Yea, so much for a humble foreign policy eh?Turquoise wrote:
If Bush had kept his "no nation building" promise during his first campaign, he would've been a significantly better president.Ticia wrote:
Yep, all of the sudden W. doesn't seem so bad. Yikes.-MetaL* wrote:
I think the Democrats will end up winning. The Tea Party is pretty far right and should change some of their ideals and stances if they want to grab a hold of voters from the Independents, Undecided, and even dubious Democrat voters from getting their support.
Don't be so sure.-MetaL* wrote:
I think the Democrats will end up winning. The Tea Party is pretty far right and should change some of their ideals and stances if they want to grab a hold of voters from the Independents, Undecided, and even dubious Democrat voters from getting their support.
The thing is, up until the War with Iraq, I didn't have any big qualms with him. The tax cut plan could've worked in the long run, if he decreased government spending afterwards. Obviously, I can't expect him to have predicted 9/11, and I understand why we entered Afghanistan, but entering Iraq was just stupid.Phrozenbot wrote:
Yea, so much for a humble foreign policy eh?Turquoise wrote:
If Bush had kept his "no nation building" promise during his first campaign, he would've been a significantly better president.Ticia wrote:
Yep, all of the sudden W. doesn't seem so bad. Yikes.
It seems that, after invading Iraq, he started making a lot more mistakes.
I think the message they sent is not ~ We love O'Donnel X O X O X O ! but rather,
We think you suck ! you betrayed us, we hate you, get out. A child could out preform you.
Anybody or Anything will be a step up and breath of fresh air !
It was a punitive action.
If you don't get that message maybe you need to pay more attention.
sniff. .any strange smells from uziqe's room yet ? sniff. . .
We think you suck ! you betrayed us, we hate you, get out. A child could out preform you.
Anybody or Anything will be a step up and breath of fresh air !
It was a punitive action.
If you don't get that message maybe you need to pay more attention.
sniff. .any strange smells from uziqe's room yet ? sniff. . .
Last edited by Hunter/Jumper (2010-09-17 09:44:31)
Even the establishment right should worry, not just the democrats.
Yes, but even if a child could outperform the establishment candidate, is it really a good idea to elect a child? O'Donnell really is scraping the bottom of the barrel.Hunter/Jumper wrote:
I think the message they sent is not ~ We love O'Donnel X O X O X O ! but rather,
We think you suck ! you betrayed us, we hate you, get out. A child could out preform you.
Anybody or Anything will be a step up and breath of fresh air !
If you don't get that message maybe you need to pay more attention.
sniff. .any strange smells from uziqe's room yet ? sniff. . .
About the only time I've seen this Tea Party idea come to fruition in a way that has netted long term benefits for the GOP is the case of Scott Brown. They got behind him under the assumption he was some radical, but he's turned out to be a moderate guy -- which is a good thing for Massachusetts, because no conservative radical would survive long in that state. Brown is a fiscal conservative but a social moderate, which actually makes him viable as a long serving Republican in a heavily Democratic state.
That's the sort of approach the Tea Party should take more often. Support moderate Republicans in Democratic leaning states. That's more likely to give the GOP long term power. The Democrats did the equivalent of that in order to gain majorities in 2006.
I think the Iraq War was the Right move but its another post. agreed ? Besides Failing to getTurquoise wrote:
The thing is, up until the War with Iraq, I didn't have any big qualms with him. The tax cut plan could've worked in the long run, if he decreased government spending afterwards. Obviously, I can't expect him to have predicted 9/11, and I understand why we entered Afghanistan, but entering Iraq was just stupid.Phrozenbot wrote:
Yea, so much for a humble foreign policy eh?Turquoise wrote:
If Bush had kept his "no nation building" promise during his first campaign, he would've been a significantly better president.
It seems that, after invading Iraq, he started making a lot more mistakes.
Fannie Mae an Freddie Mac investigated and audited
even after His ( 12 ) attempts successfully parried by Nancy Pelosi and Her Majority.
( I think they should be given Credit for their role in Stopping any effort to look into the health and viability of those institutions.
Its almost like they knew a financial debacle would give them the White House. but, I don't think they F***Ked you on that. You didn't get played, they love you Guys ! HOPE and CHANGE !
I did, My gut feeling is He would have been happy playing both sides ( Like his dad ).Turq wrote:
The thing is, up until the War with Iraq, I didn't have any big qualms with him..
