2010 Midterm Election

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by molson

Even Obama thinks (i.e. says, whatever) gay marriage is a state issue.

Obama's record on gay rights sucks. Tell me more shocking news.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

Honestly, while I disagree with their message, I found this RedState thread on political targets to be interesting reading. Some interesting discussion on GOTV campaigns, etcetera, and I have to say, I don't like the way it's being spun elsewhere that this puts Brown and Snowe on some kind of "hit list". This is a list of GOP Senators coming up for reelection in 2012.
Potential Tea Party Targets for 2012 | RedState

Is there anyone who would question that Snowe is on the figurative hit list for conservatives whether anyone posted a list or not?

[molson]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

And most people didn't think the US Constitution gave people the right to interracial marriage. They were wrong too and so is Obama if he truly believes that.

The constitution doesn't say, and has never said, that interracial marriage is bad, or that gay marriage is bad, or that either is good. The constitution is an organizational, not a moral document.

I'd vote for gay marriage a million times in any election and fund efforts to legalize it but it has nothing to do with the federal constitution (IMO).

[molson]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

Now, you say that (about gay marriage), but I bet pretty much 98% of your votes have been for people who believe marriage "is between a man and a woman." So, you'll say a lot about supporting it, but you won't base your vote on it.

Despite your rhetoric here, I bet pretty much 95% of your votes have been for people who believe marriage "is between a man and a woman." Because Democrats running for office talk like that too (including Obama). I'm sure the "D" next to the name is enough to earn your vote, so I'd love to know who you're voting for that has said much different (on the record, we know they all lie on this issue).

I'm totally for gay marriage, I don't give a shit if people marry office furniture. I'm just a big believer in the original role of the constitution, and seperation of legislative and judicial powers. And I also believe that the errosion of that role, and that seperation, has actually held us back on a lot of social issues.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

Medicare has private insurance beat on both costs and quality, even with the older age of Medicare recipients so at the end of the day, I'm going to trust them over the insurance companies to further do that.

How exactly does Medicare beat costs? Doctors and hospitals lose money off Medicare. Medicare sets the price of what, and if, they pay.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by molson

The right to same-sex marriage is not guaranteed by the U.S. constitution. (says most people, including Obama)

The people can certainly give that right to people in their states (only because the Bush administration failed at putting together some kind of real marriage protection act banning gay marriage nationwide....expansive federal power can also take rights away).

The right to get married is not guaranteed by the U.S. constitution. We aren't arguing whether marriage is a right or not. The people voted to allow marriage in this country.

The issue is whether we are allowed to give marriage to one group of people and not the other. The 14th Amendment was created to prevent such cases and is seen in Loving vs Virginia. I don't see how this is any different from that. Unless you feel that ruling was incorrect as well and black people should not be given the right to marry a white person.

[molson]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

But hey, here's a simple question. Let's say if you vote for somebody, your taxes will double but gay marriage will be legal in your state. But if you vote against him, your taxes will be cut in half but gay marriage will stay illegal. Which way do you vote?

I'd pay some amount out of my own pocket to have legal gay marriage in my state, sure. How much is a very interesting question. I'd have to think about it.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

It's good to know you'd "think" about paying "some" more in taxes so people can have basic equal rights. Wow, I guess you meant it when you're all for gay marriage - as long as it doesn't effect you in any way.

So your answer is 100%, then. Don't "think" about paying "some."

[lordscarlet]

[soapbox]The Constitution also does not give the right to all citizens to have representation in the House and Senate. The basic citizen of the United States doesn't care about the equal rights of a minority, particularly if that minority has different views than their own. *shrug*[/soapbox]

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

But if you vote against him, your taxes will be cut in half but gay marriage will stay illegal. Which way do you vote?

Please, point me to this state so I can start packing in time to move & be registered to vote against this guy.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by molson

Despite your rhetoric here, I bet pretty much 95% of your votes have been for people who believe marriage "is between a man and a woman." Because Democrats running for office talk like that too (including Obama). I'm sure the "D" next to the name is enough to earn your vote, so I'd love to know who you're voting for that has said much different (on the record, we know they all lie on this issue).

