MERGED: The Politics Thread

[pedonbio]

I live in a monarchy... it sucks

Yes, because it is a citrus monarchy.

[PregNut]

Has JJ ever made a non-spam post in a political thread?

Better question: Has JJ ever made a post in a non-political thread?

[Shara]

Better question: Has JJ ever made a post in a non-political thread?

main contributor in down mammary lane... I'd say yes

[MunchWolf]

I live in a monarchy... it sucks

Is it because you don't get to be Queen?

-Munch "revolt and become Emperor" Wolf

[Shara]

they're just a financial drain

[BillN]

And this is different, how?   

[SamV]

It will be historic—a win for Republicans, and a loss for Democrats.

Dems lose 75 seats in the House, 10 in the Senate. Count on it!

Q-"Feeling optimistic"-BE

ActualLEE Q, if it comes to pass as you suppose, it will be a win for political know-nothings and Libertarians AND a loss for Repubs and Dems.

One should never assume when someone has a "D" or "R" after their name, that they're a team player.

[Siria]

ActualLEE Q, if it comes to pass as you suppose, it will be a win for political know-nothings and Libertarians AND a loss for Repubs and Dems.

One should never assume when someone has a "D" or "R" after their name, that they're a team player.

Forget the parties. If that happens, it will be a loss for progress, a massive loss for the economy and a setback for the American people.

[SamV]

the puffed up sense of entitlement on these morons is getting out of control.

watch this woman from moveon.org get rushed by the hillbilly crowd and head stomped by one particularly disgusting excuse for a man for daring express open dissent in front of wacko-racist libertarian rand paul.  unbelievable.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/25/rand-paul-supporter-stomps-head_n_773857.html

My understanding regarding the incident was one of the guys attacking her was on Rand Paul's payroll, and has been let go.

And when this guy offered up an apology the excuse he cited for the attack was his concern over Paul's security.

Perhaps Paul's campaign manager could've employed a better class of "brown shirts" on the candidate's "security" team.

[MrsPacman1]

I'm surprised no one has made mention of Rush's commentary about the incident. Well, then again, maybe I'm not. I doubt the vast majority of us even bother with him. 


Mrs*I saw the video elsewhere*Pacman

[SwitcherX]

We can’t imagine a news organization in this country, even the Globe, dedicating resources to flesh out anything on the Donald Young murders at Trinity United, the Down Low Club, Obama’s Man’s Country escapades, Obama’s bizarre relationship with Hollywood actor Kal Penn, or Obama’s ongoing strange interactions with former Duke basketball player Reggie Love (whom Obama calls his iReggie).

[TheZookie007]

A dude goes hunting with a sitting vice-president. The vice-president (accidentally) shoots him in the face. Result: the guy who got shot apologizes to the vice-president for getting shot.

A lady goes to a Rand Paul rally. One of his thugs knocks her down and stomps on her head, giving her a concussion, as cameras roll. Result: the thug says that the lady he stomped on, should apologize to him. Here he is on video saying it:

CREDO Action: "Prosecute Tim Profitt, the Rand-Paul Head Stomper!"

Incredible.

[number3fac]

So, did anyone catch tonight's Daily Show, whose only feature was Jon Stewart talking with Barack Obama?  If you did, what did you think of it?

I enjoyed it, but since I don't follow every bit of of the political landscape around the President, I wonder if there were other issues that viewers here would have liked Stewart to talk about?

[espy]

I'm watching a local race that has me perplexed.  It's for a state legislator position.

The incumbent is running for reelection.  He is a respected, long-time local political figure -- isn't in it to "play politician" with power issues and the like.  Seems moderate and well reasoned in his actions, particularly when compared to some counterparts.  Last year he supported the passing of a domestic partners bill extending certain rights to same sex couples.  Not a same sex marriage law -- we're not there yet -- just extending certain rights that had been previously denied.

His opponent is a minister's wife with a single plank in her platform -- the incumbent needs to be replaced because same sex relationships are wrong.  They'll be the ruin of this country.  Period.  She doesn't know her ass from second base about anything else.  There was a debate, and her handlers attempted to anticipate the questions that may be asked.  They provided her with a stack of cards with appropriate responses, and when she was asked a question there was a slight delay as she searched her cards.... and then she literally read straight off the card.  As I understand, the wording on her card didn't always fit the way the question was asked.  And there were some unanticipated questions for which she had no cards... her response to which was a total "deer in the headlights" moment.  She hadn't even HEARD of the issues let alone developed (read: was handed) a position on them.  Some of these impact our area to the tunes of millions of dollars.  Oh, and she's so concerned with the political process..... she rarely votes.  Her voting history shows that at most she casts her ballot in 1 out of every 4 elections. 

So this is a slam dunk, right?  She made her point that fags are the devil, and the incumbent can feel comfortable in retaining his seat.

I don't know!  She's getting a ton of support... and much of it is coming from the business community.  I'm surprised by that -- I mean, support for her can't be seen as anything other than an anti-gay stance, right?  Both candidates are republican, so its not a party thing.  I know my gay friends are taking note and intending to avoid the businesses whose owners are backing her (including my next door neighbor).

