (as cliche as this sounds) absolutely collapses.


When you say departments, are you talking about like the EPA, FDA, etc????

[Paradoxium]

Federal department (i.e. Department of Housing and Urban Development), agencies and programs (i.e. medicare/medicaid). You close these down, but you kill public jobs and thus politically unacceptable. The perception is once these agencies shut down - somehow their functions goes down the tube as well - making it even less palatable. I liken it to legacy spending that future administration will be forced to continue unless they plan to have a one term run.

[Kelly]

Federal department (i.e. Department of Housing and Urban Development), agencies and programs (i.e. medicare). You close these down, but you kill public jobs and thus politically unacceptable. The perception is once these agencies shut down - somehow their functions goes down the tube as well - making it even less palatable. I liken it to legacy spending that future administration will be forced to continue unless they plan to have a one term run.


Ok, I got it......wasn't it Obama that had said one of the ways he was going to cut spending was to go through these "departments" and if they do not show that they are efficient, that he would in some cases get rid of them.....I remember that as a mainstay of where he would cut spending to pay for all that he wanted to do.

It's amazing that people cannot see that his change is to simply be the same....

I don't understand why people can't see that....

[Paradoxium]

There was more of radical shift during LBJ's tenure than say Clinton or Carter. This is why Obama is more LBJ than either of those latter two. This is also why I always cite LBJ as someone I have a problem with.

[Kelly]

There was more of radical shift during LBJ's tenure than say Clinton or Carter. This is why Obama is more LBJ than either of those latter two. This is also why I always cite LBJ as someone I have a problem with.


I blame LBJ for starting alot of the unnecessary spending we have today. But then again, thats like blaming those that started Unions. They were needed in their day.....

[Paradoxium]

I sympathize and understand why Progressives see certain things as problems. I also understand why they want to spend a certain way, enact policy in a certain way to solve an issue.

I just think their solutions are not good and result in a lot of unintended consequences. This is what I mean when I say "create new problems to solve an old problem".

It's kind of like the economic situation. They don't want the economy to suck, I don't want the economy to suck... I just think they go about it the wrong way.

[Kelly]

Exactly, good hearts, bad policy....

[Marx]

It's a shame that the current Republican Leadership will not allow themselves to take full advantage of Obama.

With Obama's action towards the gay community, and the general lack of true initiative by Democratic leaders in the past, if the Republican Party would extend a true hand towards that minority community, they could win over that community - I believe.

I wouldn't go that far man.

[StorminNorman]

I wouldn't go that far man.

If the Republican Party got gays married - they would win them over. Especially after Obama's treatment of the gay community.

[Marx]

If the Republican Party got gays married - they would win them over. Especially after Obama's treatment of the gay community.

That's never going to happen man. There is too much demonization within the Republican Party of the gay community.

[StorminNorman]

That's never going to happen man. There is too much demonization within the Republican Party of the gay community.
The demonization comes both ways.

I am not saying what will happen - I am saying what the Republican Party is failing to recognize.

[bell110]

If the Republican Party got gays married - they would win them over. Especially after Obama's treatment of the gay community.

I doubt gays would just be won over. I assume the gay community has issues that run deeper than just being able to get married. Regardless, like you said about energizing the base, if they tried to get gays married, it would destroy that base.

As of right now, I think what the Republicans are going to do is play the "We're not Obama" card, which if successful, will just bring us back to the Bush administration.

Ultimately, I think the "future" of the Republican party will probably not be the best thing for our country, as far as I'm concerned. You guys can keep playing this two party tug-of-war if you want. I'll go ahead and waste my vote on the Libertarians.

[Kelly]

I doubt gays would just be won over. I assume the gay community has issues that run deeper than just being able to get married. Regardless, like you said about energizing the base, if they tried to get gays married, it would destroy that base.

As of right now, I think what the Republicans are going to do is play the "We're not Obama" card, which if successful, will just bring us back to the Bush administration.

Ultimately, I think the "future" of the Republican party will probably not be the best thing for our country, as far as I'm concerned. You guys can keep playing this two party tug-of-war if you want. I'll go ahead and waste my vote on the Libertarians.

Do you not realize that you are actually replying to a Libertarian?

[Marx]

POLL: AMERICANS THINK SANFORD SHOULD RESIGN
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/06/30/cnn-poll-americans-think-sanford-should-resign/

A new national poll suggests that a majority of Americans think South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford should resign from office.

Sanford has admitted to a year long extramarital affair with a woman from Argentina. Last Wednesday the governor also acknowledged he did not tell his staff that he was in Argentina during a five-day period when his location was not known.

Fifty-four percent of people questioned in a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey released Tuesday think Sanford should step down, with 44 percent saying he should continue to serve as South Carolina governor. Sanford has a year and a half left in his second term as governor. He's term limited and can't run for re-election.

"There is virtually no difference between Republicans and Democrats on this matter," says CNN Polling Director Keating Holland. "Fifty-one percent of Democrats and 54 percent of Republicans want Sanford to step down."

[bell110]

Do you not realize that you are actually replying to a Libertarian?

Only my first paragraph was directed at him, the other two were just in general. And, I'm a Republican. :yay:

[Kelly]

lmao....I don't believe it....

But if you are being sarcastic, then you haven't read much on Stormin....

[bell110]

lmao....I don't believe it....

But if you are being sarcastic, then you haven't read much on Stormin....

I am a Republican, and I've read plenty from Stormin.

Just as you probably don't believe I'm a Republican based on my posts, I don't believe Stormin is a Libertarian based on his. I view him more of a Republican Apologist, no offense to him.

[VampElvis]

And I don't suppose anyone would ever believe I'm a member of the Democratic Party........ but I am.

[Kelly]

I am a Republican, and I've read plenty from Stormin.

Just as you probably don't believe I'm a Republican based on my posts, I don't believe Stormin is a Libertarian based on his. I view him more of a Republican Apologist, no offense to him.

Well, no offense to you, but you haven't read enough...

You have to read in a variety of threads to get the idea of where people stand....since Stormin and I actually agree on quite a bit, you probably don't believe I'm a registered Independent....I'm not quite as Socially Liberal as Stormin is....which is our biggest difference.

So why did you vote for McCain this past election? I'm always interested to know why people vote the choices they do....

[Malice]

The 2010 election is going to be a key here.

34 Senators will come up for vote:
Retiring Democratic Senators - 1 retiring
- (1) Ted Kaufman of Delaware
Retiring Republican Senators - 5 retiring
- (1) Kit Bond of Missouri
- (2) Sam Brownback of Kansas
- (3) Judd Gregg of New Hampshire
- (4) Mel Martinez of Florida
- (5) George Voinovich of Ohio
Democratic incumbents - 17 up for re-election
- (1) Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas
- (2) Barbara Boxer of California
- (3) Michael Bennet of Colorado
- (4) Christopher Dodd of Connecticut
- (5) Daniel Inouye of Hawaii
- (6) Roland Burris of Illinois
- (7) Evan Bayh of Indiana
- (8) Barbara Mikulski of Maryland
- (9) Harry Reid of Nevada
- (10) Kirsten Gillibrand of New York
- (11) Chuck Schumer of New York
- (12) Byron Dorgan of North Dakota
- (13) Ron Wyden of Oregon
- (14) Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania
- (15) Patrick Leahy of Vermont
- (16) Patty Murray of Washington
- (17) Russ Feingold of Wisconsin
Republican incumbents - 13 up for re-election
- (1) Richard Shelby of Alabama
- (2) Lisa Murkowski of Alaska
- (3) John McCain of Arizona
- (4) Johnny Isakson of Georgia
- (5) Mike Crapo of Idaho
- (6) Chuck Grassley of Iowa
- (7) Jim Bunning of Kentucky
- (8) David Vitter of Louisiana
- (9) Richard Burr of North Carolina
- (10) Tom Coburn of Oklahoma
- (11) Jim DeMint of South Carolina
- (12) John Thune of South Dakota
- (13) Bob Bennett of Utah

This is going to be a bloody 2010 election IMO.
With all the spending congress is doing, I think this may come back to haunt them, and they may loose a number of seats.

[Paradyme]

This is going to be a bloody 2010 election IMO.
With all the spending congress is doing, I think this may come back to haunt them, and they may loose a number of seats.

I would be surprised if they didn't.

[bell110]

Well, no offense to you, but you haven't read enough...

You have to read in a variety of threads to get the idea of where people stand....since Stormin and I actually agree on quite a bit, you probably don't believe I'm a registered Independent....I'm not quite as Socially Liberal as Stormin is....which is our biggest difference.

So why did you vote for McCain this past election? I'm always interested to know why people vote the choices they do....

I didn't vote for McCain because he picked Palin for VP. I might have otherwise. I voted Obama because I wasn't too excited about Barr and Obama seems like a capable person.

So what makes you less socially liberal than Stormin?

[Kelly]

I'm not sure I'm all for legalization of certain drugs...its small things, nothing really huge.

I would describe myself as a Fiscal Conservative/Social Liberal, but I don't fall on the spectrum as far towards being a Libertarian than Stormin does, BUT if they put out a viable candidate I would certainly give them a very long look. I've voted Democrat more than Republican in most elections.....but here in Texas that is pretty easy to do, because most Democrats are actually moderates....so they float my direction more than most Republicans. I did vote for Bush as Governor, and have no complaint as far as his Governership, President, whole different matter....his spending was way over the top for me, and still not sure where the money went. Thats why I'm not happy with Obama, who I voted for.......I actually see no difference than what we just went through, except that the pay backs are to different groups.

[BlackLantern]

so what is the Partys plan for Palin? is she going to run for Senate or something in the coming election? or stay as Gov and further the party that way??

[Malice]

I like Palin as a person, I don't think she would make a good President...
I don't think she will run because there is really alot of hatred for her.

[BlackLantern]

I like Palin as a person, I don't think she would make a good President...
I don't think she will run because there is really alot of hatred for her.

Ive been hearind/reading that a lot of McCain campagin staffers are anonymously talking to the press and revealing details about Palin, how difficult she became and all that...the whole anonymous thing really bothers me though

[bell110]

Doesn't Alaskans like her though? I could see her winning a Senate seat for Alaska. I'd be surprised if she doesn't run.

[Malice]

Doesn't Alaskans like her though? I could see her winning a Senate seat for Alaska. I'd be surprised if she doesn't run.

They like her, I can see her running for the Senate....

[StorminNorman]

Well, no offense to you, but you haven't read enough...

You have to read in a variety of threads to get the idea of where people stand....since Stormin and I actually agree on quite a bit, you probably don't believe I'm a registered Independent....I'm not quite as Socially Liberal as Stormin is....which is our biggest difference.

So why did you vote for McCain this past election? I'm always interested to know why people vote the choices they do....

:heart: :heart: :heart: :heart: :heart:

so what is the Partys plan for Palin? is she going to run for Senate or something in the coming election? or stay as Gov and further the party that way??

