|
|
Post by aztec70 on Aug 27, 2010 12:03:54 GMT -8
Would that float the boat for the right wing?
|
|
|
|
Post by theMesa on Aug 27, 2010 12:42:12 GMT -8
That ticket would sink like the Titanic and I am a conservative.
|
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Aug 27, 2010 14:31:03 GMT -8
Perhaps it would float the boat of the right wing of the right wing?
|
|
|
|
Post by aztectom***** on Aug 27, 2010 14:33:15 GMT -8
left wing, left one
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Aug 27, 2010 15:58:44 GMT -8
There would be no chance. You have a better chance having Barney Frank and the ghost of Freddie Mercury running.
|
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Aug 28, 2010 8:13:45 GMT -8
Palin may run. (She would be a fool to do it, but you never know.) As for Beck, get serious. Glenn would not even consider it. Especially not if it were for the VP job. In any even, he is much better off from every standpoint by continuing to do what he is doing.
And he knows it.
AzWm
|
|
|
|
Post by uwaztec on Aug 28, 2010 8:23:16 GMT -8
Palin may run. (Should would be a fool to do it, but you never know.) As for Beck, get serious. Glenn would not even consider it. Especially not if it were for the VP job. In any even, he is much better off from every standpoint by continuing to do what he is doing. And he knows it. AzWm Face it William.. Palin / Beck are the Republican party. The Left, and a lot of moderates, hated GB so much they would have elected a dog to replace him. The same is happening here.... Obabma is hated so much that the Right, and many moderates, would vote for Palin/beck before Obama. That is what the US has become... the Right and the Left hate each other so much that they are polarizing the US to the extremes of each side... not a good sign for the long run. |
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Aug 28, 2010 9:19:55 GMT -8
Yes, the Tea Party movement has a lot of influence today in the Republican Party. I would not go so far as to equate them with the GOP, however. We should keep in mind that there would be no Tea Party movement were it not for the thoughtless, "take no prisoners" style of government practiced by Barack Obama and the Dems in Congress. By their actions, Obama and his party have allowed a dispirited and badly beaten opposition party the chance to get off the mat and fight again.
Obama has broken numerous promises, but the worst such case is that he has proven himself to be a bare-knuckle Chicago style political operative instead of a "post-partisan healer." There is a price to be paid when you run under one banner and almost immediately take up another when in office. Perhaps Barack Obama thought that no one would notice. Were he less narcissistic, he might have been less reckless in disregarding the opinion of the majority. How else can one explain numerous actions taken despite the the profound opposition of the majority of Americans?
There is no doubt in my mind that the Dems badly overestimated their mandate. Obama has virtually destroyed all the good feeling that accompanied him into the White House. The health care fiasco, in which nameless persons were able to insert thousands of mandates and regulations, most of them designed to put private insurers out of business, was just one of the mistakes made by Obama. He could have seriously brought at least a fair number of Republicans on board had he wanted to. Instead, it was his (or Nancy's and Harry's) way or the highway.
The Democrats apparently assumed that the American people had suddenly moved way to the left of center. That was a mistake. This country remains one in which probably two/thirds of its citizens are dead center or just a bit to the right of center.
So here we are with the economy in shambles and the Dems in serious danger of losing the House and looking at a Senate with probably at least 46 or 47 Republicans. Had Barack Obama been a cagier pol he would have moved much more cautiously, bringing along the bulk of the population with him. His party would be in line to lose perhaps two dozen House seats instead of 35, 40, or even 50. They would lose maybe 3 or 4 Senate seats. In short, the kind of losses that all parties in power suffer in the mid-term election. (It is a stretch, but the GOP has an outside shot at taking both houses.)
In short, despite the difficulty any party would have to move the economy in the right direction (in truth, government can more easily hurt the economy than to help it), the Democratic Party could be in much better shape for the Fall election. Instead, like Icarus flying too close to the sun, they risk getting burned and burned badly. And deservedly so.
They will have only themselves to blame, not the Tea Partiers. In fact Barack Obama himself created the Tea Party.