It all seems so strange.  There are no local polls to suggest how the vote might go.  I like to think she's going to get pummeled.  If not, it'll be interesting to see how she "functions" in Olympia.

[onion_writer]

Let us know how it turns out!

[Siria]

I don't know!  She's getting a ton of support... and much of it is coming from the business community.  I'm surprised by that -- I mean, support for her can't be seen as anything other than an anti-gay stance, right?  Both candidates are republican, so its not a party thing.  I know my gay friends are taking note and intending to avoid the businesses whose owners are backing her (including my next door neighbor).

Larger businesses have wised up to LGBT issues (particularly the LGB, but increasingly T as well). 89% of Fortune 500 companies include "sexual orientation" in their non-discrimination policies, and 43% also include "gender identity".

Smaller businesses however are often not professionally managed--And the people running them are in many cases not smart enough to realize that their personal biases against LGBT people are not grounded in fact and that discriminating against LGBT people does not materially benefit their business in any way.

[espy]

Larger businesses have wised up to LGBT issues (particularly the LGB, but increasingly T as well). 89% of Fortune 500 companies include "sexual orientation" in their non-discrimination policies, and 43% also include "gender identity".

Smaller businesses however are often not professionally managed--And the people running them are in many cases not smart enough to realize that their personal biases against LGBT people are not grounded in fact and that discriminating against LGBT people does not materially benefit their business in any way.

It's not just sexual issues... it's risky for businesses to take political stances period (other than if its legislation directly affecting their business, such as industry-specific taxes and regulations).  I had a friend who was elected to city council -- he operated a retail business with his father.  After 1 term, dad told him not to run for reelection -- it cost them too much business.  I also had a retail competitor who ran for congress -- I was so thrilled when I heard the news.  He ran a nasty smear campaign, alienated the voters, got destroyed at the polls, and it showed up in my cash register.

Granted, this current campaign is particularly contentious.  How can you think you're not alienating people when you run your name and the name of your business in her campaign ads... plus reader board messages, etc.?  It's such a dumb business move.  If you feel that strongly about it, quietly throw her a couple of bucks and vote for her.

With any luck, she'll end up with just 20% of the vote.... and when these people read the paper they'll realize they just pissed off 80% of their customers.

[SamV]

Why do you think we are seeing all these political attack ads from outfits like Club for Growth, US Chamber of Commerce, Americans for Growth Action Committee, and so on?

It makes it easy for businesses and wealthy individuals to hide behind innocuous or patriotic sounding names while they pour millions of dollars in to the campaigns to influence, if not out-right buy the elections. And you can thank the recent stupid Supreme Court decision to give these shadow groups for corporations that right to buy up almost all the air time with their deep pockets and spread all the propaganda they want. And unlike political parties there is little requirement for them to disclose where all this money is coming from.

And with the way these organizations have also tried to nationalize all the congressional and senate elections by tying Democratic candidates (both incumbents and first timers) to Pelosi, Reid, Obama the only hope to discourage them in the future would be for voters to repudiate their message in this election and vote in their own self-interest for their local districts and states. But the likelihood of that happening I'm afraid is sadly almost infinitesimal.        

[3deroticer]

I think Democrat should just say "legalize Pot" I think it will work for them as well as "No to abortion" has work for the Republican. Even though the Republican had there chance to make abortion illegal, they pass it up, because it's the thing they need to say to get people to vote for them.

[3deroticer]

that animation was totally worth it

Probably lock up Palomine computer as well!

It was pretty intensive memory hog for an animation! 

[3deroticer]

The employees in Canton, Ohio received this in their paycheck envelope!

[sidewalkpsycho]

The employees in Canton, Ohio received this in their paycheck envelope!

So, what do these people stand for?

[3deroticer]

they are all lockstep Republican, crime for a abortion, cut education, eliminate minimum wage, privatize social security.

[JJ]

news flash..........................

OBAMA BEST FRIEND IN CONGRESS TURNS OUT TO BE A BAT ?   

[3deroticer]

So, did anyone catch tonight's Daily Show, whose only feature was Jon Stewart talking with Barack Obama?  If you did, what did you think of it?

I enjoyed it, but since I don't follow every bit of of the political landscape around the President, I wonder if there were other issues that viewers here would have liked Stewart to talk about?

bring back FCC past guideline for news show and break ownership monopoly of the media, legalizing pot, bring back overtime pay mandate, and drop charter school voucher.

[rtpoe]

"The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president."

-- Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), in an interview with the National Journal, describing his goal in retaking the Senate.


Note, please. Not reduce the deficit, improve the economy, reform immigration, or do anything you expect the government to do. Just make sure that the EEEvil SOCIALIST in the White House doesn't get re-elected...

Be afraid. Be very afraid.

