View Full Version : "November can't come soon enough"
parishioner
05-21-10, 11:59
I'm seeing the title of this thread posted a lot lately obviously due to the completely and utterly disgusting clown show we have going on in Washington currently but it got me thinking.
How significant do you think the tea partiers will be in these elections? This is just from what I see and could be gauging the situation incorrectly but I'm thinking that since they aren't exactly thrilled with the GOP they could vote third party conservative, splitting the conservative vote thus allowing the Democrats to possibly remain in office. I also think though that when it comes down to it, they won't split the vote to let a Dem squeak by and win the election.
I know its a little early for speculation since things wont be heating up until August and September but I just wanted to hear some of your thoughts on how you think things will shake out come November.
rifleman2000
05-21-10, 12:09
If you believe in God, pray. These next elections may very well determine the fate of our country.
Well I can say this. The Tea Party got Rand Paul through the Primary in KY and he is about as qualified as a 10 year old would be to be in the Senate.
The Tea Party is a good group but it is being hijacked by special interests groups just like any other political group.
The_War_Wagon
05-21-10, 12:21
This shall be the winter of our discontent... :mad:
Assuming we SURVIVE the summer... :eek:
It will take a large incoming class of freshmen Congressmen that have a clear, courageous focus to repeal all of the damages done to our country over the last few years. Action must be quick and the results will be painful but necessary. So much is already moving that I'm afraid sheer inertia will be our undoing.
How many people could get elected and then actually do the following:
Repeal Healthcare
Repeal the financial reform
Stop the Community ReInvestment Act (which got us here in the first place. Ever wonder why the banks all went south at roughly the same time? When Congress mandated banks HAD to loan to people who weren't qualified by traditional methods, that started the bomb and it was just a matter of time...)
Cut our budget dramatically
Cut taxes dramatically
Enforce the Immigration laws on the books
Begin a phase out of Social Security, Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation, National Endowment for the Arts, etc...
No, I'm just not thinking that we have the time or the backbone to do the right and hard things...
parishioner
05-21-10, 14:01
If you believe in God, pray. These next elections may very well determine the fate of our country.
No kidding. Reading news stories lately literally makes me feel like we are living in a sick and twisted dream, not America. I'm mainly worried about the economy at the moment. We are flat broke and our genius leaders think they can print money and spend our way out of this mess. All the other crap going will be meaning less when the dollar collapses.
The Democrats will lose some of their cushion in the House but will retain control.
They'll hold the Senate. Only a third of the seats are up for grabs to begin with.
Obama will obviously still be in the White House.
Even if the Republicans could gain control of Congress, it'd take a 2/3 majority to override the presidential veto if they wanted to repeal anything. Ain't gonna happen. Once benefit programs are put in place, they don't go away...and though the Republican party was relatively united in opposition to some of these things, it might (read: will) be a different story if it came to "taking away our healthcare".
People who are heralding November 2010 as the saving of the Republic are sorely mistaken, in my opinion.
GermanSynergy
05-21-10, 14:32
If you believe in God, pray. These next elections may very well determine the fate of our country.
Couldn't have said it better myself.
No kidding. Reading news stories lately literally makes me feel like we are living in a sick and twisted dream, not America.
For the very first time I am feeling a deep seated tinge of that very unsettling something that must have overcome those before and during the Revolution. A feeling of the need to regain a sense of control before all is lost. And I'm not talking about sending more emails or making more phone calls to my local officials as usual. I need to find my local Tea Party chapter and join for starters, then go from there.
That scene yesterday in Congress was flat out scary. We have way too many of the wrong people in charge. Way, way too many.
Well I can say this. The Tea Party got Rand Paul through the Primary in KY and he is about as qualified as a 10 year old would be to be in the Senate.
Please qualify your assertion. There are only 3 qualifications to be a U.S. Senator 1) each senator must be at least 30 years old, 2) must have been a citizen of the United States for at least the past nine years, and 3) must be (at the time of the election) an inhabitant of the state he or she seeks to represent.
http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/thegaggle/archive/2010/05/20/purity-may-be-rand-paul-s-greatest-strength-but-it-s-also-his-greatest-weakness.aspx
Rand Paul is a purist.
If his qualifications for that title were ever in doubt, they're not anymore. Less than 36 hours after Kentucky Republicans chose Paul as their 2010 U.S. Senate nominee, the Bowling Green ophthalmologist has now plunged head first into a scalding vat of political hot water by declaring that the 1964 Civil Rights Act should not have prohibited private business owners from discriminating against potential customers because of the color of their skin.