I think Palin is a more competent politician than she came off as in 2008, but she needs to buckle down and focus on Alaska and needs to stop trying to become a national leader. Moving into the Senate would be a good step for her.

Hopefully she has no interests, Nationally, in 2012. Such a move would demonstrate political daftness that would demonstrate my view of her is completely wrong.

[Malice]

:heart: :heart: :heart: :heart: :heart:



I think Palin is a more competent politician than she came off as in 2008, but she needs to buckle down and focus on Alaska and needs to stop trying to become a national leader. Moving into the Senate would be a good step for her.

Hopefully she has no interests, Nationally, in 2012. Such a move would demonstrate political daftness that would demonstrate my view of her is completely wrong.


I agree completely

[Kelly]

Awww, you love me too Malice.?.....lol

[Malice]

Awww, you love me too Malice.?.....lol

of course :)

[Kelly]

As far as Palin is concerned, I do not think that someone can run their own business, become mayor of a city, and then governor of a state....in actually very little time, along with raising a family.....is no idiot.

Save a couple of interviews that she did, I really saw nothing that said "stupid" to me. Mind you, I don't agree with alot of her policy, but that had nothing to do with her intelligence, it simply is a difference of opinion.

I don't want to get into another "double standard' debate, but honestly.....I would put Palin's picture next to "double standard" as an example of it happening to someone running for office. I thought I could do that with Clinton, but then Palin came along and holy crap...lol

I never understood why intelligent people could not debate her policy in her thread, rather than how stupid they think she is, yet could give no example other than, a look she gave here....or things that truly had no bearing on her intelligence or her policy.

I agree if she does want to move into the national level, on her own....she needs to wait.....study, and go through the Senate. She has time, she's in excellent health, she can take her time.

[StorminNorman]

As far as Palin is concerned, I do not think that someone can run their own business, become mayor of a city, and then governor of a state....in actually very little time, along with raising a family.....is no idiot.

Save a couple of interviews that she did, I really saw nothing that said "stupid" to me. Mind you, I don't agree with alot of her policy, but that had nothing to do with her intelligence, it simply is a difference of opinion.

I don't want to get into another "double standard' debate, but honestly.....I would put Palin's picture next to "double standard" as an example of it happening to someone running for office. I thought I could do that with Clinton, but then Palin came along and holy crap...lol

I never understood why intelligent people could not debate her policy in her thread, rather than how stupid they think she is, yet could give no example other than, a look she gave here....or things that truly had no bearing on her intelligence or her policy.

I agree if she does want to move into the national level, on her own....she needs to wait.....study, and go through the Senate. She has time, she's in excellent health, she can take her time.

My thoughts almost word for word.

[Malice]

She has time to do it too.
She is in her 40's I believe...take 6 years in the Senate...maybe 12 years, then come back..
Noone can then, criticize her experience then.

[Kelly]

Yeah, cause look at Obama.... 5.5 years, a portion at the State level....her State experience is as the executive of her State.

[Malice]

Yeah, cause look at Obama.... 5.5 years, a portion at the State level....her State experience is as the executive of her State.

no comment.

[BlackLantern]

lots of mod love in here...I think if Palin got at least a Senate term under her belt, she could be a nice figurehead for the party

[Kelly]

no comment.


There was a fair amount of sarcasm in my post BTW...lol

[Malice]

I think the biggest thing Sarah has against her, is the fact she is "not a suburbanite"

She has an aire about her, as being backwoods and a hick...
Regardless of the fact she is gov...mayor...etc.

Its the perception she gives off. Now of course some see that as a breath of fresh air...but she is an outsider, and that is a bad thing when it comes to the parties in power...very bad thing.

Now, experience wise...yeah, not much there...
that is a concern.

I figure her and Obama are on the same level with this part, because looking back, Obama really didn't do anything while in the Senate, he avoided taking a stand most of the time.

So I come back, I think its a persona issue. She is a woman, and fairly attractive (strike one), she is in Alaska and has ALOT of features of a hick (strike two), her experience is limited (strike three) and of course, she is not part of the good-ole-boys club (strike four).

I don't see her going past the Senate unless she really makes some adjustments to her public perception.

[Kelly]

I think the biggest thing Sarah has against her, is the fact she is "not a suburbanite"

She has an aire about her, as being backwoods and a hick...
Regardless of the fact she is gov...mayor...etc.

Its the perception she gives off. Now of course some see that as a breath of fresh air...but she is an outsider, and that is a bad thing when it comes to the parties in power...very bad thing.

Now, experience wise...yeah, not much there...
that is a concern.

I figure her and Obama are on the same level with this part, because looking back, Obama really didn't do anything while in the Senate, he avoided taking a stand most of the time.

So I come back, I think its a persona issue. She is a woman, and fairly attractive (strike one), she is in Alaska and has ALOT of features of a hick (strike two), her experience is limited (strike three) and of course, she is not part of the good-ole-boys club (strike four).

I don't see her going past the Senate unless she really makes some adjustments to her public perception.


I agree here, but sadly........I think it is a very sad when you have to change who you are in order to get elected. Now, don't think I'm naive, I know that that happens all the time....but doesn't make it right.

[Malice]

I agree here, but sadly........I think it is a very sad when you have to change who you are in order to get elected. Now, don't think I'm naive, I know that that happens all the time....but doesn't make it right.

Very true...

[Alex The Great]

Let's see....how to make the Republicans better....

Maybe stop wearing your religion on your sleeve.
Stop being so.....white.
Stop being so ''All for one'' and me more ''One for all''
NOT have Sarah Palin representing you party.
Live in the 21st century, not the 20th century.
Eliminate Fox News.
Realize that Universal Health care is not about a Beurocrat between the patient and the doctor, THAT IS COMPLETELY FALSE. I got me foot shredded by a lawn mower and I got surgery right away. No govdrnemnt in the way or anything.
Guantonom Bay detainess are not a danger to the country when in the US. they'd be in maximum security prisons and everything. And have you seen the guys you have in prison right now? Brain eating people and rapists. There more of a danger than the DETAINED Terrorists. Stop worshipping the rich and help out the less fortunate.


I could go on and on If i wanted to...But I won't, for you people.

[Malice]

Let's see....how to make the Republicans better....

Maybe stop wearing your religion on your sleeve.
Stop being so.....white.
Stop being so ''All for one'' and me more ''One for all''
NOT have Sarah Palin representing you party.
Live in the 21st century, not the 20th century.
Eliminate Fox News.
Realize that Universal Health care is not about a Beurocrat between the patient and the doctor, THAT IS COMPLETELY FALSE. I got me foot shredded by a lawn mower and I got surgery right away. No govdrnemnt in the way or anything.
Guantonom Bay detainess are not a danger to the country when in the US. they'd be in maximum security prisons and everything. And have you seen the guys you have in prison right now? Brain eating people and rapists. There more of a danger than the DETAINED Terrorists. Stop worshipping the rich and help out the less fortunate.


I could go on and on If i wanted to...But I won't, for you people.

Actually, I see most of this post to be completely false. Lets analyze it:

1) Maybe stop wearing your religion on your sleeve.
I can appreciate this one. I think I can even agree with it.

2) Stop being so.....white.
Stop being so dumb.

3) Stop being so ''All for one'' and me more ''One for all''
I don't understand the context in what you are referring to here....

4) NOT have Sarah Palin representing you party.
Sarah is Sarah...She is only getting the news coverage since she was the candidate. 90% of the Rep party and probably more conservatives don't see her as the face of the party.

5) Live in the 21st century, not the 20th century.
I agree...they need to grow.

6) Eliminate Fox News.
Now you are just being mean. They to me are the only news group not licking Obama's feet... I want a different perspective.

7) Realize that Universal Health care is not about a Beurocrat between the patient and the doctor, THAT IS COMPLETELY FALSE. I got me foot shredded by a lawn mower and I got surgery right away. No govrnment in the way or anything.
I don't want to pay for everyone's Health care, only my own and my families. Now if a health Care system only cost me a few %, I would be ok, but NOTHING the government done is that efficient, so I say no once more.

Guantonom Bay detainess are not a danger to the country when in the US. they'd be in maximum security prisons and everything. And have you seen the guys you have in prison right now? Brain eating people and rapists. There more of a danger than the DETAINED Terrorists.
Noone wants them, so don't pawn this off on one side. Noone wants them...

Stop worshipping the rich and help out the less fortunate.
This is another opinionated statement. How bout we help in some small fashion, then you have to help yourself? Get off the bias here

[BlackLantern]

also Fox News is a private organization owned by a private company

[ChrisBaleBatman]

Filled with pinheads.

Oh yeah.

Palin is still young in terms of being a politician.

But, I wonder...if she waits, and gains more experience...would a, I dunno, 65 year old Palin have as much media fixation as she does now?

The media, ALL forms of it...liberal or conservative...are indeed fixated on her. I wonder if it would be years later, or if that would even be a good thing for her. Instead of focusing on her life, maybe someone could talk about something she's done for Alaska.

Or something.

[Marx]

Let's see....how to make the Republicans better....

Maybe stop wearing your religion on your sleeve.
Stop being so.....white.
Stop being so ''All for one'' and me more ''One for all''
NOT have Sarah Palin representing you party.
Live in the 21st century, not the 20th century.
Eliminate Fox News.
Realize that Universal Health care is not about a Beurocrat between the patient and the doctor, THAT IS COMPLETELY FALSE. I got me foot shredded by a lawn mower and I got surgery right away. No govdrnemnt in the way or anything.
Guantonom Bay detainess are not a danger to the country when in the US. they'd be in maximum security prisons and everything. And have you seen the guys you have in prison right now? Brain eating people and rapists. There more of a danger than the DETAINED Terrorists. Stop worshipping the rich and help out the less fortunate.


I could go on and on If i wanted to...But I won't, for you people.

You had me until...that.

[ChrisBaleBatman]

You think they're a danger to us if they're in one of our prisons?

[ChrisBaleBatman]

double post.

[Kelly]

I wouldn't mind them in our prisons, IF......they have no contact with other prisoners, they have no internet time.....as far as them being a danger, IMO their danger is with contact, not necessarily violent contact, but ideological contact with other prisoners.

[bell110]

Filled with pinheads.

Oh yeah.

Palin is still young in terms of being a politician.

But, I wonder...if she waits, and gains more experience...would a, I dunno, 65 year old Palin have as much media fixation as she does now?

The media, ALL forms of it...liberal or conservative...are indeed fixated on her. I wonder if it would be years later, or if that would even be a good thing for her. Instead of focusing on her life, maybe someone could talk about something she's done for Alaska.

Or something.

I don't know, but she wouldn't have to worry about ****ty flight attendant jokes anymore.

[bell110]

Could we at least find out if these detainees are actually guilty of anything first?

[Paradoxium]

I do not like Palin. Most particularly her economic literacy (given the times we are in). It's as bad as Obama's respect for the rule of law in a constitutional republic.

[Marx]

You think they're a danger to us if they're in one of our prisons?

