Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2010 Midterm Election Lessons & It's Significance
Oh good. What do we get when you have to make good on your failed guarantee?
Ron Lambert Wrote:Oh good. What do we get when you have to make good on your failed guarantee?
That is on a need to know basis, and trust me, you won't ever need to know. It will be Palin v. Obama and Palin will get creamed.
Well we know God hasn't descended upon high and given you this information, so was it a polar bear? Are you reading tea leaves? Did you see something in the weather patterns induced by global warming?

I'm holding my breath here...
so, what's the significance? the revelation that americans still fall for political bickery and fake differences between bureaucrats that partisans waste their time with?
"You know, Paul, Reagan proved that deficits don't matter." Dick Cheney
It is of course a strictly American tendency. Shock
[Image: SalmaHayekcopy.jpg]
Totally. The rest of the world just happens to vote for Kim Jon Il and Ahmadinejad and whatever other despot happens to "win" with an 75% majority vote...
Biker Dude Wrote:It is of course a strictly American tendency. Shock
of course not. but don't you agree that the usa are the greatest country ever in human history, and all other elections of this world combined don't rival the significance of american mid-term elections?
"You know, Paul, Reagan proved that deficits don't matter." Dick Cheney
I don't know that I would place THAT much emphasis on it.

America is obviously, right or wrong, a major influence in the geo-political world. We affect other countries politics far more than they do us. So yes, our elections are of major importance the world over.

What I do find interesting is your narrow minded myopic tendency to overlook any fault anywhere, specially in Europe or mostly Germany(RE: your thread on Holocaust denial), and attempt to make any in America of even greater importance that they deserve. You truly do play the role John has for you here so well, I wonder, are you really John? You know, just to boost traffic? Wink wink nod nod....a nod's as good as a wink to a blind man eh govenor?
[Image: SalmaHayekcopy.jpg]

The problem I have with your response is people who agree with tea party principles can elect folks with good backgrounds.

Based on your response,I would get the impression one must have serious skeletons in the closet to be a tea party type.

The lady in Delaware had serious background issues unrelated to what we've discussed here.

She is a sue happy nut. She is not a tea party type in conduct,she's like a typical,entitled,spoiled American.

She even threatened to sue a TV station during the campaign IF they showed a film of her at a debate where she embarrassed herself.

You just have to get out of your mind that oppostion to any rightist is motivated from leftist motives. You and John L.

My opposition to O'Donnell is she is not worthy of the responsibility of being a leader in our country from the Republican party. Just because she spouted a couple of good things is close to meaningless.

There are better choices for we cons to choose from is all my point ever was,this tea party thing is going too far in the Republican party and we're electing some weirdos,then watching Senate seats go to socialists instead.
It would be hard to deny that Western Civilization leads the world, and the United States of America leads Western Civilization. Regardless of what mistakes we make, or particular areas where some other societies may do some things better from time to time, those facts remain. We may not always be right (of course not), but our dominating influence is simply beyond dispute.

Which is why whom we elect to lead us is so important.
I agree Pat. In the end, she is just using the mov't to get into office, and therefore money and prestige/power. Totally opportunistic. I feel for all those who actually bought that she was a wonderful person and force.

I wonder if she is done living off campaign funds to pay bills.

Just by looking at her, I couldn't even associate her with the Tea Party.
The Bachmann lady up in Minnesota I don't place in O'Donnell's paradigm,but,she is a loose cannon.

So,the house Republicans just shot her out of the sky on any leadership position.

IMO,very wise. She needs to grow a little,become a wiser spokesperson,etc. Then maybe move up,she's been there for 4 years only.

If the tea party mentality ruled the party completely,she'd be our "face" to the nation and we will lose ground.

Here's a fact all cons must face,America will never go back to the pre 1965 paradigm on social policy. IF we insist on making THAT our goal,we'll never be a serious force.

Because probably 85% of the people like Medicare,social security,medicaid,unemployment insurance,etc. Keep fighting that war and you'll keep losing that war.
Christine O'Donnell:

This stuff is priceless!!!!
Gunnen4u Wrote:Christine O'Donnell:

This stuff is priceless!!!!

I SEE BIG BOOBS.... :lol:
Sanders 2020

Yea, they're pretty nice.

I am sure this is what many Tea party types see instead of how unfit she is for office.
What is synonomous with 'anti-business'? If your answer is Jackass, YOU WIN!!

Daniel Henninger explains just why the Jackasses' anti-business stance led to them losing in such a big way this November: The 1099 Democrats. And note that I am not alone in my love of President Coolidge.