Belmont31R
05-21-10, 15:41
November will help but getting Obama out after 1 term will do a lot more along with some more dems in Congress.
Frankly Im not too thrilled about Republicans, either, but it sure beats commies running things hell bent on destroying what is America, and instituting their little version of the USSR or PRK.
Ok let me rephrase things. Rand Paul is a nut. While I agree with him on some issues he is a terrible candidate and would make a terrible senator. For the record I have met him numerous times and know Trey Greyson. I believe in supporting a candidate who represents me and can get elected. Rand is neither.
Not to mention the illegal acts committed by his people on election day.
Paul is a nut .... he is a terrible candidate and would make a terrible senator
And you know this how? Because you have the power to see into the future and know what his career would be like? :rolleyes:
That is YOUR OPINION, so please refrain from using YOUR OPINION to make unsubstantiated claims. When you do give it, label it as YOUR OPINION unless you have tangible, objective facts that back up what you're saying. He made it through the primaries, so obviously there's several thousand people who disagree with you.
Well I can say this. The Tea Party got Rand Paul through the Primary in KY and he is about as qualified as a 10 year old would be to be in the Senate.
The Party of Pissed Off is here...if you are a washington regular, it is time to go the hell home.
Too poopoo rand right now is the wrong attitude & I know nothing about the guy. I'll take a 10yr old over 95% of the current elected officials if it has a chance to railroad the direction this nation is headed.
The Party of Pissed Off is here...if you are a washington regular, it is time to go the hell home.
Too poopoo rand right now is the wrong attitude & I know nothing about the guy. I'll take a 10yr old over 95% of the current elected officials if it has a chance to railroad the direction this nation is headed.
+1. If "qualified" means having more of what we currently have in Washington, screw that. They've run our country into the ground for long enough, both Democrats and Republicans. It's time to remove them.
I agree with getting rid of the Washington Regulars. Hell I am doing my part right now to do just that. I work for a candidate who is newer to this than Rand even is. We just beat a guy who has been in office before and was on his 5th Congressional Bid.
But Rand is a Truther with no understanding of how the system actually works. His comments on the Civil Rights act are the perfect example. He opposes it on the grounds of personal freedom. Ok I think we can all see where he is coming from. But instead of saying that he just says he opposes the Civil rights act, period. You can no say something like that if you want to be in office. It can't happen.
He comes off as a conspiracy theorist and has given the actions and words of some of his staffers they may be flat out off their rocker. I remember one guy saying something about the Fed Kindnapping the baby of an official and Rand just sat there and smiled.
None of us want the current idiots in Washington. But that doesn't mean we need new idiots. We need people that can actually do something.
Please qualify your assertion. There are only 3 qualifications to be a U.S. Senator 1) each senator must be at least 30 years old, 2) must have been a citizen of the United States for at least the past nine years, and 3) must be (at the time of the election) an inhabitant of the state he or she seeks to represent.
What he said.
Ok let me rephrase things. Rand Paul is a nut. While I agree with him on some issues he is a terrible candidate and would make a terrible senator. For the record I have met him numerous times and know Trey Greyson. I believe in supporting a candidate who represents me and can get elected. Rand is neither.
Not to mention the illegal acts committed by his people on election day.
What makes you consider Rand Paul a nut? Why is he a terrible candidate and why would he make a terrible senator? What illegal acts were committed by Rand Paul's "people"? Did he sanction or was he otherwise involved in their illegal acts?
I agree with getting rid of the Washington Regulars. Hell I am doing my part right now to do just that. I work for a candidate who is newer to this than Rand even is. We just beat a guy who has been in office before and was on his 5th Congressional Bid.
Does your affiliation with the person you're working with have anything to do with your view of Paul?
But Rand is a Truther with no understanding of how the system actually works. His comments on the Civil Rights act are the perfect example. He opposes it on the grounds of personal freedom. Ok I think we can all see where he is coming from. But instead of saying that he just says he opposes the Civil rights act, period. You can no say something like that if you want to be in office. It can't happen.
Please define "Truther" and how do you know he doesn't understand how the system works? His father's been a Congressman for Texas for numerous years and also a Presidential candidate so I'm sure he has a little clue as to what happens in D.C.
He comes off as a conspiracy theorist and has given the actions and words of some of his staffers they may be flat out off their rocker. I remember one guy saying something about the Fed Kindnapping the baby of an official and Rand just sat there and smiled.