It was almost like the Presidency was just something he wanted to Have on his bucket list.
" Hey I'm a Bush - this is what we do and its my turn ! "
( Still better than Gore and Kerry but that is not exactly a Resume enhancement is it ? )
What drew me towards him was how they immediately and relentlessly attacked him on every dam thing.
A U.S. Sub Rams a Japanese Vessel and it Bush's Fault. A Chinese Fighter Jet Rams a U.S. Intelligence gathering plane and " It's Bush's fault "
Every Networks reports on the Conflicts in Free Iraq and Afghanistan started with " the total count in the war is 3672 Casualties so far ! "
It never Ended. Oddly the the " total casualty counts " stopped on the very night obama was elected, now we never hear about it.
Just like after being the Lead story every night for a year and the Number One Campaign issue,
the " Homelessness Reports " stopped. Election Night 1992.
Last edited by Hunter/Jumper (2010-09-17 08:25:59)
If you can appreciate the absurdity of Bush Derangement Syndrome, then you should be able to acknowledgement the same concerning the current Obama Derangement Syndrome.Hunter/Jumper wrote:
What drew me towards him was how they immediately and relentlessly attacked him on every dam thing.
who ever thinks the iraq war was the right thing to do is a big fat giant retard.
Tu Stultus Es
Scott Brown was never a radical and is essentially a status quo tool. The victory was seizing the democratic fortress of Massachusetts and desecrating it with a republican. Democrats didn't expect it, especially what's her face who was running for that seat. It is a perfect example of the situation for democrats as a whole. O'Donnell has also shown that simply being a republican does not mean you are safe from being ousted. Everyone is starting to be held accountable.Turquoise wrote:
Yes, but even if a child could outperform the establishment candidate, is it really a good idea to elect a child? O'Donnell really is scraping the bottom of the barrel.
About the only time I've seen this Tea Party idea come to fruition in a way that has netted long term benefits for the GOP is the case of Scott Brown. They got behind him under the assumption he was some radical, but he's turned out to be a moderate guy -- which is a good thing for Massachusetts, because no conservative radical would survive long in that state. Brown is a fiscal conservative but a social moderate, which actually makes him viable as a long serving Republican in a heavily Democratic state.
That's the sort of approach the Tea Party should take more often. Support moderate Republicans in Democratic leaning states. That's more likely to give the GOP long term power. The Democrats did the equivalent of that in order to gain majorities in 2006.
However, you are sounding a bit like Karl Rove.
If supporting more moderates in office makes me Rove, then so be it.Phrozenbot wrote:
Scott Brown was never a radical and is essentially a status quo tool. The victory was seizing the democratic fortress of Massachusetts and desecrating it with a republican. Democrats didn't expect it, especially what's her face who was running for that seat. It is a perfect example of the situation for democrats as a whole. O'Donnell has also shown that simply being a republican does not mean you are safe from being ousted. Everyone is starting to be held accountable.Turquoise wrote:
Yes, but even if a child could outperform the establishment candidate, is it really a good idea to elect a child? O'Donnell really is scraping the bottom of the barrel.
About the only time I've seen this Tea Party idea come to fruition in a way that has netted long term benefits for the GOP is the case of Scott Brown. They got behind him under the assumption he was some radical, but he's turned out to be a moderate guy -- which is a good thing for Massachusetts, because no conservative radical would survive long in that state. Brown is a fiscal conservative but a social moderate, which actually makes him viable as a long serving Republican in a heavily Democratic state.
That's the sort of approach the Tea Party should take more often. Support moderate Republicans in Democratic leaning states. That's more likely to give the GOP long term power. The Democrats did the equivalent of that in order to gain majorities in 2006.
However, you are sounding a bit like Karl Rove.
O'Donnell is just an example of what happens when radicals come out in full force. The Republicans actually had a shot at winning the Delaware seat, but they blew it by making her the candidate. The people of Delaware are left-leaning to begin with and not especially religious. To run a religious radical in that state is just stupid.
If you want actual change in government, it requires a gradual shift toward reform -- not a short term descent into radicalism.
So put in a Republican who might, if they are feeling merciful and principled enough, act moderately conservative? I would rather attempt to vote in a Republican who is more principled than someone who isn't. The establishment, both (R) and (D), have both done a wonderful job of ruining this country. The republican strategist rhetoric is old now.