Quote:The 1099 Democrats
The Democrats decoupled from business—and lost the election.

Calvin Coolidge once said, "The chief business of the American people is business." The Democrats just lost America because they forgot that.

On second thought, you can't forget what you never knew. The Democrats running things the past two years proved they have no clue about the business of business. In their world, the real world of the private economy is an abstraction, a political figment.

Exhibit A: Along the road to ObamaCare, the party's planners inserted into the bill the now- famous 1099 provision, requiring businesses to do an IRS report for any transaction over $600 annually. No member of Congress, White House staffer or party flunky thought to say, "Oh, wow, this 1099 requirement will crush people running their own businesses. Are we sure we want to do this?" Yes, and that 1099 fiasco is a metaphor now for the modern Democratic Party.

Exhibit B: The Obama ban on offshore oil drilling. It floated out of the White House, Energy Department and EPA without anyone thinking: "Whoa, this is going to kill hundreds of working-class guys and their families."

In recent days, both President Obama and Speaker-to-go Nancy Pelosi have said that the message of the voters in the election was that they wanted jobs. To be sure.

President Coolidge was more eloquent on this truth. The American people "are profoundly concerned with producing, buying, selling, investing and prospering in the world. The great majority of people will always find these are moving impulses of our life."

But much of what this Democratic Congress did, or tried to do, was like throwing Molotov cocktails at business. It began in early 2009 with the cap-and-trade climate bill. The country was going to have to chow down its provisions no matter how many jobs got lost in Ohio, West Virginia, Michigan and other coal-using states. The bill portended so much damage to businesses in these states that some of the Senate's most liberal members had to beg off supporting it.

At his news conference last week, Mr. Obama still wouldn't rule out the EPA's impending "carbon finding" to regulate emissions, another Freddy Krueger nightmare for the average business.

The air is filling now with suggestions of what the Democrats and Mr. Obama need to do. Always mentioned is that the president needs to repair his bad relations with "business." But this is noted as just one item on the post-election to-do list: adjust the message, go to church more, reconnect with business, put up the storm windows.

The party's decoupling from vast swaths of America at work didn't start with Barack Obama. Al Gore and John Kerry ran hard against the depredations of the insurance, pharmaceutical and oil industries. The post-modern Democrats, starting at the top, convey the impression that the average company consists entirely of three guys in spats, silk vests and top hats, like the little character on the Monopoly cards, who deserve to be indicted or monitored.

And so any argument that the top marginal tax rate hits sole proprietorships and the like blows right by them. The "rich" gotta pay. They do pay, stop hiring and then they send money to American Crossroads to unelect Democrats.

Years ago the Democrats' anti-business populism didn't matter much because most people doing politics, including the populists, took for granted that politics included staying connected to local businesses. No more. Most Democrats are driving right past the Mom-and-Pop economy to public union headquarters. The party's candidates are like brides of Dracula, locked forever in an embrace with infusions of public union political money (more than $170 million in this election).

As to the future, look at a map done by the National Conference of State Legislatures showing state-level party control now. The southeastern states, one of the most economically vibrant regions of the country, is wholly red. North Carolina has its first Republican senate since 1870. What's still blue on this map suggests the Democratic Party is collapsing into mostly urban, public sector redoubts—Los Angeles, San Francisco, New York, Boston, Chicago.

One might argue that what the post-November 2010 Democrats need is their own tea party reform movement. Problem is, they just had their version—the Soros-MoveOn-Daily Kos activists who threw over the Clintons and put the party firmly in the hands of the progressive House chairmen who stopped thinking about the private sector 35 years ago.

Many activist Democrats don't want their party to do business with business until the terms of engagement change. They think once the ObamaCare entitlement flows through the veins of the private sector, its workers also will be the party's brides. What's left of the private "impulses of our life" to create industries will be sopped up with permanent public subsidies to alternative-energy entrepreneurs. With luck, this new "low-growth" economy will produce enough tax revenue to keep the party's watermills going for another generation.

There is an alternative view: The party's antibusiness compulsions have turned it to rust.

“Socialism always begins with a universal vision for the brotherhood of man and ends with people having to eat their own pets.”

Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  2010 MidTerm Election Possibilities John L 269 70,958 02-11-2011, 05:11 PM
Last Post: mv
  MSM Reactions to MidTerm Election John L 29 7,268 11-17-2010, 11:09 AM
Last Post: John L
  Running commentary on Election Day 2010 Pixiest 21 3,953 11-03-2010, 11:44 AM
Last Post: Biker Dude

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)