I am strongly against holding these detainees within the borders of our own country. Furthermore, taxpayer dollars support the prison system. Do you really want to pay for housing and food for terrorists? I don't.

[Kelly]

I am strongly against holding these detainees within the borders of our own country. Furthermore, taxpayer dollars support the prison system. Do you really want to pay for housing and food for terrorists? I don't.


Yeah, considering it stems from a crime that was done within our borders...

Do I want them to come here? No, I'd rather they stay where they are at, (which our taxpayer money is paying for as well, btw) I see no problem with the prison they are in.

[Marx]

Yeah, considering it stems from a crime that was done within our borders...

Do I want them to come here? No, I'd rather they stay where they are at, (which our taxpayer money is paying for as well, btw) I see no problem with the prison they are in.

How many of the gitmo terrorists were actually involved in 9/11?

[Kelly]

How many of the gitmo terrorists were actually involved in 9/11?

Hence the word...."stems"....none of them, considering only one survived. But, the fighting that took place afterwards in Afghanistan, is in reference to 9/11, which is what I meant by stem....:word:

[StorminNorman]

I have no problem keeping terrorists found in American borders kept in the federal prison system. Bringing prisoners found on the battlefield INTO America, though, is absolutely ridiculous.

[Marx]

I have no problem keeping terrorists found in American borders kept in the federal prison system. Bringing prisoners found on the battlefield INTO America, though, is absolutely ridiculous.

Exactly.

[Nivek]

I wouldn't mind them in our prisons, IF......they have no contact with other prisoners, they have no internet time.....as far as them being a danger, IMO their danger is with contact, not necessarily violent contact, but ideological contact with other prisoners.

Personally, I don't think it's that big of a deal to put Terrorist suspects in prisons next to American thieves, rapists, and murderers. I don't think these guys are Svengali-ish supervillians who can sway our convicts, and I really see all the resistance to it as silly given who we have locked up already.

[StorminNorman]

My problem is using a domestic judicial system for enemy combatants.

It has nothing to do with feeling less safe with terrorists being in American prisons, it's their using the judicial system.

[StorminNorman]

I don't think you can fight a war the same way you fight crime.

[Kelly]

Personally, I don't think it's that big of a deal to put Terrorist suspects in prisons next to American thieves, rapists, and murderers. I don't think these guys are Svengali-ish supervillians who can sway our convicts, and I really see all the resistance to it as silly given who we have locked up already.

Do you realize that one of the fastest growing religions in US Prison's today is not Christianity, but Islam, and on top of that, what is being seen is a rise in Islamism....? So you don't think these guys would have an influence? Really?

This is a very interesting documentary...

http://www.pbs.org/weta/crossroads/about/show_homegrown.html

[ChrisBaleBatman]

I am strongly against holding these detainees within the borders of our own country. Furthermore, taxpayer dollars support the prison system. Do you really want to pay for housing and food for terrorists? I don't


But where does the money come from to keep Gitmo running?

Aren't we already paying for they're housing and food in Gitmo?

[ChrisBaleBatman]

Do you realize that one of the fastest growing religions in US Prison's today is not Christianity, but Islam, and on top of that, what is being seen is a rise in Islamism....? So you don't think these guys would have an influence? Really?



My understanding is that it's a popular religion for some of the benefits it bestows.

I think Friday's are off or something, so no court dates can be attended on certain days.

Plus protection.

[Marx]

BENNETT: SANFORD NEEDS TO STOP 'EMBARASSING HIMSELF'
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/07/02/bennett-sanford-needs-to-stop-embarrassing-himself/

Mark Sanford is "embarrassing himself" and needs to resign as governor of South Carolina, conservative talk radio host and CNN contributor Bill Bennett said Thursday on CNN's American Morning.

Bennett, the latest high profile conservative to call for Sanford's ouster, said it's time for the onetime Republican rising star to ditch politics and focus solely on getting his life back in order.

"I know Mark Sanford. I know him quite well," Bennett said. "He needs to get his life back in order, his marriage back in order. He is embarrassing himself."

"There is the old notion of indecent exposure, usually that refers to somebody showing some skin, and there's another form of indecent exposure. He is telling us way too much," Bennett continued. "We're not interested. He needs to stop and take care of his life."

[Malice]

Man, Sanford thinks he is doing the right thing.
Now...frankly, the guy needs to resign and move on. He is done in politics.

[Kelly]

He's a loon...

[Marx]

SC GOP CHAIR AGAIN SUGGESTS THAT SANFORD NEEDS TO GO
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/07/02/sc-gop-chair-again-suggests-sanford-needs-to-go/

For the second day in a row, South Carolina GOP chairwoman Karen Floyd suggested the time has come for Mark Sanford to resign.

Floyd issued a statement Thursday after the State Law Enforcement Division concluded that Sanford had not misused public funds while visiting his mistress over the last year.

"I have confidence in the findings of the South Carolina Law Enforcement Division," Floyd said. "But the fact remains that there is clearly a growing view that the time may have come for Governor Sanford to remove himself and his family from the limelight, so that he can devote his efforts full-time to repairing the damage in his personal life."

[Kelly]

He is going to make them kick him out.....

[StorminNorman]

I'm so tired of Sanford.

And Michael Jackson.

[Kelly]

I have to agree....

[Superman]

I am strongly against holding these detainees within the borders of our own country. Furthermore, taxpayer dollars support the prison system. Do you really want to pay for housing and food for terrorists? I don't.Who do you think is paying for Gitmo? Bush? We are already paying for housing and food for these ACCUSED terrorists.

This fear that people have over bringing these prisoners to a maximum security prison is ridiculous.

[StorminNorman]

That's funny, because I find the idea of bringing the prisoners into federal prisons ridiculous.

Again, for me it has nothing to do with security and everything to do with the fact it's a terrible idea.

[RachelDawes]

I have no problem keeping terrorists found in American borders kept in the federal prison system. Bringing prisoners found on the battlefield INTO America, though, is absolutely ridiculous.

Where would you keep them, and for how long?

[RachelDawes]

He's a loon...

Reminds me of Blagojevich. What is it with some politicians and clinging to power against common sense? Are they stupid? Sociopathic? Crazy? Power-hungry? Afraid of what'll happen once they no longer have their jobs? If I'd been humiliated in a scandal like Sanford's, I'd resign and crawl under a rock, never to be heard from again.

[Marx]

Who do you think is paying for Gitmo? Bush? We are already paying for housing and food for these ACCUSED terrorists.

This fear that people have over bringing these prisoners to a maximum security prison is ridiculous.

That's funny, because I find the idea of bringing the prisoners into federal prisons ridiculous.

Again, for me it has nothing to do with security and everything to do with the fact it's a terrible idea.

http://www.superherohype.com/forums/images/smilies/icon14.gif

[Kelly]

Reminds me of Blagojevich. What is it with some politicians and clinging to power against common sense? Are they stupid? Sociopathic? Crazy? Power-hungry? Afraid of what'll happen once they no longer have their jobs? If I'd been humiliated in a scandal like Sanford's, I'd resign and crawl under a rock, never to be heard from again.

I think he may be crazy, but I wouldn't say he is any of the others...


I think the spiritual advice he has been getting is why he is so overly confessing.....but dang, its time to shut up.

[RachelDawes]

I think he may be crazy, but I wouldn't say he is any of the others...


I think the spiritual advice he has been getting is why he is so overly confessing.....but dang, its time to shut up.

More like it's time to resign. He needs to shut up too, though. :cwink:

[StorminNorman]

Where would you keep them, and for how long?

I know just the place.

Gitmo!

I would want a legit military tribunal system that is not simply a rubber stamp. The integrity of the base would be base around the fairness of the military tribunal. Those that are innocent are let go. Those that are guilty, but not severe threats would serve a set sentence. Those that are severe threats would be kept until we find it beneficial to release them, or sent to another country to be hidden from liberal journalists.

[Matt]

I was listening to the radio today and came across Rush Limbaugh. I never listen to Limbaugh but I figured since he'd been in the news so much lately, I would. He actually made a good point on how the Republicans can gain steam and win in 2010 and 2012. He claimed that they need to focus on what makes America great, the founding principles of freedom and equality and emphasize that while Democrats idea of equality is bringing everyone down (punishing the wealthy through higher taxes, etc) and keeping lower income demographics dependent on the government so they have no choice but to vote Democrat where as Republicans SHOULD focus on equality meaning creating a land where everyone has the same OPPORTUNITY and what they do with it is up to them. Seemed like a good point to me.

[Paradoxium]

I believe you cannot have: equal outcome = equal opportunity. This is one of the problems I have when people parrot the word equality, they don't break it down to what they actually mean. Are you talking about outcome, or opportunity or both (impossible). This is one those things that a number of Progressives either ignore, or accept but discard with opportunity.

People get all caught up on gap differences and try to close it. I think what is more productive is raise the absolute standard of living so that even the least affluent have it better than those in other countries comparatively. It is more realistic, and does not hinder on other people. This is of course done with good policy and economics. But then you have those who enact well intended policy that has the opposite effect. I.e. rent controls which contributes to higher costs of living.

You simply cannot have freedom, plurality and diversity ALL with equal outcomes.

[StorminNorman]

Stop making sense.

[bell110]

I was listening to the radio today and came across Rush Limbaugh. I never listen to Limbaugh but I figured since he'd been in the news so much lately, I would. He actually made a good point on how the Republicans can gain steam and win in 2010 and 2012. He claimed that they need to focus on what makes America great, the founding principles of freedom and equality and emphasize that while Democrats idea of equality is bringing everyone down (punishing the wealthy through higher taxes, etc) and keeping lower income demographics dependent on the government so they have no choice but to vote Democrat where as Republicans SHOULD focus on equality meaning creating a land where everyone has the same OPPORTUNITY and what they do with it is up to them. Seemed like a good point to me.

Are you kidding? That's ALL they do. If Limbaugh is pushing this a some type of new idea, he's as big a loon has I've always thought.

What they need to do is get rid of the rhetoric that I put in bold. I'm tired of Republicans boo-hooing about how bad rich people have it. When I hear Michelle Bachmann say things like we're running out of rich people, or read an article about a bank execs wife can't buy a new $10,000 dress for every public function they go to, I can't even find the words that articulates the level of distain I have. And the fact that people actually buy into that crap, it's... ahhh... words escape me.

:cmad::cmad::cmad:

[Handsome Rob]

I believe you cannot have: equal outcome = equal opportunity. This is one of the problems I have when people parrot the word equality, they don't break it down to what they actually mean. Are you talking about outcome, or opportunity or both (impossible). This is one those things that a number of Progressives either ignore, or accept but discard with opportunity.

People get all caught up on gap differences and try to close it. I think what is more productive is raise the absolute standard of living so that even the least affluent have it better than those in other countries comparatively. It is more realistic, and does not hinder on other people. This is of course done with good policy and economics. But then you have those who enact well intended policy that has the opposite effect. I.e. rent controls which contributes to higher costs of living.