I'm totally for gay marriage, I don't give a shit if people marry office furniture. I'm just a big believer in the original role of the constitution, and seperation of legislative and judicial powers. And I also believe that the errosion of that role, and that seperation, has actually held us back on a lot of social issues.

So you would have opposed Brown v. Board of Education and Loving v. Virginia? Or for a more recent example, Lawrence v. Texas? Is that what you're saying?

[Izulde]

I still think we should eliminate Congress and the presidency completely. Institute a monarchy that has control over foreign affairs with dukes appointed to serve as the governors of states, but allow democratically elected state legislatures to handle their domestic affairs.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

Exactly. If you want health care costs will drop, payments to hospitals and doctors will have to go down as well. The rest of the Western world has somehow managed to get better health outcomes out of half the money, we can too.

Which I guess brings me to my next point. Is it the actual heath care that makes those costs (which are by the way under pressure and even caused the UK to reform its health care system just recently) or the lifestyles of people and the smaller, more homogeneous populations?

The CDC has predicted that as many as 1/3 of Americans could develop diabetes by 2050.

http://www.dailyfinance.com/story/re...soar/19695629/

[molson]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

It's good to know you'd "think" about paying "some" more in taxes so people can have basic equal rights. Wow, I guess you meant it when you're all for gay marriage - as long as it doesn't effect you in any way.

I paid $0 in income taxes last year because the geniuses in Washington saw fit to give me thousands of dollars to buy a house I could afford anyway, so the question as asked wasn't really applicable.

How much would you pay for gay marriage to be legal across the country? Double your taxes? Pretty meaningless unless we know how much you pay in taxes. I want an out-of-pocket number. (Though, I assume you give 100% of your discretionary income after food/shelter to worthy causes, Mr. bleeding heart, so you probably don't have much left.)

And I've always wondered this too. If you really believe that the government does wonderful, humanitarian things with tax money - do you send them extra checks and stuff like the rest of us might give to a charity? Why not?

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

Pretty much. Average turnout for midterms is approximately 40% while POTUS turnout is 55%.

Oh shoot. I thought the POTUS was in the 60s. Didn't realize it was that low.

Now, this may mean that until demographics shake out and/or the economy turns around, we're going to have basically a schizophrenic election system. Say, in 2012, Obama hangs on due to higher youth/minority/etc. turnout. Then in 2014, the GOP wins more seats due to low turnout. Then, the same thing again in 2016. Then again in 2018, low turnout means more GOP seats won.

I hope that doesn't happen, but, I wouldn't put it past the fringe and wouldn't be surprised if it ends up happening.

[molson]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

So you would have opposed Brown v. Board of Education and Loving v. Virginia? Or for a more recent example, Lawrence v. Texas? Is that what you're saying?

Race is different, and complicated, and a unique U.S. issue, and something we've specifically addressed in amending our constitution. I'd have to really flesh that out to say more than that, but I don't think those cases were wrongly decided.

I do think Lawrence v. Texas was wrongly decided, even though I'm all in favor of consensual butt-sex. I'm going to try to explain that without too much thought or editing:

Social change happens in this country at the point the Supreme Court just decides on their own that, "this shit is really important". I think that's way too much power for the judicial branch. And it's not something other, more socially progressive countries rely on, generally. Look at the legalization of gay marriage in Europe in the last decade.

I think the reliance on the Supreme Court holds us back, honestly, though it's a pretty convoluted opinion that I'd have to flesh out to really write about. The gay marriage dominos are dropping. It will be legal more and more places in the U.S., people will get used it it, more and more people will realize that or society isn't destroyed by it, and sooner than later it becomes an accepted part of our culture.