[Q_BE]

One statement by Mitch McConnell does NOT a party platform make, Rtpoe, but there are deeper implications to what he is saying. Our Republican senatorial leader understands fully the Tea Party movement in regards to this immediate election as well as the future of the Republican Party and the American nation. The Repubs entering Congress after this election cycle know the primary goal is to oppose Obama's agenda while also taking action on their own agenda by forcing Obama to veto their own proposals. Exposing Obama for being the dictator/tyrant he truly is will be the way we make Obama a 1-term president. Obama having one term is the side-effect of preventing Obama's agenda from advancing any further, and McConnell is simply making a note that, if we are successful in what we aim to do, the 2012 presidential campaign will take care of itself.

I look forward to the upcoming battle royale between the Tea Party Republicans and the socialist Obama Regime.

Q-"Count on it!"-BE

[rtpoe]

Ah, but McConnell is one of the party leaders!

And how much do you think will get done if everyone refuses to work with the other side?

Remember when Newt Gingrich had a hissy fit and basically shut down the federal government? Yep, the Republicans looked real sharp there....

[Q_BE]

@Rtpoe: I added some more to my post above. Also, the difference for Republicans in this Congress will be to respond with proposal after proposal, to be the proactive Congress that demands the President take actions on their legislation. Taking it to Obama as president will be the way we neutralize and repair the damage he has wrought in the last two years.

Q-"Barack Hussein Obama—mmmm, mmmm, mmmm!"-BE

[3deroticer]

http://gocl.me/d4rgYd

[JJ]

OBAMA FACES HISTORIC  R E B U K E   FROM VOTERS ON TUESDAY!

WHY?........................



By Susan Page, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON — Voters say they want change.

Again.

Two years after President Obama was swept into office on a message of hope, he faces what may be a historic rebuke from midterm voters, including millions of independents who supported him last time. Four years after California liberal Nancy Pelosi triumphantly claimed the House speaker's gavel for the Democrats, Ohio conservative John Boehner is poised to take it away for the Republicans.

Those reversals reflect continuing dissatisfaction with the country's course and its politics, especially as the nation struggles to recover from a deep recession. In this election, as in the past two, voters have moved toward whichever party promised to shake things up: Democrats in 2006 and 2008, Republicans in 2010.

This time, if Republicans win control of the House and shave the Democratic majority in the Senate, Obama will be forced to forge new working relationships with the GOP.

More at...............  http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2010-10-29-1Aahead29_CV_N.htm

[JJ]

Thanks to Obama, Mid Term Elections could be Democrat disaster!

Democrats could lose 60 seats in the U.S.House of Representatives !!!!   

by Charles Krauthammer in the Wash. Post


Obama, to his credit, did not get elected to do midnight basketball or school uniforms. No Bill Clinton he. Obama thinks large. He wants to be a consequential president on the order of Ronald Reagan. His forthright attempt to undo the Reagan revolution with a burst of expansive liberal governance is the theme animating this entire election.

Democratic apologists would prefer to pretend otherwise - that it's all about the economy and the electorate's anger over its parlous condition. Nice try. The most recent CBS/New York Times poll shows that only one in 12 Americans blames the economy on Obama, and seven in 10 think the downturn is temporary. And yet, the Democratic Party is falling apart. Democrats are four points behind among women, a constituency Democrats had owned for decades; a staggering 20 points behind among independents (a 28-point swing since 2008); and 20 points behind among college graduates, giving lie to the ubiquitous liberal conceit that the Republican surge is the revenge of lumpen know-nothings.

On Nov. 2, a punishing there will surely be. But not quite the kind Obama is encouraging.

My prediction: The Dems lose 60 House seats, eight in the Senate. Rangers in seven.


Full story at....... http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/28/AR2010102806270.html

[Siria]

while also taking action on their own agenda by forcing Obama to veto their own proposals.

And what are these proposals?

Can you even name a single Republican proposal for any issue facing the country?

[Shara]

sadly, he can

[SamV]

One statement by Mitch McConnell does NOT a party platform make, Rtpoe, but there are deeper implications to what he is saying. Our Republican senatorial leader understands fully the Tea Party movement in regards to this immediate election as well as the future of the Republican Party and the American nation. The Repubs entering Congress after this election cycle know the primary goal is to oppose Obama's agenda while also taking action on their own agenda by forcing Obama to veto their own proposals. Exposing Obama for being the dictator/tyrant he truly is will be the way we make Obama a 1-term president. Obama having one term is the side-effect of preventing Obama's agenda from advancing any further, and McConnell is simply making a note that, if we are successful in what we aim to do, the 2012 presidential campaign will take care of itself.

I look forward to the upcoming battle royale between the Tea Party Republicans and the socialist Obama Regime. new Tea Party Representatives and the mainstream Republican Representatives for control of the Congress.
Q-"Count on it!"-BE

Sorry  -- I had to fix that one thing for the cube.

-------------
Oh, and perhaps instead of using his Presidential Veto, Obama should let the Repubs have their way, if they actually manage to get anything though the legislature and on to his desk. And once it goes in to effect and the American electorate sees the results (or lack of results), in two years time they'll be voting their sorry asses right back out of office. And don't think it won't happen Q, as history has shown most times whenever the control of Congress has changed hands in the midterms, the party that wins then losses most, if not more, of the new seats it had gained in the following election cycles.