Barry Hufker wrote on Wed, 03 November 2010 00:44 |
Feingold and Grayson losing... that's the toughest. Guess we'll see how the country goes for the next two years as we pursue a more conservative agenda. Unfortunately, we never pursued a liberal one.. |
Jay Kadis wrote on Wed, 03 November 2010 08:06 |
California is still ahead of the curve. It could have been worse. |
Taproot wrote on Wed, 03 November 2010 07:46 | ||
I wonder how many stoners will show up to the polls today to vote for Prop 19? |
Les Ismore wrote on Wed, 03 November 2010 16:37 |
God bless America. "Obama hasn't gotten enough accomplished to please me. So I'm going to vote so that he can't get anything accomplished from now on!" |
Barry Hufker wrote |
Feingold and Grayson losing... that's the toughest. |
Fiasco wrote on Wed, 03 November 2010 17:57 |
Perhaps that's the problem, people looking to the government to do something to "please" them. |
jonathan jetter wrote on Wed, 03 November 2010 21:31 |
2 years ago voting out all the republicans was going to solve our problems. 2 years later voting out all the democrats is going to solve all our problems. |
jonathan jetter wrote on Wed, 03 November 2010 21:31 |
i think the bigger issue is that the average voter is so ignorant that he almost brings it upon himself. |
Edvaard wrote on Wed, 03 November 2010 23:17 |
Print media editors and TV media producers (and their online extensions) are paid quite handsomely to make sure that all issues are presented to the masses with minimal useful content and maximum focus on contentiousness. Their exemplary record for leaving the most obvious and most germane questions unasked on any given issue is quite astounding. |
Edvaard wrote | ||||
|
Fiasco wrote | ||
|
PRobb wrote on Wed, 03 November 2010 17:59 |
I can't watch the tea party people. How can anyone not see they're totally full of crap. CUT SPENDING!!! Ever see someone ask them to specify exactly what spending they think they're gonna cut? Major tap dancing. We're gonna cut that spending. But we're not gonna touch Social Security, Medicare and the military. Yeah, right. I'm gonna quit drinking. Except for beer, wine and vodka. Idiots. |
Kris wrote on Thu, 04 November 2010 08:26 |
Did you ramp up your spending to exorbitant amounts in this down economy to stimulate your families growth? Just curious... Common sense for a typical family man dictates that you cut spending when things are tough... Ideally you want to continue to feed your family. Why is it 'full of crap' for a tea party person to think their Gov't shouldn't consider doing the same...and voicing their opinion about it, considering it's their money and all? If you asked them where they'd cut spending in their own family budget I be they could give you specifics. Not everyone is a political scientist...doesn't make them an idiot! |
ssltech wrote on Thu, 04 November 2010 12:17 |
It shall ever more be thus, for so long as people are foolish enough to confuse politics with government. Politics is to government as marketing is to engineering. Monster cable will fix poor room acoustics. -Apparently. |
PRobb wrote on Thu, 04 November 2010 10:09 | ||
This is the same line of crap we've been hearing from the right for 30 years. And we're not supposed to notice that we haven't seen the spending cuts. CUT SPENDING!!! YAAAAY! WE WON!!!! YAAAYY! OK, here's the spending cuts YAAAHANGON. Wait a minute, don't cut THAT. We want that. Everybody hates pork as long as their guy brings home the bacon. It's inherently dishonest. That it continues to work is depressing. |
Edvaard wrote on Thu, 04 November 2010 10:44 |
Tea partiers and others like them are Rumpelstiltskins when the party that actually drives up the deficit is in action, then they all of a sudden wake up and point fingers at the party that is left to clean up the mess because the process of cleaning up disturbs their gentle senses. Oooooh, so sorry. Just go back to sleep now. |
YZ wrote on Thu, 04 November 2010 10:31 |
Any government that does precisely what's needed by the country, with no unnecessary/hidden benefits to any group/sector, with the focus on long-term solutions and no regard for ideology, just for actual results, will be hated by all sides. |
bblackwood wrote on Thu, 04 November 2010 12:10 | ||
I'm neither a tea-partier nor a republican, but it's dishonest to blame the president for overspending - the House approves taxation and spending and it's been run by the D's since 2006. Likewise, while Clinton certainly was the driving force behind it, the budgets which resulted in a surplus were voted on and passed by a R led House. It's not so cut-and-dried as what letter is beside which name. Both parties have screwed us over, and asking them to make cuts necessary to protect our economy isn't foolish, imo. Do I think it will happen? Probably not. |
Kris wrote on Thu, 04 November 2010 11:10 |
You didn't answer my question. You'd make a wonderful politician. Good for you. |
Kris wrote on Thu, 04 November 2010 09:34 |
Wasn't there some incredible and unprecedented spending taking place when the 'tea party people' came along? |
Kris wrote on Thu, 04 November 2010 09:34 |
My point is that thinking the principles you and your family live by when it comes to money should also apply to your Government doesn't make you full of crap and and idiot. If that's your arguement then you've already lost. |
Kris wrote on Thu, 04 November 2010 09:34 |
My point is that thinking the principles you and your family live by when it comes to money should also apply to your Government doesn't make you full of crap and and idiot. If that's your argument then you've already lost. |
Jay Kadis wrote on Thu, 04 November 2010 12:45 |