I do tend to believe that our idea that we can drag people kicking and screaming into a more tolerant society, instead of of encouraging and fostering overall cultural changes that bring about changes in tolerance (like you see in more tolerant countries), isn't a helpeful one. Where gay marriage is permitted in Europe, people generally believe in gay marriage. The next progressive cause that comes up - they're going to be relatively quick to adopt that too. If a couple of U.S. Supreme Court justices have strokes and gay marriage becomes a constitutional u.s. right tomorrow - I'm not sure that sets us up so perfectly for the next "progressive cause" in this country.

Bottom line though - we're a country of laws. The ends don't always justify the means, and to ignore that isn't always desirable long-term. An individual thought that "this should be legal" isn't a good enough reason, to me, to bypass the constitution and impose that super-legislation on everyone. It might get us gay marriage faster, but it really doesn't make us more tolerant, or more prepared or capable for the next important social issue.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

Honestly, as they say on that list: They can probably primary Snowe.. and lose the election.

Now, before you all get giddy about Olympia Snowe, I would respectfully suggest that Corker, Hatch, Hutchison, Lugar, and Wicker make better targets as we have a much greater certainty of both beating them in primaries and also winning the general election.

How fucking crazy is the GOP when Lugar(lifetime American Conservative Union score of 77), Hatch(89) and Corker(83) are all too damned liberal?

[molson]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

But hey, jack up my tax rate to Swedish or Danish or whatever the highest tax level is on the planet for my income. Why not.

Pretty meaningless unless we know how much of a hit that will actually cost you. You brought it up.

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

And no, because I believe in a government funded progressive tax system passed by lawmakers, not a government ran by charity. So, don't try the "if you're a liberal, you should be donating your whole check to Washington or you're a hypocrite" talking point.

It was a sincere question. I don't think a liberal needs to donate their whole check to Washington to be consistent, I'm just curious if any do give extra. That would be pretty compelling evidence of their sincerity that our tax dollars are going to something desirable (same with a pro-war conservatives - are they sending extra checks off to help with body armor and bullets?) It doesn't register at all on the compassion scale to say what other people should pay in taxes, any more it would be compassionate for me to have the opinion that rich people should give more money to charity.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by Izulde

I still think we should eliminate Congress and the presidency completely. Institute a monarchy that has control over foreign affairs with dukes appointed to serve as the governors of states, but allow democratically elected state legislatures to handle their domestic affairs.

As long as I can have as many wenches as I want...I'm in!

[molson]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

Since I'm guessing most liberals want a less regressive tax system, I'm guessing those in the upper-middle-class and above realize they'd pay more in taxes in their perfect world. I also believe tax rates as a whole will have to be jacked up to pay for our current expenses, but there's lots of loopholes out there to close so the raise in taxes on the middle class and below wouldn't be as rough as it first looks like.

Liberals (especially middle class and higher) can jack up their own tax rates now, they don't have to wait for someone to make them. Just send more money.

I can see not wanting to be put at an unfair advantage against penny-pinching conservatives, I just wonder if that's it or if it's something else. Or would they just resent that services would still go to those who didn't pay enough? Not an unreasonable thought either.

It'd be an interesting pledge drive though. Liberals could raise a ton of money and hand it over to government to administer some socially progressive program.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

It's good to know you'd "think" about paying "some" more in taxes so people can have basic equal rights. Wow, I guess you meant it when you're all for gay marriage - as long as it doesn't effect you in any way.

Hey - even I think you're being slightly out of line and douchey here. He admitted he'd pay something out of his own pocket, and then said it was an interesting question and he's not sure how much he'd pay and it's something he'd think about.

No reason to jump down the guy's throat for that.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by molson

Race is different, and complicated, and a unique U.S. issue, and something we've specifically addressed in amending our constitution. I'd have to really flesh that out to say more than that, but I don't think those cases were wrongly decided.