You simply cannot have freedom, plurality and diversity ALL with equal outcomes.

The government should strive to ensure equality of opportunity. If you push for equal outcomes, you have the same mentality that Kurt Vonnegut warned about in "Harrison Bergeron." Here's the summary from Wikipedia:


In the story, societal equality has been achieved by handicapping the more intelligent, athletic or beautiful members of society down to the level of the lowest common endowment. This is due to the 211th, 212th, and 213th amendments to the United States Constitution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitution). This process is central to the society, designed so that no one will feel inferior to anyone else. Handicapping is overseen by the United States Handicapper General, Diana Moon Glampers.

Harrison Bergeron, the protagonist of the story, has exceptional intelligence, height, strength and beauty and thus has to bear enormous handicaps. These include headphones that play distracting noises, three hundred pounds of weight strapped to his body, forty pounds of birdshot around his neck, eyeglasses designed to give him headaches, and a rubber ball on his nose, black caps on his teeth, and shaven eyebrows to hide his beauty. Despite these societal handicaps, he is able to invade a TV station (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TV_station) declare himself emperor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emperor), strip himself of his handicaps, then dance with a ballerina whose handicaps he has also discarded. Both are shot dead by the brutal and relentless Handicapper General. The story is framed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frame_story) by an additional perspective from Bergeron's parents, who are watching the incident on TV, but because of their handicaps and less than average intelligence, cannot concentrate enough to appreciate what occurs nor remember it.

[Nivek]

Do you realize that one of the fastest growing religions in US Prison's today is not Christianity, but Islam, and on top of that, what is being seen is a rise in Islamism....? So you don't think these guys would have an influence? Really?



We already have Islamic bred Terrorists in federal prisons, and for the most part, I'm sure our sociopaths and psychopaths under lock & key won't be swayed so easily by low rung imported prisoners of war. Islam is a religion, not a terrorist mantra.

As far as extremist threats developing in prisons, we should be more concerned with the uber-right wing militia flakes converting short term felons and former soldiers into domestic terrorists. They are the most viable threats to our national security than the handful of dirt farmers and middle men at Gitmo.

[Paradoxium]

On a somewhat related note to what Nivek is discussing. A lot of White Supremicist is now converting to Odinism/Asatru, because Jesus might not have been pure white. :funny:

[Paradoxium]

I just realized how stupid this viking helmet looks on my avatar now after what I just said :o

[Kelly]

We already have Islamic bred Terrorists in federal prisons, and for the most part, I'm sure our sociopaths and psychopaths under lock & key won't be swayed so easily by low rung imported prisoners of war. Islam is a religion, not a terrorist mantra.

As far as extremist threats developing in prisons, we should be more concerned with the uber-right wing militia flakes converting short term felons and former soldiers into domestic terrorists. They are the most viable threats to our national security than the handful of dirt farmers and middle men at Gitmo.

I know that, that's my point...and the point of the documentary. You also have people in the prisons that, as we know, have many, many problems that go undetected, they are without family, they are looking for anything...and they are easily swayed. I think our already home grown Islamists would love to have these guys come there way, as in.....they've been on the frontline so to speak. Also, I purposely used the word Islamism, as well....you are correct there is a difference, and both are growing at a rapid pace in our prisons nationwide. You take a group that has a tendency for violence, in some cases, other problems...you put into the mix Islam, and teachings that do not go along with the true basis of the Koran....but a more violent perception.....and you have Islamism growing. You put these guys in with that group, where they can talk, then Islam (the religion) is not manifested....Islamism is....

[Addendum]

In supermax prisons, which is where they will be held if found guilty, they'll be in their individual cell for 23 hours.

I doubt they can convincingly witness to someone in that 1 hour outside

[Kelly]

In supermax prisons, which is where they will be held if found guilty, they'll be in their individual cell for 23 hours.

I doubt they can convincingly witness to someone in that 1 hour outside

Then I would take you back to my first post on the subject, that says....I'm fine with them being in our prisons, as long as they don't have contact with other prisoners. :word:

[DACrowe]

I was listening to the radio today and came across Rush Limbaugh. I never listen to Limbaugh but I figured since he'd been in the news so much lately, I would. He actually made a good point on how the Republicans can gain steam and win in 2010 and 2012. He claimed that they need to focus on what makes America great, the founding principles of freedom and equality and emphasize that while Democrats idea of equality is bringing everyone down (punishing the wealthy through higher taxes, etc) and keeping lower income demographics dependent on the government so they have no choice but to vote Democrat where as Republicans SHOULD focus on equality meaning creating a land where everyone has the same OPPORTUNITY and what they do with it is up to them. Seemed like a good point to me.

That has been the Republican position since the New Deal. 'Don't punish the wealthy," "equal opportunity, the government should not be giving handouts to the elderly (senior citizens)." It is the same position they had when they attacked Kennedy and LBJ, "The government should not force states to intergrate or how to run their elections. They also should not decide how private businesses run. Eventually the market will end Jim Crow...like it has over the last 80 years." or "We shouldn't be giving handouts to the poor who didn't try hard enough to make it for themselves (Medicaid)"

This anti-progression rhetoric just took a strong hold in the money-money 1980s during the Reagan REvolution. I suspect the public opinion is swinging again though. Because Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and Civil Rights legislation did not destroy capitalism, turn us into Socialists or rip state governments apart. The old "equality only means opportunity," is something Dems. understand, well most of them. Giving everyone the chance to survive illness and disease in a hospital is equal opportunity, such as giving everyone the opportunity to go to school until the age of 18 or making sure seniors can retire and not be forced to work until they're in the ground (as Bush's attempt to privatize social security would have led to in 2008, under the guise of "equal opportunity.")

This is age-old conservative rhetoric about protecting the wealthy and maintaining the status quo.

[Paradoxium]

http://img158.imageshack.us/img158/1658/seifertlogo.jpg

[Wiseman]

That picture has me in a trance

[DACrowe]

http://img158.imageshack.us/img158/1658/seifertlogo.jpg

What isn't?

If you are referring to my post, I then assume you are just reiterating the opposition to FDR's New Deal from the 1930s about how social security, help for the unemployed, minimum wage and public works programs created by Federal spending would not work and would in fact destroy capitalism? That those things would not happen in those Republican politicians' lifetimes?

[Paradoxium]

I do not think Capitalism is necessarily perfect, and I have gone on record to offer quite a number of critiques. More importantly I don't think our system is not really that capitalist or laissez faire, so how precisely can you "destroy it"?

And yes I think Progressive/Socialist/Demand management Economics and policy is unsustainable over the long haul. But I do not profess to be a good enough Cassandra to predict when. The Progressives are too Utopian.

[Paradoxium]

I do not think Capitalism is necessarily perfect, and I have gone on record to offer quite a number of critiques. More importantly I don't think our system is not really that capitalist or laissez faire, so how precisely can you "destroy it"?

And yes I think Progressive/Socialist/Demand management Economics and policy is unsustainable over the long haul. But I do not profess to be a good enough Cassandra to predict when. The Progressives are too Utopian.

[DACrowe]

I do not think Capitalism is necessarily perfect, and I have gone on record to offer quite a number of critiques. More importantly I don't think our system is not really that capitalist or laissez faire, so how precisely can you "destroy it"?

And yes I think Progressive/Socialist/Demand management Economics and policy is unsustainable over the long haul. But I do not profess to be a good enough Cassandra to predict when. The Progressives are too Utopian.

I do agree that we are not laissez faire capitalists, albeit I do think we are still practitioners of the best economic system known of. However, I do think it is imperfect and needs careful regulation to grow abundantly, which unfortunately was a fact we ignored for the last 30 years.

Anyway, you infer that I am a progressive (perhaps I am in the new definition, but not in the 1900 original form). And perhaps trying to better life for Americans so they all have a real equal opportunity to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is too utopian. Strom Thurman certainly thought so when he fillibustered for 24 hours against the Civil Rights legislation as big government intervention. However, I think that policy, along with most progressive acts of the 20th century has bettered America and not worsened it. If we want to talk about unsustainable, we need to discuss carbon emissions, not aide to the underpriviledged.

[Kelly]

Its the first chart I've understood on this forum.....*smiles*

[Paradoxium]

Approximate derivative of sorts, not the original conception.

And it is not good to mix religious fundamentalism with economics.

[Hobodeluxe]

the future of the GOP should be moving back from the right wing fringe to the middle and tell the fundies to take a hike.

[DACrowe]

Approximate derivative of sorts, not the original conception.

And it is not good to mix religious fundamentalism with economics.

...err nevermind.

[Paradoxium]

The Post-Christian religion called: Gaianism aka the Manmade AGW thesis - well the most fundamentalist strains. Hopefully I am not offending you, but I believe in separating religion from the state.

[StorminNorman]

the future of the GOP should be moving back from the right wing fringe to the middle and tell the fundies to take a hike.

Define right wing. Define the middle. Define fundamentalists.

[SsM]

That picture has me in a trance


It's the coolest thing I've seen in months.

[Hobodeluxe]

Then I would take you back to my first post on the subject, that says....I'm fine with them being in our prisons, as long as they don't have contact with other prisoners. :word:

pbbtt. the chance that they would even understand each other speaking is slim. multiply that by the chance of someone who could understand them being sympathetic to them. then multiply that by the chance of them ever being able to act on their inclinations.the Probability is very small I would think. Worrying about it's like wearing a foil hat kinda paranoid if ya ask me.

you have a far greater chance of a random assault by your postman.

[hippie_hunter]

On a somewhat related note to what Nivek is discussing. A lot of White Supremicist is now converting to Odinism/Asatru, because Jesus might not have been pure white. :funny:

Jesus wasn't white at all :dry:

[Paradoxium]

Jesus wasn't white at all :dry:The argument goes he is probably not, tis correct. But at least half white (in the off case scenario father is white, but mother is not for sure). Hence what I said.

[Kelly]

pbbtt. the chance that they would even understand each other speaking is slim. multiply that by the chance of someone who could understand them being sympathetic to them. then multiply that by the chance of them ever being able to act on their inclinations.the Probability is very small I would think. Worrying about it's like wearing a foil hat kinda paranoid if ya ask me.

you have a far greater chance of a random assault by your postman.


You need to watch the documentary I posted before.....its very interesting, and alot of good information is given.

[Paradoxium]

The interwebs help grows the the radical and terror strains as well, so what would we do about that? Given that Islam, is a really patriarchal type of religion, these two variables are conducive to higher population growth and the passing down of these radical values. This fact makes the conversions in prisons look kind of negligible.

Conversely as a society becomes more secular, populations within those stratas grows less and less.

Why is another issue. Look up the studies on this topic if some of you don't believe me.

[Alex The Great]

also Fox News is a private organization owned by a private company
That must be destroyed.

Actually, I see most of this post to be completely false. Lets analyze it:

1) Maybe stop wearing your religion on your sleeve.
I can appreciate this one. I think I can even agree with it.

2) Stop being so.....white.
Stop being so dumb.