AzWm
|
|
|
|
Post by uwaztec on Aug 28, 2010 9:33:45 GMT -8
Yes, the Tea Party movement has a lot of influence today in the Republican Party. I would not go so far as to equate them with the GOP, however. We should keep in mind that there would be no Tea Party movement were it not for the thoughtless, "take no prisoners" style of government practiced by Barack Obama and the Dems in Congress. By their actions, Obama and his party have allowed a dispirited and badly beaten opposition party the chance to get off the mat and fight again. Obama has broken numerous promises, but the worst such case is that he has proven himself to be a bare-knuckle Chicago style political operative instead of a "post-partisan healer." There is a price to be paid when you run under one banner and almost immediately take up another when in office. Perhaps Barack Obama thought that no one would notice. Were he less narcissistic, he might have been less reckless in disregarding the opinion of the majority. How else can one explain numerous actions taken despite the the profound opposition of the majority of Americans. There is no doubt in my mind that the Dems badly overestimated their mandate. Obama has virtually destroyed all the good feeling that accompanied him into the White House. The health care fiasco, in which nameless persons were able to insert thousands of mandates and regulations, most of them designed to put private insurers out of business, was just one of the mistakes made by Obama. He could have seriously brought at least a fair number of Republicans on board had he wanted to. Instead, it was his (or Nancy's and Harry's) way or the highway. The Democrats apparently assumed that the American people had suddenly moved way to the left of center. That was a mistake. This country remains one in which probably two/thirds of its citizens are dead center or just a bit to the right of center. So here we are with the economy in shambles and the Dems in serious danger of losing the House and looking at a Senate with probably at least 46 or 47 Republicans. Had Barack Obama been a cagier pol he would have moved much more cautiously, bringing along the bulk of the population with him. His party would be in line to lose perhaps two dozen House seats instead of 35, 40, or even 50. They would lose maybe 3 or 4 Senate seats. In short, the kind of losses that all parties in power suffer in the mid-term election. (It is a stretch, but the GOP has an outside shot at taking both houses.) In short, despite the difficulty any party would have to move the economy in the right direction (in truth, government can more easily hurt the economy than to help it), the Democratic Party could be in much better shape for the Fall election. Instead, like Icarus flying too close to the sun, they risk getting burned and burned badly. And deservedly so. They will have only themselves to blame, not the Tea Partiers. In fact Barack Obama himself created the Tea Party. AzWm William.. you did not address my point. Just went back to talking points how it is all the Democrats fault. What about the bigger picture? How will the moderates be addressed? |
|
|
|
Post by monty on Aug 28, 2010 9:51:28 GMT -8
I wouldn't be surprised if they make some noise about it to garner ratings and each have a book coming out around that time
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Aug 28, 2010 10:48:37 GMT -8
Palin may run. (Should would be a fool to do it, but you never know.) As for Beck, get serious. Glenn would not even consider it. Especially not if it were for the VP job. In any even, he is much better off from every standpoint by continuing to do what he is doing. And he knows it. AzWm Face it William.. Palin / Beck are the Republican party. The Left, and a lot of moderates, hated GB so much they would have elected a dog to replace him. The same is happening here.... Obabma is hated so much that the Right, and many moderates, would vote for Palin/beck before Obama. That is what the US has become... the Right and the Left hate each other so much that they are polarizing the US to the extremes of each side... not a good sign for the long run. Palin and Beck could probably beat Obama right now, but the chance of either of them getting the nomination are very slim right now. It is just not worth discussing no matter how badly Obama gets exposed. Beck/Palin is a "no go". |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Aug 28, 2010 14:43:19 GMT -8