I do think Lawrence v. Texas was wrongly decided, even though I'm all in favor of consensual butt-sex. I'm going to try to explain that without too much thought or editing:

Social change happens in this country at the point the Supreme Court just decides on their own that, "this shit is really important". I think that's way too much power for the judicial branch. And it's not something other, more socially progressive countries rely on, generally. Look at the legalization of gay marriage in Europe in the last decade.

I think the reliance on the Supreme Court holds us back, honestly, though it's a pretty convoluted opinion that I'd have to flesh out to really write about. The gay marriage dominos are dropping. It will be legal more and more places in the U.S., people will get used it it, more and more people will realize that or society isn't destroyed by it, and sooner than later it becomes an accepted part of our culture.

I do tend to believe that our idea that we can drag people kicking and screaming into a more tolerant society, instead of of encouraging and fostering overall cultural changes that bring about changes in tolerance (like you see in more tolerant countries), isn't a helpeful one. Where gay marriage is permitted in Europe, people generally believe in gay marriage. The next progressive cause that comes up - they're going to be relatively quick to adopt that too. If a couple of U.S. Supreme Court justices have strokes and gay marriage becomes a constitutional u.s. right tomorrow - I'm not sure that sets us up so perfectly for the next "progressive cause" in this country.

Bottom line though - we're a country of laws. The ends don't always justify the means, and to ignore that isn't always desirable long-term. An individual thought that "this should be legal" isn't a good enough reason, to me, to bypass the constitution and impose that super-legislation on everyone. It might get us gay marriage faster, but it really doesn't make us more tolerant, or more prepared or capable for the next important social issue.

Race is no different. It's only different because you're drawing an arbitrary line (or at least arguing an arbitrary line).

And I get what you're talking about as far as waiting for the change to happen more organically, but what about the people whose civil rights are being violated now? It's just a case of "tough luck" for them? That's hardly just.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

I'm a Democrat. I'm always going to be voting for the guy who wants to raise taxes.

No, you're mocking molson for "thinking" about giving "some" money to legalize gay marriage.

This implies that for you, there is no thought. There is no limit. You are so strident that you would donate each paycheck in full to legalize gay marriage.

Or am I mistaken?

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

Race is no different. It's only different because you're drawing an arbitrary line (or at least arguing an arbitrary line).

Race is definitely different, unless the gays were sold as property and still living with the economic repercussions of that years later.

[molson]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

I've already gone over this talking point. I realize this is hard to get, but we don't believe in government by charity, either by conservatives or liberals. I believe in a government with a progressive tax system passed via legislation. I realize some libertarians think government can be run like a school cafeteria with ala carte options. I don't.

I didn't say anything about government by charity. It's be an interesting supplement for the true believers, is all. I was just wondering if we had any true belivers here.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by molson

Race is different, and complicated, and a unique U.S. issue, and something we've specifically addressed in amending our constitution. I'd have to really flesh that out to say more than that, but I don't think those cases were wrongly decided.

No it's not. The 14th Amendment doesn't say race is different.

Originally Posted by molson

Social change happens in this country at the point the Supreme Court just decides on their own that, "this shit is really important". I think that's way too much power for the judicial branch. And it's not something other, more socially progressive countries rely on, generally. Look at the legalization of gay marriage in Europe in the last decade.

I think the reliance on the Supreme Court holds us back, honestly, though it's a pretty convoluted opinion that I'd have to flesh out to really write about. The gay marriage dominos are dropping. It will be legal more and more places in the U.S., people will get used it it, more and more people will realize that or society isn't destroyed by it, and sooner than later it becomes an accepted part of our culture.

I do tend to believe that our idea that we can drag people kicking and screaming into a more tolerant society, instead of of encouraging and fostering overall cultural changes that bring about changes in tolerance (like you see in more tolerant countries), isn't a helpeful one. Where gay marriage is permitted in Europe, people generally believe in gay marriage. The next progressive cause that comes up - they're going to be relatively quick to adopt that too. If a couple of U.S. Supreme Court justices have strokes and gay marriage becomes a constitutional u.s. right tomorrow - I'm not sure that sets us up so perfectly for the next "progressive cause" in this country.