3) Stop being so ''All for one'' and me more ''One for all''
I don't understand the context in what you are referring to here....

4) NOT have Sarah Palin representing you party.
Sarah is Sarah...She is only getting the news coverage since she was the candidate. 90% of the Rep party and probably more conservatives don't see her as the face of the party.

5) Live in the 21st century, not the 20th century.
I agree...they need to grow.

6) Eliminate Fox News.
Now you are just being mean. They to me are the only news group not licking Obama's feet... I want a different perspective.

7) Realize that Universal Health care is not about a Beurocrat between the patient and the doctor, THAT IS COMPLETELY FALSE. I got me foot shredded by a lawn mower and I got surgery right away. No govrnment in the way or anything.
I don't want to pay for everyone's Health care, only my own and my families. Now if a health Care system only cost me a few %, I would be ok, but NOTHING the government done is that efficient, so I say no once more.

Guantonom Bay detainess are not a danger to the country when in the US. they'd be in maximum security prisons and everything. And have you seen the guys you have in prison right now? Brain eating people and rapists. There more of a danger than the DETAINED Terrorists.
Noone wants them, so don't pawn this off on one side. Noone wants them...

Stop worshipping the rich and help out the less fortunate.
This is another opinionated statement. How bout we help in some small fashion, then you have to help yourself? Get off the bias here
1. Exactly. When the Republicans went mad over Obama bowing to The Saudi King, I didn't care. Bush held hands with the guy and took long walks with him. As if going steady or something.

2. How many black guys are in the republican Party? Micheal Steel is black and he still seems white to me.

3. The Republicans are more ''Help Yourself'' than ''Help others''. Is that understandable.

4. Sarah gets on everyone's ****ing nerves.

5. :up:

6. Fox news says Obama is producing Tyranny....there a waste of time and I want them gone.

7. See? Help others who can't afford Health Care. Chipping i won't hurt.

8. Again, WHy doesn't a state walk in and say ''we'll help'' instead of cowering in fear. There Human beings. Not Wizards.

9. *sigh* You see the Republicans in big houses making love to Argentinian Women. While the average joe gets ****. The rich should maybe put some of their massive amounts of money to others.

[BlackLantern]

The wealthy or rich (most of them) have earned that money, why should they be forced to give it to others?? that makes no sense....how would you feel if 50 percent of your paycheck was going to random people??

[Paradoxium]

It's getting dangerously close to being more than that in Britain from what I understand. Don't know the complete picture there, but I recall Michael Caine saying he is going to move back to America if it hits 51% and higher. I believe it is going to be 50% with any income above £150,000. Keep in mind how weak the Sterling is right now (1.61 greenback).

Also they are removing tax relief from pensions, so it probably adds way more on top of the 50%.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.91afc63abb93d5e6768f1eb67b4c502 2.a91&show_article=1#

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financetopics/budget/5208894/Tens-of-thousands-to-go-into-exile-following-50p-tax-hike-in-Budget.html

[BlackLantern]

damn...I remember back in 99-2000 how lots of celebrities were moving to the UK for economic reasons...now its in reverse...I read Michael Caine has a farm or something here in the states

[Paradoxium]

The UK is full of fail.

Sold like half their gold reserves and splurged on short term social and government programs. Gold was about $200-300 at the time they sold it. Right now it's at 900-1000. Now their oil reserves are drying up, they lost billions in gold value they will probably jack the income tax across the board sooner or later. If anyone has any money saved there, anyone that is a business owner or entrepreneur... save it to move the hell out of there. Although I am not sure America is the long term answer... :o

[Paradoxium]

double post fail.

[bell110]

Invest in China.

[Matt]

That must be destroyed.


1. Exactly. When the Republicans went mad over Obama bowing to The Saudi King, I didn't care. Bush held hands with the guy and took long walks with him. As if going steady or something.

2. How many black guys are in the republican Party? Micheal Steel is black and he still seems white to me.

3. The Republicans are more ''Help Yourself'' than ''Help others''. Is that understandable.

4. Sarah gets on everyone's ****ing nerves.

5. :up:

6. Fox news says Obama is producing Tyranny....there a waste of time and I want them gone.

7. See? Help others who can't afford Health Care. Chipping i won't hurt.

8. Again, WHy doesn't a state walk in and say ''we'll help'' instead of cowering in fear. There Human beings. Not Wizards.

9. *sigh* You see the Republicans in big houses making love to Argentinian Women. While the average joe gets ****. The rich should maybe put some of their massive amounts of money to others.

:facepalm

This is why 14 year olds shouldn't be allowed in political.

[Marx]

Everyone is entitled to an opinion Matthew. :cwink:

[StorminNorman]

Everyone is entitled to an opinion Matthew. :cwink:

But opinions based on ignorance or normally not worth much respect.

[Kelly]

Maybe not, but we can respect their right to have one...

[StorminNorman]

True, people are entitled to any opinion they have - no matter how faulty.

[BlackLantern]

or silly sounding....especially wanting to shut down a news organization because you don't like it...I loathe Wal-Mart, but you don't see me calling for their shutdown

[Marx]

SANFORD REJECTS CALLS FOR RESIGNATION
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/07/06/sanford-rejects-call-for-resignation/

After spending the holiday weekend with his family in Florida, Mark Sanford is apparently intent on fighting off calls for his resignation and staying in office, according to one South Carolina Republican who spoke with the governor on Monday.

Richard Yow, a member of the South Carolina Republican Party executive committee from Chesterfield County, received a phone call from Sanford on Monday afternoon. Yow said he spoke to the embattled governor for ten minutes, during which Sanford asked Yow for his forgiveness.

Yow said he told Sanford he could forgive him, but he told the governor that he should resign for the sake of the state and his family. Sanford, he said, rejected the idea.

"He said resigning would be the easy way out," Yow told CNN.

"He told me just like he told everybody else, that he didn't think resigning was the thing was to do," Yow said. "He did a lot of listening, and saying a lot of, 'I know you how you feel.' He hated that he has caused so much trouble for his family and friends and the state. I told him, it's not just trouble, it's a tragedy."

[Superman]

True, people are entitled to any opinion they have - no matter how faulty.I think you might be right, I mean hell, They let you have an "opinion"....

:yay::oldrazz:

[Kelly]

Exactly, I mean we let Supes hang out around here....that right there should tell you we let anyone in here with an opinion....:hehe:

[Nivek]

And don't forget my crappy angry opinions...

[Kelly]

Exactly......

[ChrisBaleBatman]

Sanford is going to have to be dragged out of the mansion kicking and screaming, clearly.

[StorminNorman]

Palin At The Top – And Bottom – for GOP Voters in 2012
Tuesday, July 07, 2009

Alaska Governor Sarah Palin is second only to Mitt Romney as the presidential candidate Republican voters say they’ll vote for in 2012 state GOP primaries, but she’s also one of two candidates they least hope wins the party’s nomination.

In a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey, it’s close to a three-way tie when GOP voters are asked whom they would vote for – from among a list of six prominent Republicans - in the 2012 party primary in their state: 25% say Romney, while 24% say Palin and 22% opt for former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee.

After that, GOP primary voters list former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (14%), while Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour and Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty each received one percent (1%) of the vote. Six percent (6%) prefer some other candidate.

However, among those same six potential candidates, Palin and Barbour are tied as the ones GOP voters would least like to see win the party nomination in 2012. Twenty-one percent (21%) of Republican voters nationwide say that of both Palin and Barbour.

Gingrich and Palwenty tie for next on the list, with 15% each. Ten percent (10%) say Huckabee is the one they hope doesn’t get the nomination, while nine percent (9%) feel that way about Romney. Eleven percent of Republican voters (11%) are undecided.

Forty percent (40%) of GOP voters nationally believe Palin has hurt her chances of winning the Republican presidential nomination in 2012 by resigning as governor of Alaska. Twenty-four percent (24%) say the resignation helps her chances, and 28% say it will have no impact on the race.

But it is important to note that the first Presidential primary is nearly two-and-a-half years away.


Seventy-six percent (76%) of Republican voters have a favorable opinion of Palin, even after her decision to resign as governor of Alaska, with 45% whose view of her is very favorable. Palin trails Huckabee, who unsuccessfully sought the Republican presidential nomination in 2008. Huckabee is favored by 78%, with 41% who feel very favorably toward him.

Twenty-one percent (21%) have an unfavorable view of Palin, with nine percent (9%) very unfavorable. For Huckabee, unfavorables are 17%, including five percent (5%) very unfavorable.

Romney, another unsuccessful 2008 contender, follows closely after Huckabee and Palin. Seventy-three percent (73%) view the former Massachusetts governor favorably, including 39% very favorable. Nineteen percent (19%) have an unfavorable opinion of Romney, with five percent (5%) very unfavorable.

Sixty-five percent (65%) have a favorable view of Gingrich, including 35% very favorable. His unfavorables are 29%, with 11% very unfavorable.

For Pawlenty and Barbour, a big factor is their lack of national exposure. In the case of both men, 28% of GOP voters don’t know enough about them to express an opinion.

However, 38% have a favorable view of Pawlenty, with eight percent (8%) who say that opinion is very favorable. His 33% unfavorables include nine percent (9%) very unfavorable.

Barbour is the only one of six potential GOP candidates for whom voters have more negative feelings than positive. Thirty-four percent (34%) see him in a favorable light, with seven percent (7%) very favorable. But 37% have an unfavorable opinion of the Mississippi governor, including 13% whose view is very unfavorable.

Former Vice President Dick Cheney, who chose not to run in 2008 but has been an outspoken critic of Obama’s in recent weeks, is viewed favorably by 59% of Republican voters, including 30% who are very favorable toward him. Thirty-four percent (34%) have an unfavorable regard for Cheney, with 14% very unfavorable.

Rasmussen surveying detailing how Republicans view the candidates in terms of issues and ideology will be released tomorrow.

Seventy-five percent (75%) of GOP voters nationwide say it is at least somewhat likely that a Republican candidate will defeat President Obama if he seeks reelection. Of that group, 41% say it’s very likely Obama will be defeated.

In late April, for the first time since Obama was elected president last November, more than half of U.S. voters (53%) said it is at least somewhat likely that the next occupant of the White House will be a Republican.

By mid-May, just 37% of Republican voters said their party was leaderless. This marked a significant turnaround from two months earlier when 68% felt that way.

Small percentages of GOP voters listed McCain, national party chairman Michael Steele and Palin, in descending order, as the party’s leaders in the May survey.

Republicans regained the lead over Democrats last week in the Generic Congressional Ballot. Voters also now trust Republicans more than Democrats on six out of 10 key issues, including the top issue of the economy.

Obama’s relatively stable approval ratings have begun to slip in the Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll.

Despite big gains in last November’s election which further strengthened Democratic control over both houses of Congress, voters are more likely to say congressional Republicans have about the same views they do than Democrats.

Democrats and Republicans see a very different economy. Democrats are evenly divided as to whether the economy is getting better or worse while Republicans believe it is getting worse.