If I absolutely despise the 2 status quo candidates, I'll vote for someone who won't get elected. In that respect, I voted for Nader in 2000.Phrozenbot wrote:
So put in a Republican who might, if they are feeling merciful and principled enough, act moderately conservative? I would rather attempt to vote in a Republican who is more principled than someone who isn't. The establishment, both (R) and (D), have both done a wonderful job of ruining this country. The republican strategist rhetoric is old now.
In any situation other than that, I vote for the least of multiple evils.
So, knowing that the odds of O'Donnell actually winning Delaware are slim to none, I would most certainly have stuck with the establishment candidate in the GOP primary.
It doesn't matter how principled your candidate is, if he/she has no chance at actually getting a position.
Trash her if you like. That seems to happen alot with Conservative candidates. Dissent, Tolerance, Compasion, Divergent view and opinion etc, withstanding.Turquoise wrote:
Yes, but even if a child could outperform the establishment candidate, is it really a good idea to elect a child? .
Child beats Corrupt Fraud in my book.
As a matter of interest, From what mark do you measure ? Does she know Terrorists, Is she a Racist ? Can't she speak without a TelePrompter ?Turquoise wrote:
O'Donnell really is scraping the bottom of the barrel.
He campained as a Conservative "anything but business as Usual and Anti Democrat " and Won in a State that Had Ted Kennedy since 1968Turquoise wrote:
About the only time I've seen this Tea Party idea come to fruition in a way that has netted long term benefits for the GOP is the case of Scott Brown.
They got behind him under the assumption he was some radical,
It turned out he doesn't want to make waves, He wants to ride that seat for all its worth instead of representing the people that elected him. That sits with you ? " If Elected I will Do A,B,C,D&E " now that I am in let me make connections and play the system for all its worth.Turquoise wrote:
but he's turned out to be a moderate guy --
So what Your saying is that They want a Liberal Democrat ? Then that's who they ll elect next time. Its not like they will lose Representation. They still get 2 Senators. Are You a Citizen of the U.S.A. ?Turquoise wrote:
which is a good thing for Massachusetts, because no conservative radical would survive long in that state
That doesn't help the people who wanted to and did elect a Conservative Period.Turquoise wrote:
Brown is a fiscal conservative but a social moderate, which actually makes him viable as a long serving Republican in a heavily Democratic state.
The Tea Party wants a return to Fiscal Responsibility, Smaller Government and Reduced Tax Burden. Compromise has led the Republicans where they are now and many Americans are fed up with the political gymnastics they do just to retain power. They want real leadership from Principaled people they can trust.Turquoise wrote:
That's the sort of approach the Tea Party should take more often.
Again~Turquoise wrote:
Support moderate Republicans in Democratic leaning states
Moderate Republicans are not what they want. They want a New direction in government. Not compromise and watered down policies. The Left never moves toward center EVER. They just talk like that during campaign season. Tea Party is Tired of Republicans leaning left to garner favor and Hide from a hostile media. They feel its time to man up come What may.
Tea Party people could care less if the Republicans hold power at all.Turquoise wrote:
That's more likely to give the GOP long term power.
The Democrats won in 06 by Running out a couple gay men and Running up the Price of fuel almost 3 times what it was. Most non Presidential year elections swing back some to the party who doesn't hold the White House. This isn't the Ground swell people make it out to be, However By nature Conservatives are Private, Independent people who avoid hand outs and Government assistance. They are people who don't usually protest and Hold hands. We avoid crowds and our friend ship is won slowly. The size of the Tea Party Rally should worry some who haven't been honest or pulling their weight. I am not trying to sway your opinion, I am just trying to show you The point of view.Turquoise wrote:
The Democrats did the equivalent of that in order to gain majorities in 2006.
Turq you are missing the point. The voting between two evils isn't the only practical answer anymore. Candidates worth voting for and standing by actually have a chance of winning.
However, there are still people who believe that voting 3rd party or for a less popular candidate is a wasted vote. You might as well not have voted, and if you didn't vote you've tread on the blood of those who have fought for your freedom. It is your right to vote and not vote, and if we are all expected to vote for either or, what real freedom is there in having an opinion? It is such non-sense.
..and I guess Christie O'Donnell isn't one of them (sigh)
However, there are still people who believe that voting 3rd party or for a less popular candidate is a wasted vote. You might as well not have voted, and if you didn't vote you've tread on the blood of those who have fought for your freedom. It is your right to vote and not vote, and if we are all expected to vote for either or, what real freedom is there in having an opinion? It is such non-sense.