Please be more specific. "I remember one guy saying something..." is not very remarkable and you'd be much better served providing specifics or links to the occurances.
None of us want the current idiots in Washington. But that doesn't mean we need new idiots. We need people that can actually do something.
Slander... not much behind that other than a poor choice of unsubstantiated words. I don't know too much about Rand Paul but I know if he's anything like his old man, which he is, than I'd take him over most of the old regime anyday. As a side note I'll be in Louisville next week.
Does your affiliation with the person you're working with have anything to do with your view of Paul?
Please define "Truther" and how do you know he doesn't understand how the system works? His father's been a Congressman for Texas for numerous years and also a Presidential candidate so I'm sure he has a little clue as to what happens in D.C.
Please be more specific. "I remember one guy saying something..." is not very remarkable and you'd be much better served providing specifics or links to the occurances.
Slander... not much behind that other than a poor choice of unsubstantiated words. I don't know too much about Rand Paul but I know if he's anything like his old man, which he is, than I'd take him over most of the old regime anyday. As a side note I'll be in Louisville next week.
Dammit. I had a huge reply done up and lost it. Will reply later. By the way make sure you stop by and see Joe at Superior firearms when you are in Louisville.
Dammit. I had a huge reply done up and lost it. Will reply later. By the way make sure you stop by and see Joe at Superior firearms when you are in Louisville.
I've had it happen before and it seems like the 2nd time around it never sounds quite as good. Thanks for the recommendation I plan on dropping off a S&W 442 while I'm there :D
Watching healthcare get rammed through, I can only imagine what they'll ram through between Nov and Jan when they have nothing to lose:(
Heavy Metal
05-22-10, 12:43
The Democrats will lose some of their cushion in the House but will retain control.
They'll hold the Senate. Only a third of the seats are up for grabs to begin with.
Obama will obviously still be in the White House.
Even if the Republicans could gain control of Congress, it'd take a 2/3 majority to override the presidential veto if they wanted to repeal anything. Ain't gonna happen. Once benefit programs are put in place, they don't go away...and though the Republican party was relatively united in opposition to some of these things, it might (read: will) be a different story if it came to "taking away our healthcare".
People who are heralding November 2010 as the saving of the Republic are sorely mistaken, in my opinion.
I used to think as you do but now I think it is about an 80% certainty the Dems will lost the house. I believe the Dems lead in the Senate will be cut to 51 or 52 Senators.
As far as Healthcare goes, the Republicans don't have to overturn it immediately, they can simply refuse to provide funds to set up the bureauracy and that is exactly what they are talking about doing. The Healthcare bill was an authorization bill, not a funding bill.
Heavy Metal
05-22-10, 12:44
Watching healthcare get rammed through, I can only imagine what they'll ram through between Nov and Jan when they have nothing to lose:(
They can still be filibustered.
kwelz - Here's a pretty good article on the Rand Paul Civil Rights debacle, definitely libertarian leaning but keep an open mind. He also illustrates how this relates to citizens who carry a gun for self defense, definitely worth a read. http://www.newjerseynewsroom.com/commentary/rand-paul-is-right-rachel-maddow-is-wrong-anti-discrimination-laws-discriminate
As I predicted Wednesday, the demonization of Rand Paul has begun. On Wednesday evening Paul was a guest on Rachel Maddow's MSNBC show and was asked about his support of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the landmark legislation that bans discrimination in so-called public accommodations (i.e., private businesses) and government facilities on the basis of race, color, sex and national origin.
Paul gave a reasoned, thoughtful response, namely that anti-discrimination statutes have worthy goals, but the means used to ban racism, sexism, etc., in private businesses violate the property rights of individuals. He also pointed out that the 1964 Civil Rights Act banning governmental discrimination was a monumental achievement.
The New York Times "smells blood" and on today's front page carries an article, "Tea Party Pick Causes Uproar On Civil Rights." Quoting both Republican and Democrat politicians the article asserts that Rand Paul's views on civil rights are ‘extreme' and ‘out of the mainstream."
Why is it "extreme" to question the best way to end racism, sexism, anti-Semitism, etc., in our society? Why is it "out of the mainstream" to discuss whether the federal government can abridge the property rights of individuals to achieve a noble goal?
As Rand Paul stated in his interview with Maddow he is opposed to any form of racism. You would think that would satisfy Maddow who was unwilling and apparently unable to grasp Dr. Paul's response, namely, that once the federal government creates a "right' to enter a private premise and demand service, then you should be careful what you wish for.