That helps explain why 81% of Republicans are against passage of a second stimulus plan. Democrats are much more evenly divided, but a plurality of those in Obama’s party (45%) like the idea.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections2/election_2012/palin_at_the_top_and_bottom_for_gop_voters_in_2012

I am pleasantly surprised to see Romney's disapproval ratings so low. I feared her burnt bridges last primary.

[Kelly]

But damn....the fact that they are so close, doesn't bode well for the party. ..BUT, its a long way to 2012....so we shall see....

[BlackLantern]

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-07-06/new-gop-racist-headache/?cid=bsa:mostpopular1

**** like this makes the Party look bad....really bad

[Alex The Great]

The wealthy or rich (most of them) have earned that money, why should they be forced to give it to others?? that makes no sense....how would you feel if 50 percent of your paycheck was going to random people??
It's called helping others. While you rake in the cash some poor famly is struggling to pay the bills.

True, people are entitled to any opinion they have - no matter how faulty.
But I think we can all agree that Fox News should get an ass kicking
SANFORD REJECTS CALLS FOR RESIGNATION
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/07/06/sanford-rejects-call-for-resignation/
He should flee to Argentina

[SsM]

Fox News is no worse than any of the other networks, they all need to be set straight. All of them are Biased, you are just in a huff because their bias doesn't line up with yours :P

[StorminNorman]

But damn....the fact that they are so close, doesn't bode well for the party. ..BUT, its a long way to 2012....so we shall see....

The more important number is the the fact she was was the one 20+ % of Republicans least want on the ticket.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-07-06/new-gop-racist-headache/?cid=bsa:mostpopular1

**** like this makes the Party look bad....really bad

It certainly doesn't help - but this person was hardly of any great significance and few people will ever hear about it.


But I think we can all agree that Fox News should get an ass kicking


No. Why do they deserve it any more than any other cable news?

[ChrisBaleBatman]

Nice link Lantern.

Incredible news story that was. And...very disturbing to say the least.

And I think Fox News crosses the line when they do things that other tv networks don't do.

That's why they're Faux News.

[Malice]

Get off Fox...It has its own burning thread.
Back to the party

[StorminNorman]

And I think Fox News crosses the line when they do things that other tv networks don't do.

That's why they're Faux News.

Give me some examples of what Fox News that others don't.

[ChrisBaleBatman]

But, they're like Tango and Cash.

Oscar and Felix.

Jay and Silent Bob.

But, I hear you. I'm off them...for now.

The internet will be the death of GOP if they're not careful. I mean, hasn't everything on the racism charge all been leaked tech based?

[ChrisBaleBatman]

Give me some examples of what Fox News that others don't.


Are you...joking?

We've been through this before. I think the entire Fox News thread is plastered with the examples you seek. I'm sure you've seen/heard/read of them already.

[StorminNorman]

The racism charge isn't directed at the GOP - it's directed at a member of the GOP.

It's like trying to paint the DNC for having a problem with sexism because one of Obama's writers got caught taking pictures grouping a Hillary Clinton cut out.

http://www.cele*****y.com/25289/obamas_chief_speech_writer_busted_grabbed_boob_of_ hillary_clinton_cutout/

[StorminNorman]

Are you...joking?

We've been through this before. I think the entire Fox News thread is plastered with the examples you seek. I'm sure you've seen/heard/read of them already.

And none of them were valid complaints against Fox News that could not be made about MSNBC.

[ChrisBaleBatman]

Like yellowing a person's teeth in a picture and making them look "different"?

I don't think that's one that flies with MSNBC or CNN or any other news network.

The article is about a racism issue with the GOP.

Or members of the GOP.

Maybe if there's another twenty or so it'll be a GOP problem, I dunno.

But they're being perceived as racist, which is something that gotta scrub off, man.

[ChrisBaleBatman]

The racism charge isn't directed at the GOP - it's directed at a member of the GOP.

It's like trying to paint the DNC for having a problem with sexism because one of Obama's writers got caught taking pictures grouping a Hillary Clinton cut out.

Okay.

Are there a few more, though?

[BlackLantern]

well Chris that first one was discredited...fox didn't do that, someone tried to set Fox up for that....as for the link I posted, that story is flying ALL over the internet and its going to get more exposure within the next couple weeks....if the Party wants to move forward it needs to start being public with distancing itself from people like that

[StorminNorman]

Like yellowing a person's teeth in a picture and making them look "different"?

I don't think that's one that flies with MSNBC or CNN or any other news network.

And of course you use an example that didn't happen :lmao: You are nothing if not predictable.

The article is about a racism issue with the GOP.

Or members of the GOP.

Maybe if there's another twenty or so it'll be a GOP problem, I dunno.

But they're being perceived as racist, which is something that gotta scrub off, man.

The GOP will be painted as racist no matter what it does. A Republican President gave America the most racially diverse cabinet in American history - no one cares. The GOP has a black Chairman - no one cares. The highest ranking black congressman in Washington history? A Republican - no one cares.

Until major work is done at the perceptions of partys the GOP will be the party of the rich white man and the DNC will be the party of the socialist hippies that care more about whales than people and can't defend the country.

[BlackLantern]

Michael Steele is a figurehead...you should know better than to cite him as an example...it was essentially the GOP saying "Look, we trust a black person enough to have him be the "leader" of our party...its a new GOP...look...please"

[StorminNorman]

Thanks for proving my point.

The fact that Michael Steele was a qualified party leader who just came off of a highly regarded term as Chairman of GOPAC is completely irrelevant...because he's black...so obviously the racist GOP picked him for his skin color.

It's offensive.

[Malice]

In all seriousness, I don't see the Republicans any more racist then the Democrats as a whole.

[BlackLantern]

Thanks for proving my point.

The fact that Michael Steele was a qualified party leader who just came off of a highly regarded term as Chairman of GOPAC is completely irrelevant...because he's black...so obviously the racist GOP picked him for his skin color.

It's offensive.

just because its offensive doesn't make it any less true if thats what happened

...and myself and about 96 percent of America didn't even know who he was prior to him being named the head of the GOP...and you can blame that on the average American just not being informed of their government

[hippie_hunter]

just because its offensive doesn't make it any less true if thats what happened

...and myself and about 96 percent of America didn't even know who he was prior to him being named the head of the GOP...and you can blame that on the average American just not being informed of their government

Did you and 96 percent of America know who Barack Obama was before he became Senator of Illinois?

[BlackLantern]

Did you and 96 percent of America know who Barack Obama was before he became Senator of Illinois?

no...I actually did not even hear of him until this girl I was seeing at the time told me about him speaking at the DNC in 04...and she said he was going to be President

[Matt]

That's because after his speech, before Kerry even lost, before Obama was even elected to the Senate, the media dubbed him as the next president and savior of the Democratic Party.

[StorminNorman]

just because its offensive doesn't make it any less true if thats what happened

But it's not true! There is no evidence supporting that it is true...besides the inaccurate perception of the GOP as a racist party.

...and myself and about 96 percent of America didn't even know who he was prior to him being named the head of the GOP...and you can blame that on the average American just not being informed of their government

So? Do you know who Ed Gillespie is? How about Ken Melham? Do you know who was the GOP Chairman before Steele? Can you name the current DNC Chairman? It's not exactly a position that requires recognition.

[BlackLantern]

But it's not true! There is no evidence supporting that it is true...besides the inaccurate perception of the GOP as a racist party.

You sure about that?? You are of the opinion that it isn't....great...but it's not a stone cold fact

So? Do you know who Ed Gillespie is? How about Ken Melham? Do you know who was the GOP Chairman before Steele? Can you name the current DNC Chairman? It's not exactly a position that requires recognition.

I was agreeing with you on that...that a good number of americans are not informed as to the inner workings of the parties they support

[StorminNorman]

You sure about that?? You are of the opinion that it isn't....great...but it's not a stone cold fact

It's the only opinion supported by facts. There is no evidence that supports the idea that Michael Steele is just a figure head, a token black man. Except for the unfair, inaccurate perception of the Republican Party. It's offensive for people to think the only way a black man can succeed in the GOP is by being used as a tool. It's offensive that a man is considered a "less black" by joining the GOP.

[Humphrey Bogart]

I was re-watching some of the Presidential Debates and something Ron Paul said really struck me. He was asked why he was running as a Republican if he believed that so many of the party's currents ideals were out of step with the Constitution. His response was essentially that he represented what the party was founded upon, and that he was the man most in step with who party really was. And he went on to list the discrepancies.

I don't think Ron Paul is the end-all-be-all like some do, but I do think that the party has to somehow evict itself from, or evict from itself, the charlatans that have taken it over. Their monopoly over the very term "conservative" is a real slap in the face to what the term ought to signify to people. And I don't really see anyone on the horizon to fix this problem in 2012. Anyway, we'll see.

[Paradyme]

Speaking of Ron Paul his Audit the Federal Reserve bill was voted down yesterday in the Senate.

[BlackLantern]

Speaking of Ron Paul his Audit the Federal Reserve bill was voted down yesterday in the Senate.

I thought that bill had some juice behind it...

ok so how does the GOP change the perception about itself??

[Paradyme]

I thought that bill had some juice behind it...

ok so how does the GOP change the perception about itself??

I thought it did as well but apparently not. I haven't heard anything on it yet or how much it was voted down by. I had heard 60 majority helped vote it down.

[Alex The Great]

Give me some examples of what Fox News that others don't.
That liberty tree thing Shaun Hannity has....uh....Glenn Becks annoying ''Surround us, surround them'' things.....Fox and friends saying that the Bruno/Eminem thing was terrible as it aired at like, 8 at night. yet Fox and Friends did a segment showing barely clothed women (LFL) tackling people....at 8 in the morning........

[Paradyme]

That liberty tree thing Shaun Hannity has....uh....Glenn Becks annoying ''Surround us, surround them'' things.....Fox and friends saying that the Bruno/Eminem thing was terrible as it aired at like, 8 at night. yet Fox and Friends did a segment showing barely clothed women (LFL) tackling people....at 8 in the morning........

That was a good segment....

[StorminNorman]

That liberty tree thing Sean* Hannity has....uh....Glenn Becks annoying ''Surround us, surround them'' things.....Fox and friends saying that the Bruno/Eminem thing was terrible as it aired at like, 8 at night. yet Fox and Friends did a segment showing barely clothed women (LFL) tackling people....at 8 in the morning........

All of those have to do with commentators, not the network itself. I can point out a lot of things I dislike about Olbermann/Madow/Matthews/etc. I could point out the Morning Joe Starbucks thing and his feud with Stewart (sense it's obvious that you are getting all of your anti-Fox News content from Comedy Central).

Hannity and Beck's things are annoying to you...because you disagree with them.

The Bruno/Lingerie Bowl hypocrisy was funny - but that came from the blond bimbo on Fox and Friends. If you really want to start condemning entire networks for stupid comments made by commentators, you will find an entire sea of fail.