Yes, the Tea Party movement has a lot of influence today in the Republican Party. I would not go so far as to equate them with the GOP, however. We should keep in mind that there would be no Tea Party movement were it not for the thoughtless, "take no prisoners" style of government practiced by Barack Obama and the Dems in Congress. By their actions, Obama and his party have allowed a dispirited and badly beaten opposition party the chance to get off the mat and fight again. ###Wrong again. His problem in my opinion was trying to work with the GOP. It was soon evident to me that the GOP was only interested thrashing anything he Obaman said no matter what it was. Obama has broken numerous promises, but the worst such case is that he has proven himself to be a bare-knuckle Chicago style political operative instead of a "post-partisan healer." There is a price to be paid when you run under one banner and almost immediately take up another when in office. Perhaps Barack Obama thought that no one would notice. Were he less narcissistic, he might have been less reckless in disregarding the opinion of the majority. How else can one explain numerous actions taken despite the the profound opposition of the majority of Americans. ###Wrong again. Obama won the election by a sound majority. He was no GW Bush who squeeked in once and the other time depended on a conservative SC to give him the job. There is no doubt in my mind that the Dems badly overestimated their mandate. Obama has virtually destroyed all the good feeling that accompanied him into the White House. The health care fiasco, in which nameless persons were able to insert thousands of mandates and regulations, most of them designed to put private insurers out of business, was just one of the mistakes made by Obama. He could have seriously brought at least a fair number of Republicans on board had he wanted to. Instead, it was his (or Nancy's and Harry's) way or the highway. ###Wrong again. He adopted the GOP plan from 1990's.Did not matter. The GOP have one plan. Oppose any and all plans from the White House, there was no chance that any GOP member would vote in favor. His mistake here was to not put forward a genuine public option. He surrendered to the GOP on this issue and it gained him nothing. In fact he lost a lot of the Left here. The Democrats apparently assumed that the American people had suddenly moved way to the left of center. That was a mistake. This country remains one in which probably two/thirds of its citizens are dead center or just a bit to the right of center. ###Wrong again. Just ask yourself how Obama got elected by a big majority if two thirds of the country is right of center or center. The country has already seen what the right brings this country. Disaster. So here we are with the economy in shambles and the Dems in serious danger of losing the House and looking at a Senate with probably at least 46 or 47 Republicans. Had Barack Obama been a cagier pol he would have moved much more cautiously, bringing along the bulk of the population with him. His party would be in line to lose perhaps two dozen House seats instead of 35, 40, or even 50. They would lose maybe 3 or 4 Senate seats. In short, the kind of losses that all parties in power suffer in the mid-term election. (It is a stretch, but the GOP has an outside shot at taking both houses.) ###Wrong again. The economy is in shambles because we have allowed the right to deregulate so much of the safeguards that had been in place. You can start the long downturn from the time of Reagan and his massive deregulation. All the bad eggs hatched towards the end of the prior administration. If you think that the economy went to hell in the last 18 month then you are a bigger fool than I thought. In short, despite the difficulty any party would have to move the economy in the right direction (in truth, government can more easily hurt the economy than to help it), the Democratic Party could be in much better shape for the Fall election. Instead, like Icarus flying too close to the sun, they risk getting burned and burned badly. And deservedly so. ### Wrong again. The problem here began when the Bush administration came to the rescue of Banks, "too big to fail". I am sorry to say that Obama continued that foolishness. There ought to have been an orderly breaking up of those banks. If you are too big to fail, you are too big to be. This privatizing of profits and socializing the losses has to stop. They will have only themselves to blame, not the Tea Partiers. In fact Barack Obama himself created the Tea Party. ###Wrong again. All too often when a Democrat is in office the right wing starts up their lies about the administration. FDR had Father Caughlin. Truman had Joe McCarthy. Clinton had too many to name. Obama has it worst of all. The tea party is predictable. AzWm Our country will continue on its path of greatness, notwithstanding the attempts to hamstring it by the conservatives. It really seems to me that conservatives have a problem with democracy. If they do not win they will not try to work to come up with solutions that both partys can abide by. If they don't win they try their best to be obstuctionist at best. Look at what conservatives did with Clinton. They were so mad that he was re-elected that they impeached him on trumped up charges. Now with Obama they come up with the insanity that he was not born in the USA. You conservatives disgust me.  |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Aug 28, 2010 16:14:25 GMT -8