I like puppies. They are so cute and cuddly and warm and squishy lol.eleven bravo wrote:
and a puppy for everybody!Cybargs wrote:
tax cuts and limited gov spending.Dilbert_X wrote:
So apart from 'we hate Obama' do they have any actual plans or policies?
..and I guess Christie O'Donnell isn't one of them (sigh)
Last edited by Phrozenbot (2010-09-17 10:28:06)
The problem is...when you get a candidate that leans further to the right or left than is comfortable for the opposite leaning voter, they may be more willing to vote in favor of a candidate that stands closer to the middle in order to save that position from the extreme.
I think it also pushes people who are fairly middle of the road further away from that extreme. So, people who are just right of center may be put off by such extreme conservatism and vote for a left of center candidate.
It definitely happens when there is a very liberal candidate. I see it happening here too.
I think it also pushes people who are fairly middle of the road further away from that extreme. So, people who are just right of center may be put off by such extreme conservatism and vote for a left of center candidate.
It definitely happens when there is a very liberal candidate. I see it happening here too.
...
Religious nuts don't appeal to me. Candidates who are against abortion even in cases of rape fucking disgust me.Hunter/Jumper wrote:
Trash her if you like. That seems to happen alot with Conservative candidates. Dissent, Tolerance, Compasion, Divergent view and opinion etc, withstanding.
Child beats Corrupt Fraud in my book.
As a matter of interest, From what mark do you measure ? Does she know Terrorists, Is she a Racist ? Can't she speak without a TelePrompter ?
So you want a candidate that serves one term, makes waves, but ultimately gets no policy through. Great plan there.Hunter/Jumper wrote:
He campained as a Conservative "anything but business as Usual and Anti Democrat " and Won in a State that Had Ted Kennedy since 1968
It turned out he doesn't want to make waves, He wants to ride that seat for all its worth instead of representing the people that elected him. That sits with you ? " If Elected I will Do A,B,C,D&E " now that I am in let me make connections and play the system for all its worth.
Surely, you understand the concept that some states are far more liberal than others, and that consequently, you have to run candidates there that are compatible with the local politics. The Democrats understand this well. They run conservative Democrats in conservative states.Hunter/Jumper wrote:
So what Your saying is that They want a Liberal Democrat ? Then that's who they ll elect next time. Its not like they will lose Representation. They still get 2 Senators. Are You a Citizen of the U.S.A. ?
And if the people that you consider as conservative are considerably fewer in number than the rest of the population, then the candidates should reflect that. You're clearly more conservative than the average Massachusetts citizen, which is why even the Republican would likely be too liberal for your tastes. However, that means that parties will most likely overlook your stances in favor of ones that match the majority better. That's democracy, sorry.Hunter/Jumper wrote:
That doesn't help the people who wanted to and did elect a Conservative Period.
At some point, you're going to have to realize that a lot of people in a lot of states are much more liberal than you. When you come to grips with this, then maybe you'll see why few candidates match your preferences.Hunter/Jumper wrote:
The Tea Party wants a return to Fiscal Responsibility, Smaller Government and Reduced Tax Burden. Compromise has led the Republicans where they are now and many Americans are fed up with the political gymnastics they do just to retain power. They want real leadership from Principaled people they can trust.
And the big two parties don't care so much about what the Tea Party wants, because most Tea Partiers are pretty out there. When you're more conservative than the most conservative major party in the First World, then yes, people will view you as somewhat nutty.Hunter/Jumper wrote:
Again~
Moderate Republicans are not what they want. They want a New direction in government. Not compromise and watered down policies. The Left never moves toward center EVER. They just talk like that during campaign season. Tea Party is Tired of Republicans leaning left to garner favor and Hide from a hostile media. They feel its time to man up come What may.
Tea Party people could care less if the Republicans hold power at all.
And I'm suggesting that the Tea Party will most likely fizzle out soon, as rednecks decide to freak out less with more Republicans in power.Hunter/Jumper wrote:
The Democrats won in 06 by Running out a couple gay men and Running up the Price of fuel almost 3 times what it was. Most non Presidential year elections swing back some to the party who doesn't hold the White House. This isn't the Ground swell people make it out to be, However By nature Conservatives are Private, Independent people who avoid hand outs and Government assistance. They are people who don't usually protest and Hold hands. We avoid crowds and our friend ship is won slowly. The size of the Tea Party Rally should worry some who haven't been honest or pulling their weight. I am not trying to sway your opinion, I am just trying to show you The point of view.