Which brings me back to my point: I am not so much defending Fox News as much as simply trying to demonstrate it's just not any worse than any of the other cable news outlets.

[bell110]

LOL, the GOP is considered racist? Whose fault is that?

I'll give you a hint, it's not the media.

[VampElvis]

LOL, the GOP is considered racist? Whose fault is that?

I'll give you a hint, it's not the media.

I believe they do share some fault in this perception, though not the lion's share. As has already been pointed out here, in recent years you saw a Republican president create one of the most racially diverse cabinets in history and the party name a minority as its chairperson. Unfortunately instead of this being celebrated as a move to unity or lauded on any level in the press, we seemed, at least to my unreliable recollection, to get more Bush=Stupid Cheney=Evil stuff and the party did a terrible job of getting that message to the public on their own.

[StorminNorman]

LOL, the GOP is considered racist? Whose fault is that?

I'll give you a hint, it's not the media.

A big reason is black leaders. Going back to the 60's black church leaders would preach about how you are going to hell if you vote Republican.

Does the party itself deserve some blame? Sure, but it's not the leading reason.

[Nivek]

By racially diverse, you mean finding lackeys of other elasticities that are willing to break or bend law's for the "greater good" of El Presidente'?

[Handsome Rob]

By racially diverse, you mean finding lackeys of other elasticities that are willing to break or bend law's for the "greater good" of El Presidente'?

:facepalm When you can't win, try to change the subject . . .

[ChrisBaleBatman]

I think they're certainly not helping themselves whenever any official linked to the Republican party is painted as a racist for something they said/did.

It just throws gasoline on it.

Going back to the "Barack the Magic Negro" thing that Steele's opponent had done to gain negative attention, or the pictures of all the presidents with Obama's being a pitch black portrait with just white eyes showing.

It just piles things on, I think.

[BlackLantern]

It seems that recently every time the GOP tries to reach out or be more diverse...some story comes out about some member of the Party saying or emailing something extremely racist or just plain ignorant

[Superman]

I think they're certainly not helping themselves whenever any official linked to the Republican party is painted as a racist for something they said/did.

It just throws gasoline on it.

Going back to the "Barack the Magic Negro" thing that Steele's opponent had done to gain negative attention, or the pictures of all the presidents with Obama's being a pitch black portrait with just white eyes showing.

It just piles things on, I think.I remember hearing something about that. Who did that?:huh:

[ChrisBaleBatman]

I believe it was an aide for a senator or a congressman, I think.

I remember the apology was for using government email to send it, but not the email itself.

Sorta a sorry I got caught, I guess.

[StorminNorman]

By racially diverse, you mean finding lackeys of other elasticities that are willing to break or bend law's for the "greater good" of El Presidente'?

I got it, when a Republican does something it's for the wrong reason.


Please. :whatever:

[VampElvis]

By racially diverse, you mean finding lackeys of other elasticities that are willing to break or bend law's for the "greater good" of El Presidente'?

Probably less than you mean "a bunch of Uncle Tom's" when you substitute "lackeys of other elasticities that are willing to break or bend law's for the "greater good" of El Presidente'?"I hope I'm wrong but that's the way your post reads to me. It seems to exemplify the mindset that Republicrats a party of exclusively evil old white people incapable of seeing past ethnicity. Not only can they, but there are also a lot of minorities that agree with the political philosophy of the party. I don't really understand how the mindset has become so ingrained.

[Malice]

I am amazed at the GOP members are racists comments...
Reminds me of the lunatic Gerafalo (sp?) saying all people that went to the Tea Parties are racists....just because one person brought a sign that I thought would think was inappropriate.

Why not say....All Democrats smoke pot and are socialists?
How about Libertarians are all anarchists?
Let me go further, all BLACK PEOPLE MUST BE DEMOCRATS.
and ALL WHITE PEOPLE ARE REPUBLICANS!
YES I WENT THERE!

Get off the freaking stereotypes, its just stupid, ignorant, and down right narrow minded.

[StorminNorman]

Probably less than you mean "a bunch of Uncle Tom's" when you substitute "lackeys of other elasticities that are willing to break or bend law's for the "greater good" of El Presidente'?"I hope I'm wrong but that's the way your post reads to me. It seems to exemplify the mindset that Republicrats a party of exclusively evil old white people incapable of seeing past ethnicity. Not only can they, but there are also a lot of minorities that agree with the political philosophy of the party. I don't really understand how the mindset has become so ingrained.

That's exactly what he meant.

[BlackLantern]

so how does the party go about changing the perception??

[StorminNorman]

I would ignore race entirely. I wouldn't try to do anything to win over black voters, to win over hispanic voters, to win over asian or martian voters. When you try to appeal to a certain race, you alienate everyone. I would change the focus point of the GOP.

I would define what it means to be a Republican. That definition should be restricted to government policy - not morals, not ethics, not social issues. The Republican Party should adopt a policy of fiscal responsibility, a decreased role of government in our lives, a willingness to defend the country from enemies abroad and maintaining a belief that the free market is almost always the answer that government is not. That's what the Republican Party should be - a party welcoming if you are atheist or christian, black or white, middle class or rich. It won't be the most attractive party to the poor, and I am okay with that. It should appeal to those in poverty that want to be rich, but not those that want to be taken care of.

I want to see an end of the days where the most important figures of the Republican Party are Ronald Reagan, Jesus and God.

While that will not change the perception of the Republican Party amongst black Democrats of today - it will influence the perception of the party to young people. The Republican Party should be attractive to college students. If we can start winning over college-aged voters of all races - then we start increasing the number of minority Republican leaders and politicians. Start adding color to Republican meetings, you slowly change the perception of rational minorities.

[Scarlet spidey]

Speaking of Ron Paul his Audit the Federal Reserve bill was voted down yesterday in the Senate.
Lol, no it wasn't.
Senator DeMint tried to sneak the senate version of Ron's bill in with another bill but they didn't allow him to insert it in.
It was never voted on.

[Kelly]

Yep, it didn't get out of committee....

[BlackestNight]

I would ignore race entirely. I wouldn't try to do anything to win over black voters, to win over hispanic voters, to win over asian or martian voters. When you try to appeal to a certain race, you alienate everyone. I would change the focus point of the GOP.

I would define what it means to be a Republican. That definition should be restricted to government policy - not morals, not ethics, not social issues. The Republican Party should adopt a policy of fiscal responsibility, a decreased role of government in our lives, a willingness to defend the country from enemies abroad and maintaining a belief that the free market is almost always the answer that government is not. That's what the Republican Party should be - a party welcoming if you are atheist or christian, black or white, middle class or rich. It won't be the most attractive party to the poor, and I am okay with that. It should appeal to those in poverty that want to be rich, but not those that want to be taken care of.

I want to see an end of the days where the most important figures of the Republican Party are Ronald Reagan, Jesus and God.

While that will not change the perception of the Republican Party amongst black Democrats of today - it will influence the perception of the party to young people. The Republican Party should be attractive to college students. If we can start winning over college-aged voters of all races - then we start increasing the number of minority Republican leaders and politicians. Start adding color to Republican meetings, you slowly change the perception of rational minorities.

That translates (in my mind) into we don't care about your communities’ issues and we refuse to address them.:nono:

[Paradyme]

Lol, no it wasn't.
Senator DeMint tried to sneak the senate version of Ron's bill in with another bill but they didn't allow him to insert it in.
It was never voted on.

Oh, thats good to hear. I had heard it quickly on the news but they never followed through with anything else so I, of course, assumed.

[BlackLantern]

That translates (in my mind) into we don't care about your communities’ issues and we refuse to address them.:nono:

Neither party has seriously done that for years, so don't get on the high horse yet....I asked a question and Norman provided a rational and logical answer

[VampElvis]

I see the track that Norm described as a one nation one people kind of thing and I tend to agree. And it seems to me when you start making decisions based on race or ethnicity you start drifting into a separate but equal mentality and I don't think anyone really wants that. Unfortunately it seems we've been conditioned to expect overtures to our little groups, to have our egos stroked, instead of accepting/supporting a candidate/party based on our agreement with his/her values/ideals.

[StorminNorman]

That translates (in my mind) into we don't care about your communities’ issues and we refuse to address them.:nono:

Then don't vote for us. :huh:

The Republican Party - or any political party - shouldn't be trying to win 100% of the vote.

[Marx]

Then don't vote for us. :huh:

The Republican Party - or any political party - shouldn't be trying to win 100% of the vote.

They also shouldn't be trying to demonize or alienate certain blocs of the electorate either. :cwink:

[StorminNorman]

They also shouldn't be trying to demonize or alienate certain blocs of the electorate either. :cwink:

Obviously. Which is not what I am endorsing.

[Marx]

Obviously. Which is not what I am endorsing.

I know man...I was just saying. :cwink:

[bell110]

I believe they do share some fault in this perception, though not the lion's share. As has already been pointed out here, in recent years you saw a Republican president create one of the most racially diverse cabinets in history and the party name a minority as its chairperson. Unfortunately instead of this being celebrated as a move to unity or lauded on any level in the press, we seemed, at least to my unreliable recollection, to get more Bush=Stupid Cheney=Evil stuff and the party did a terrible job of getting that message to the public on their own.

Personally, I'm not really concerned with the level of racial diversity an administration has. I don’t think it necessarily should be celebrated or lauded, ideally to me, it wouldn’t be something to think twice about. Presidents should be picking the best and the brightest to be in their cabinets. Unfortunately, when you shine a spotlight on how racially diverse your cabinet is, it makes it look like your cabinet is diverse for the sake of being diverse. Plus, to expand on what Nivek said, the racial make-up of your cabinets tends to take a back seat when your President is thought to chose loyalty over competence.

A big reason is black leaders. Going back to the 60's black church leaders would preach about how you are going to hell if you vote Republican.

Does the party itself deserve some blame? Sure, but it's not the leading reason.

I think it’s certain people in the party itself, rather than black leaders, who are mostly to fault.

When you have people showing up to Republican rallies with racist signs and stuffed monkeys in Obama shirts, that’s pretty sad. When McCain tells his supporters to knock off all the Obama is a terrorist/Muslim/non-American citizen rhetoric, and he gets booed, that is highly sad. It would be interesting to see what would happen if anyone caught with racist signs or any other type of propaganda were denied access to rallies. Or if anyone caught yelling racist remarks were thrown out for heckling. How would that affect a candidate’s chances? Would any Republican have the balls to stand up to that type of nonsense, even if it could hurt their voter turnout? Would Republican voters become that upset with that candidate that they would significantly turn against said candidate? I would really like to see that happen in practice. If a Republican candidate took a hard line stance against the knuckle-headed racist of the party, I would probably vote for that candidate on principle alone.