Dr. Paul calmly explained to Ms. Maddow the "logic' of the Civil Rights Act; gun owners will demand that they have the right to carry a firearm in restaurants, bars and other private facilities. If they are denied that right, as Paul made clear, gun owners would assert that their Second Amendment rights are being violated. And he would be right. But Maddow would not have any of this. She kept pestering Paul about black people being refused to be served at lunch counters.
There are numerous flaws in the public accommodation section of the Civil Rights Act. There is no constitutional right to enter someone else's property, even if it is a business. Just because a business is "open to the public" it does not mean that the federal government may force owners to welcome anyone who wants to be a customer. Moreover, as a youngster when I watched the news about the civil rights movement on television during the 1950s and 1960s I wondered why black people wanted to patronize racist business owners.
The last thing a victim of private discrimination should want to do is increase the profits of racists, sexist, homophobes or anti-Semites. On a personal level, as a son of Holocaust survivors, I would not patronize a business owned by a Holocaust denier or an anti-Semite.
But how would I know that if the Civil Rights Act forbids that information to be known? In other words, I would welcome a sign in a store or business that states clearly and unequivocally, "No Jews allowed," or "The Holocaust didn't happen." (The last sign would be allowed under the First Amendment.) In short, the first sign is banned under the Civil Rights Act, but it is important for Jews to know if a business owner is an anti-Semite in order to not patronize or work for a business I and my fellow Jews would not want to enrich.
The Civil Rights Act discriminates against minority groups because they lack the information needed so they could withhold their dollars and labor services from discriminators. The best way to "punish" discriminators is in the pocketbook, not to pass a law. But the Civil Rights Act does not do that, instead it enriches boorish behavior and thoughts. Racist business owners are forced to sell to black people and make profits, and in the "shadows" they may be funding the local Ku Klux Klan chapter. Racists in America are getting rich and perpetuating racism because of the Civil Rights Act. How ironic!
There are other flaws in the Civil Rights Act. The right of association used to be a cherished right in America, except now when it comes to business owners. There are numerous groups that are based on race, sex, national origin, religion, etc. Should the Congressional Black Caucus be desegregated? If not, why is it OK for the CBC to use tax money to discriminate against white members of Congress, apparently in violation of the Civil Rights Act?
If one of the goals of civil rights legislation is to end discrimination in our society, it does not address the following issue: every American can discriminate against any business. For example, black people can refuse to patronize white owned businesses, which is their right in a free society. By the same token, shouldn't business owners have the same right as individuals to choose to whom to do business with? Maddow would say businesses cannot discriminate because they have "power." Nonsense. The public has more power than any single business-small, medium and large.
In other words, the ‘right to choose" by every American is supposed to be a sacrosanct right. Rand Paul supports the right of Americans to be free, while Rachel Maddow wants the power of the federal government to make people "good, an idea that is the foundation of an authoritarian society.
"Qualified to be in the Senate"?
No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen.
I'd prefer to have someone who genuinely wanted this country to succeed in place than a lawyer with solely self-motivated aspirations of power, money or higher office.
my wife and i talk regularly about the state of the country now[in our sixties] as opposed as to our youth. i honestly beleive that the caldero assault on the u.s. senate, AND THEN BEING APPLAUDED, is another milestone of the demise of this country. my ass still burns about this, somebody best wake up, this country is surely headed down the path of no return. positively, absolutely, the inmates are running the assylum,,,
The Tea Party supporters know that a third party would just re-elect Obama and be counter-productive.
LegalAlien
05-22-10, 16:58
The Tea Party supporters know that a third party would just re-elect Obama and be counter-productive.
To actually start a new party takes many $$$$$$'s
A 3rd party is not the answer. The two party system is so entrenched in the US political arena that it is economically almost impossible for a new party to enter. 'Startup' cost will be astronomical. The existing political machine has to be the vehicle to get 'new blood' into Congress.
Look at it this way, the Socialist and Communist parties are both leeching off the Democrat party and using an established party structure in the US political machine to gain entrance. Result - the Democrat party has drifted so far left of center due to Socialist, Communist, Progressive influences, it is not the Democratic Party of 50yrs ago. Many Democrat congress men/women are so far left, they might as well declare their full Socialist party affiliations.
Using these same tactics, the Tea Party can use the Republican party as their vehicle to gain entry and over time, with enough influence, have the opposite affect on the party to oust the more liberal/progressive elements and return to the Republican Party 'roots', and achieve this without needing major funding sources.
It has been done on the left. It can be achieved on the right.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.