There are significant differences between individual financial responsibility and how the national government operates. The Federal government can do things the individual cannot - print more money, raise taxes, change interest rates, etc. Simply equating the two is an over-simplification. |
Kris wrote on Thu, 04 November 2010 10:03 | ||
And there lies the debate. One I'm not qualified for! I'm all for simplifying things though, when and if possible... Use that mute button! |
Kris wrote on Thu, 04 November 2010 12:46 |
Saying you answered my question when you didn't? You lost my vote! |
Berolzheimer wrote on Thu, 04 November 2010 16:21 |
Republicorp spent 7 times as much as the Dems & their supporters in this election. In a way it's encouraging that, despite that, they didn't take over the Senate. |
Skullsessions wrote |
...the most ... unqualified President of all time? |
ssltech wrote on Thu, 04 November 2010 20:56 | ||
nope. That would be his predecessor. To whos 'unqualified', you might add 'inept' and -just to add insult to those who can clearly speak and think- 'ineloquent'. |
Skullsessions wrote on Thu, 04 November 2010 20:49 |
You liberal progressives instinctively know that you've been caught red-handed...and that's why you're shitting yourselves right now. |
Quote: |
You who argue that Tea Partiers aren't upset about federal spending prior to Obama aren't listening. It took both GWB and BHO to bring the pot to a boil. Bickering over D's and R's is to miss the fact that Tea Partiers don't care about D's and R's. You're all fair game. |
Quote: |
And I think the fact that Tea Partiers were knowingly willing to lose a couple of battles this time around shows that they stand for concrete principals, rather than group-think "we gotta have more R's than D's". |
Quote: |
If the R's survive the next decade, it's because they will move to the Tea Partiers...not the other way around. |
Quote: |
ELECTIONS HAVE CONSEQUENCES. Indeed. The election of BHO is bringing about consequences that no one intended. On the heels of a two-term "conservative" President that turned his back on conservatism and ran up a giant deficit, we get the most liberal, progressive, leftist, unqualified President of all time? THAT almost makes me want to believe in God. Is that YOU, baby Jesus, that woke everyone up from their slumber? |
ssltech wrote on Thu, 04 November 2010 19:56 | ||
nope. That would be his predecessor. To whos 'unqualified', you might add 'inept' and -just to add insult to those who can clearly speak and think- 'ineloquent'. |
PRobb wrote on Thu, 04 November 2010 20:50 | ||||
Really. People who supported Bush don't get to talk about qualified. People who support Palin don't get to even think about it. |
Skullsessions wrote on Thu, 04 November 2010 17:49 |
we get the most liberal, progressive, leftist, unqualified President of all time? |
Fiasco wrote on Wed, 03 November 2010 17:57 |
Perhaps that's the problem, people looking to the government to do something to "please" them. |
Paul Cavins wrote on Sat, 06 November 2010 20:05 |
... I don't want some kooky law-of-the-jungle situation, just what we have today but with a significantly smaller government that isn't seen as the natural place to go for solving problems. PC |
DarinK wrote on Sun, 07 November 2010 16:05 |
(...)the fundamental problem (is) that there are other forces that have much more influence on government than the people do. |
Tidewater wrote on Sun, 07 November 2010 21:10 |
The government needs to get a job. |
Tidewater wrote on Mon, 08 November 2010 04:51 |
Brazil and sugar pisses me off. |
Paul Cavins wrote on Sun, 07 November 2010 22:16 |
I see what you mean, Edvaard. I might not line up with you exactly as far as all of the FDA stuff. That is a tough one. We need to regulate food safety, but then with all of the regs in play, and the economics of our food supply being so vast, there is bound to be a lot of powerful interests battling it out. |
Tidewater wrote on Mon, 08 November 2010 17:16 |
Ethanol is a HUGE other can-o-worms. |
YZ wrote on Mon, 08 November 2010 15:07 | ||
US-made, Corn-based Ethanol most certainly is. Just another scheme to divert taxpayer money to a few 'interest groups'. But Brazil's sugar-cane Ethanol? Fantastic. I'll wait for your longer reply when you get the time. |
YZ wrote on Mon, 08 November 2010 15:07 | ||
US-made, Corn-based Ethanol most certainly is. Just another scheme to divert taxpayer money to a few 'interest groups'. But Brazil's sugar-cane Ethanol? Fantastic. I'll wait for your longer reply when you get the time. |
PRobb wrote on Mon, 08 November 2010 11:52 | ||
Right. When government gets too big and too intrusive, it's trouble. But too little government is jut as big a problem. Let's remember that deregulation of the financial industry was one of the causes of our current mess. Life is always a balancing act. The small government stuff sounds great until we get to specifics. |
Edvaard wrote on Tue, 09 November 2010 00:41 |
The issue is not more vs. less regulation, but who wrote the law or who prevented a genuinely legislatively written law from being enacted. |
Tidewater wrote on Tue, 09 November 2010 13:50 |
Get Barney's Frank out of Freddy's Fanny. |
Barry Hufker wrote on Sun, 07 November 2010 01:51 |
Government wouldn't be the place to go if people were nicer to others. There's a powerful group in government right now made up of people who don't want to be nicer to others. A second group in government tries to make the government fill in for those people who don't want to be nicer. And therein lies the problem. A joke someone recently told me: Democrats believe the glass is half full. Republicans believe the glass is theirs. |