Back on racists within the party; this Facebook issue highlights how there is plenty of racism, at least at a grassroots level, within the party. It’s telling, not because of WHAT was said, but because of how the event played out. First, Audra agreed with the poster, Eric, then when Eric was called out, his first reaction was to cite free speech, claim himself to be a “good ole southern boy” then say “if yur ass is black don’t let the sun set on it in a southern town” (Seriously, what does that even mean? Anybody know?). Audra deletes the people who called it out, claims she didn’t see the second post, and blames her political opponents for the mess. Instead of confronting the issue, she tries to skirt the issue, down playing it and pointing fingers. It tells me that she didn’t have a problem with what was said, but that happened to her.

[Superman]

Then don't vote for us. :huh:

The Republican Party - or any political party - shouldn't be trying to win 100% of the vote.Don't vote for "US"?

I thought you was an "Independent" or a Libertarian" or whatever it was last week.:huh:

[Nivek]

Libertarian is Republican for Shame & Denial.

[VampElvis]

Don't vote for "US"?

I thought you was an "Independent" or a Libertarian" or whatever it was last week.:huh:

What? I thought you were in jail?!?!:cwink:
http://www.nypost.com/seven/07102009/news/regionalnews/biff__wham__pow__178573.htm

[BlackLantern]

What? I thought you were in jail?!?!:cwink:
http://www.nypost.com/seven/07102009/news/regionalnews/biff__wham__pow__178573.htm

ugh...these are the idiots I share the fandom with

[BlackestNight]

Libertarian is Republican for Shame & Denial.

You hardly ever run into any real Libertarians. Most of the people claming to be Libertarians are just Fiscal Conservatives with slightly modified Social views.

[Kelly]

You hardly ever run into any real Libertarians. Most of the people claming to be Libertarians are just Fiscal Conservatives with slightly modified Social views.

That is why I consider myself an Independent, not a Libertarian....I am Fiscally Conservative, and Socially Liberal (in terms of Republicans), but I don't go as far as the Libertarian Party....

[bell110]

You hardly ever run into any real Libertarians. Most of the people claming to be Libertarians are just Fiscal Conservatives with slightly modified Social views.

What would you consider a real Libertarian?

[Nivek]

I consider myself Independent, I agree with some Republican policies in criminal & some social matters, but they are too evangelical right most of the time IMO to get my vote. When it comes to Government, keep your religion and faith to yourself. But i agree with the 2nd amendment, and agree sometimes with their War policies more than Democrats.

[Kelly]

What would you consider a real Libertarian?


The further you desire government out of your life, the further you are moving towards the Libertarian thinking....

[Paradoxium]

So do Anarchists...

But yea, Libertarians are inconsequential in the mainstream, I sympathize with them more than Democrats and Republicans (economically), but I do also disagree with them on a number of points. I intensely disagree with the anarchists.

With Progressives, they are Anti-Dox of a evil mirror universe like in Star Trek

[Nivek]

Anarchist's (or the real devoted ones I've seen) are close to the people who live so green they are either Homeless or Mountain Men. You don't want government and society in your life, you have to cut yourself off.

[Paradoxium]

They don't want government AND private property.

[StorminNorman]

Don't vote for "US"?

I thought you was an "Independent" or a Libertarian" or whatever it was last week.:huh:

If you would look, you would see that I was saying what I would do if I was running the GOP.

I think it’s certain people in the party itself, rather than black leaders, who are mostly to fault.

And I think you are wrong.

When you have people showing up to Republican rallies with racist signs and stuffed monkeys in Obama shirts, that’s pretty sad. When McCain tells his supporters to knock off all the Obama is a terrorist/Muslim/non-American citizen rhetoric, and he gets booed, that is highly sad. It would be interesting to see what would happen if anyone caught with racist signs or any other type of propaganda were denied access to rallies. Or if anyone caught yelling racist remarks were thrown out for heckling. How would that affect a candidate’s chances? Would any Republican have the balls to stand up to that type of nonsense, even if it could hurt their voter turnout? Would Republican voters become that upset with that candidate that they would significantly turn against said candidate? I would really like to see that happen in practice. If a Republican candidate took a hard line stance against the knuckle-headed racist of the party, I would probably vote for that candidate on principle alone.

Back on racists within the party; this Facebook issue highlights how there is plenty of racism, at least at a grassroots level, within the party. It’s telling, not because of WHAT was said, but because of how the event played out. First, Audra agreed with the poster, Eric, then when Eric was called out, his first reaction was to cite free speech, claim himself to be a “good ole southern boy” then say “if yur ass is black don’t let the sun set on it in a southern town” (Seriously, what does that even mean? Anybody know?). Audra deletes the people who called it out, claims she didn’t see the second post, and blames her political opponents for the mess. Instead of confronting the issue, she tries to skirt the issue, down playing it and pointing fingers. It tells me that she didn’t have a problem with what was said, but that happened to her.

And there are tons of Democrats that hate Christians, a lot of black Democrats that dislike white guys, a lot of Democrats that dislike capitalism in general. I don't think it is fair to call the Democrat party a white-hating, socialist, religiously intolerant party.

Again, the fact that any black Republican of any standing is assumed to be a token black guy, an uncle tom, a yes man is absolutely despicable.

[StorminNorman]

Trust on Issues
Voters Trust GOP More than Democrats on Eight of 10 Key Issues
Thursday, July 09, 2009

Voters now trust Republicans more than Democrats on eight out of 10 key electoral issues, including, for the second straight month, the top issue of the economy. They've also narrowed the gap on the remaining two issues, the traditionally Democratic strong suits of health care and education.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that voters trust the GOP more on economic issues 46% to 41%, showing little change from the six-point lead the party held last month. This is just the second time in over two years of polling the GOP has held the advantage on economic issues. The parties were close on the issue in May, with the Democrats holding a one-point lead.

Voters not affiliated with either party trust Republicans more to handle the economy by a 46% to 32% margin.

Last week’s report of 9.5 percent unemployment, the highest since 1983, raised doubts about the economy and the president's handling of it. Consumer and investor confidence is now down to the lowest levels in three months. Just 39% now say President Obama is doing a good or an excellent job on the economy while 43% rate his performance as poor. Those are by far the weakest numbers yet for the president.

The president's approval ratings also have fallen to new lows in the Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll.

(Want a free daily e-mail update? Sign up now. If it's in the news, it's in our polls.) Rasmussen Reports updates are also available on Twitter.

Most voters (52%) now trust Republicans more on the issue of taxes, also the highest level found in over two years. Only 36% trust Democrats more on taxes. A survey conducted at the end of June found that 39% of voters now expect their taxes to go up under Obama, the highest level of concern measured to date.

On national security, Republicans hold a 49% to 40% lead over Democrats. That’s down from a 15-point lead last month.

For the second straight month, voters put North Korea at the top of the list of biggest threats to U.S. national security.

Republicans hold a four-point lead on the issue of the War in Iraq, down from an eight-point advantage in June.

Even though American troops have now pulled out of all cities in Iraq and still are on schedule to be completely withdrawn by the end of 2011, 64% of U.S. voters do not believe the war in Iraq is over.

The GOP has a 40% to 34% lead on the issue of immigration and is ahead 46% to 39% on abortion.

Republicans also edge out Democrats on government ethics and corruption for the second straight month, 34% to 33%. In June, the GOP held a six-point advantage on the issue.

Also for the first time in over two years, Republicans lead Democrats on the issue of Social Security 42% to 37%. Democrats held a six-point lead on the issue last month, and the parties were tied in April.

Democrats have also seen their leads shrink on two of the party’s strong points, health care and education. The party holds a four-point lead on health care, down from 18 points in May. The Democrats’ advantage on the issue is the smallest found in over two years.

Voters are evenly divided when it comes to the health care reform plans being promoted by the president and Democrats in Congress.

On education, Democrats lead Republicans 41% to 38%, also the smallest margin in over two years. Democrats held a 15-point lead in May on the issue.

Fifty-four percent (54%) of all voters say the average congressional Democrat is more liberal than they are, while 36% believe the average Republican congressman is more conservative in comparison to themselves. Just 44% say their own representative in Congress is about the same as them ideologically.

Republican candidates lead Democrats for the second straight week in the latest edition of the Generic Congressional Ballot. Support for the GOP remains unchanged this week - at its highest level over the past year, but support for Democrats dropped one point to tie its lowest level in the same time period

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/trust_on_issues/trust_on_issues

[Marx]

^I seriously doubt that people trust Republicans more than the Democrats at this point.

[SsM]

I don't trust either of them.

[StorminNorman]

^I seriously doubt that people trust Republicans more than the Democrats at this point.

Rasmussen polling > gut feeling

The political atmosphere is becoming fertile for the GOP. The economy and Democratic control of the White House and Congress are going to sink them.

[Marx]

If things do not improve, then yes, the midterms will be interesting.

[Scarlet spidey]

I'm almost positive things aren't going to improve.

[BlackLantern]

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-07-12/bullying-behind-gop-racist-win-5/?cid=hp:beastoriginalsC2

Audra Shay re-elected as head of Young Republicans

[Kelly]

She is certainly fodder for the left wing bloggers....quite a choice.

[Malice]

I am convinced, that the GOP (for good or bad) will take back majority in 2010 in the House. Just on the spending issues alone which is a hot topic right now.

[Venom'sDad]

Sorry Malice, that won't happen... they have a better chance in the Senate and I don't believe that will happen either. On a more positive note.... the Dems will lose their Filibuster Proof majority in the Senate. :)

The issue I see hurting the GOP is the rise for Third Party Sentiments. Many Mods, Ind, and some Cons are looking for a viable Third Party Candidate. I f they can't find one; a good percentage of them will simply not vote. Hurting the GOP to make some major gains in the House(not a majority) and preventing them from gaining a majority in the Senate.

The GOP will be stonger in the Governors seats.... those that are up for election.

[StorminNorman]

The issue I see hurting the GOP is the rise for Third Party Sentiments. Many Mods, Ind, and some Cons are looking for a viable Third Party Candidate. I f they can't find one; a good percentage of them will simply not vote. Hurting the GOP to make some major gains in the House(not a majority) and preventing them from gaining a majority in the Senate.

No.

[Superman]

Sorry Malice, that won't happen... they have a better chance in the Senate and I don't believe that will happen either. On a more positive note.... the Dems will lose their Filibuster Proof majority in the Senate. :)

The issue I see hurting the GOP is the rise for Third Party Sentiments. Many Mods, Ind, and some Cons are looking for a viable Third Party Candidate. I f they can't find one; a good percentage of them will simply not vote. Hurting the GOP to make some major gains in the House(not a majority) and preventing them from gaining a majority in the Senate.

The GOP will be stonger in the Governors seats.... those that are up for election.

the Dems will lose their Filibuster Proof majority in the Senate.I can see that happening.

[Kelly]

I can definitely see them losing the Filibuster proof majority.....and that will be a positive as far as I'm concerned. I have no problem with having more Dems than Reps....I just want more checks and balance than what we have now...

[BlackestNight]

I can definitely see them losing the Filibuster proof majority.....and that will be a positive as far as I'm concerned. I have no problem with having more Dems than Reps....I just want more checks and balance than what we have now...

Agreed :up:

Too much power in the hands of one party is never a good thing.