Depends on what's more important to you. She hasn't shown that she's fiscally conservative, only socially uber-conservative. If she gets elected she'll try to launch some stupid moral crusade and vote the party line on economic issues because she's too stupid to understand them. I fail to see how that is a win by any means.Phrozenbot wrote:
So put in a Republican who might, if they are feeling merciful and principled enough, act moderately conservative? I would rather attempt to vote in a Republican who is more principled than someone who isn't. The establishment, both (R) and (D), have both done a wonderful job of ruining this country. The republican strategist rhetoric is old now.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
What people should take out of this is that Politics as usual, compromise and sell outs may not carry the day. It was after all, Bidens State.Turquoise wrote:
If you can appreciate the absurdity of Bush Derangement Syndrome, then you should be able to acknowledgement the same concerning the current Obama Derangement Syndrome.Hunter/Jumper wrote:
What drew me towards him was how they immediately and relentlessly attacked him on every dam thing.
They thought it was their birth right, They're indigent, they didn't even send acknowledgement of congratulations. They are acting like petulant pouting children.
It may do you well to look into the backgrounds of some of the Appointees, Tsars and Supreme Court Justices. Their Quotes, Hero's, Books, Writings, Beliefs and Histories. With the same zeal. This is no longer of case of " They're a bunch of fat cat out to make money they must be evil !These people have defined themselves for you. You just have to look a little bit and decide if you like what you see.
Last edited by Hunter/Jumper (2010-09-17 09:26:20)
The only way third party candidates will become more than a spoiler vote is if Instant Runoff Voting is implemented. That is the only real avenue for the reform you're looking for.Phrozenbot wrote:
Turq you are missing the point. The voting between two evils isn't the only practical answer anymore. Candidates worth voting for and standing by actually have a chance of winning.
However, there are still people who believe that voting 3rd party or for a less popular candidate is a wasted vote. You might as well not have voted, and if you didn't vote you've tread on the blood of those who have fought for your freedom. It is your right to vote and not vote, and if we are all expected to vote for either or, what real freedom is there in having an opinion? It is such non-sense.
It'll be amusing to watch the Republicans throw away a sure thing.JohnG@lt wrote:
Depends on what's more important to you. She hasn't shown that she's fiscally conservative, only socially uber-conservative. If she gets elected she'll try to launch some stupid moral crusade and vote the party line on economic issues because she's too stupid to understand them. I fail to see how that is a win by any means.Phrozenbot wrote:
So put in a Republican who might, if they are feeling merciful and principled enough, act moderately conservative? I would rather attempt to vote in a Republican who is more principled than someone who isn't. The establishment, both (R) and (D), have both done a wonderful job of ruining this country. The republican strategist rhetoric is old now.
Posting this for the 3rd time in the thread, maybe SOMEONE will watch itghettoperson wrote:
It'll be amusing to watch the Republicans throw away a sure thing.JohnG@lt wrote:
Depends on what's more important to you. She hasn't shown that she's fiscally conservative, only socially uber-conservative. If she gets elected she'll try to launch some stupid moral crusade and vote the party line on economic issues because she's too stupid to understand them. I fail to see how that is a win by any means.Phrozenbot wrote:
So put in a Republican who might, if they are feeling merciful and principled enough, act moderately conservative? I would rather attempt to vote in a Republican who is more principled than someone who isn't. The establishment, both (R) and (D), have both done a wonderful job of ruining this country. The republican strategist rhetoric is old now.
http://www.xtranormal.com/watch/7140347/
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
I hate to do this to you, but a quick summary? The video won't load for me.
I didn't try and Defend her, I just asked " by what mark do you measure ? " Why do I have the feeling people would be more tolerant if she was perhaps a muslim. I think below this is your view in its summation.
We don't need to discuss much more. Thanks for your time though !Turquoise wrote:
And I'm suggesting that the Tea Party will most likely fizzle out soon, as rednecks decide to freak out less with more Republicans in power.
ghettoperson wrote:
I hate to do this to you, but a quick summary? The video won't load for me.
just replace "iPhone" with conservative
Tu Stultus Es