It really seems to me that conservatives have a problem with democracy. If they do not win they will not try to work to come up with solutions that both partys can abide by. If they don't win they try their best to be obstuctionist at best. Come on. I detest what the word "conservative" has come to mean, but either you're too young to remember the Democratic Congress during the reagan and bush years or you're being awfully selective in your recollections. Do you mean bigotted and against true American values? If so, I would agree with that definition. It is really sad. |
|
|
|
Post by davdesid on Aug 28, 2010 17:01:24 GMT -8
Would that float the boat for the right wing? It sure is mental masturbation for the left wing, ain't it? bwahahahahah...... |
|
|
|
Post by The Great Aztec Joe on Aug 28, 2010 17:56:37 GMT -8
It's sad enough to think that someone might CONSIDER voting for a ticket like this. What's really tragic is that lots of people would vote for a ticket like this. And before you go thinking I'm a liberal, know that I've never voted for a Democrat in my life. I have John. I have voted for myself for Mayor of San Diego, Congress, Governor of California, and President of these United States, and all times I was a Registered Democrat. On top of that I also voted for Jimmy Carter the first time around. I did not vote for him for the rerun. He had done enough to fug things up in four years than most presidents can do in 8. |
|
|
|
Post by The Great Aztec Joe on Aug 28, 2010 17:58:47 GMT -8
Would that float the boat for the right wing? It sure is mental masturbation for the left wing, ain't it? bwahahahahah...... As far as the Democratic Party is concerned, it would be nose candy. The Democrats would carry fifty states, DC and Puerto Rico. |
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Aug 28, 2010 21:51:53 GMT -8
I left the Republican Party in 1976, finding that party was no longer to my liking. Of course, the Democrats pleased me even less (a lot less!), so I changed my registration to Libertarian.
The fact is that both major parties are made up of fallible human beings who are at all times influenced by forces seeking favorable treatment from government. Unfortunately, that usually means that we are left to decide which party will do the least harm and then vote for that party. Either that or essentially drop out, which is more or less what I did by switching my vote to Libertarian.
For well over one hundred years, the U.S. government was very small, consumed relatively trivial amounts of the taxpayers' money, and intruded only slightly into the lives of the average citizen. That began to change early in the 20th Century with the Progressive Movement. FDR increased the march toward much bigger government that taxed more and regulated more and more aspects of the every day life. The march toward that end has continued to the present day with very few backward steps.
The Republicans love to talk about smaller, more efficient, yet less intrusive government, but in reality the government actually grows when they are in power. Government grows even more under the Democrats, but that GOP advantage is small consolation to those of us who believe in the concept of limited government and inalienable rights. Choosing between the two parties is in many ways the same as choosing between a toothache and a headache. Bot are painful. Neither is what we wanted or voted for.
So long as the government picks winners and losers there will always be powerful forces at work influencing government officials to regulate them into the winner category. Sometimes the influence is so blatant that it becomes an out and out bribe. That is why we have Randy Cunninghams and Jim Wrights
I doubt very much that a candidate whom I would consider a true defender of the foundation values of our republic can ever be elected to high office. Such a person would be seen to be a threat to the business-as-usual D.C. crowd and would be prevented from getting anywhere near a national ticket.
Or, if such a person ever were to get into office, the pressure on him or her to go along in order to get along would be enormous. When the government becomes the principal provider for the masses, those masses are going to demand that they get they were promised. At that point the governmental class actually become something like the keeper of an incredibly powerful and potentially hostile wild beast. The keeper starts out being the master, but eventually it is the beast who is in control. The keeper soon discovers that if he does not give the beast what he wants, the beast will rebel.
If you think that I am a cynic in the area of national politics, well you have it exactly right.
AzWm
|
|
|
|
Post by monty on Aug 31, 2010 19:47:48 GMT -8
naivete (insert diacritical marks)
|
|
|
|
Post by The Great Aztec Joe on Sept 1, 2010 7:47:10 GMT -8
There would be no chance. You have a better chance having Barney Frank and the ghost of Freddie Mercury running. For the most part, I liked every song Freddie sang. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Sept 1, 2010 11:56:27 GMT -8
There would be no chance. You have a better chance having Barney Frank and the ghost of Freddie Mercury running. For the most part, I liked every song Freddie sang. So did I, but his personal life was as much a can of angle worms as Barney Franks. |
|