Bottom line though - we're a country of laws. The ends don't always justify the means, and to ignore that isn't always desirable long-term. An individual thought that "this should be legal" isn't a good enough reason, to me, to bypass the constitution and impose that super-legislation on everyone. It might get us gay marriage faster, but it really doesn't make us more tolerant, or more prepared or capable for the next important social issue.

You are missing the fundamental reason we have a system of checks and balances. The Supreme Court is there to make sure that the majority doesn't prejudice against the minority. So that brown haired people can't make a law that bans blonde haired people from attending public school.

We are not a democracy no matter what you hear from your politician. We are a constitutional republic. A democracy is the will of the people. The 51% can control the 49%. We do not have that. If that is what you want out of the country, fine. But you're arguing for a completely different type of government.

[molson]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

Race is no different. It's only different because you're drawing an arbitrary line (or at least arguing an arbitrary line).

The "arbitrary line" is constitutional amendments. The reconstruction amendments were clearly about race. Which does make race different, to me, though obviously there's a million opinions on this.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

Race is definitely different, unless the gays were sold as property and still living with the economic repercussions of that years later.

We are discussing Loving vs Virginia. A case that was decided long after slavery was abolished. Slavery and economics have nothing to do with that case or issue. It's about whether the government can discriminate in who is allowed to marry.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Oh, sorry, I must be imagining the Brown v. Board of Ed. in the quote.

[SirFozzie]

Molson: if we couldn't drag people kicking and screaming, integration of schools in Alabama would still be a pipe dream. Interracial marriages would still be banned in some places/.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by molson

The "arbitrary line" is constitutional amendments. The reconstruction amendments were clearly about race. Which does make race different, to me, though obviously there's a million opinions on this.

And the 4th Amendment was about preventing tax collectors from barging into homes. So does that mean you feel a police officer can walk into your home anytime they want and search your house without a warrant because the Amendment wasn't about that?

[molson]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

No it's not. The 14th Amendment doesn't say race is different.

I'm not a strict texualist. They're about race (IMO).

Originally Posted by RainMaker

You are missing the fundamental reason we have a system of checks and balances. The Supreme Court is there to make sure that the majority doesn't prejudice against the minority. So that brown haired people can't make a law that bans blonde haired people from attending public school.

We are not a democracy no matter what you hear from your politician. We are a constitutional republic. A democracy is the will of the people. The 51% can control the 49%. We do not have that. If that is what you want out of the country, fine. But you're arguing for a completely different type of government.

I get it but it's not that simple. The Supreme Court can project the minority against the majority, but they don't get to determine what that "protection" entails out of thin air, or out of their own personal opinions. If a majority of people in Alabama want to own slaves, the Supreme Court can say no because our constitution forbids that.

Do you believe that its within the Supreme Court's appropriate power to read ANY right it can come up with into the constitution, based on their own personal opinions about how people should live and tolerate others? I've said here that I'm for gay marriage but don't think it's in the constitution. Would you support a "right" you disagree with, if a couple of activist conservative judges thought it was OK? (maybe a individual, fundamental religious right to learn about evolution in public schools, which of course, based on a complicated legal analysis, they find doesn't actually contradict any other right?) Maybe that's a bad example but do you understand the question? It's easy to believe the Supreme Court was "right" in the use of its powers to do something you agree with. What if they used those same powers to invoke some crazy religious "rights" that had a practical impact of imposing on your life (though not an unconstitutional intrusion, of course, they'd make that distinction in a 120-page opinion).

[molson]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

Molson: if we couldn't drag people kicking and screaming, integration of schools in Alabama would still be a pipe dream. Interracial marriages would still be banned in some places/.

You'd need a few more holdouts than that to avoid a constitutional amendment, but maybe. I'm not so convinced. If their entire existence wasn't based on protecting their way of life and fighting the federal government, they actually may have come along faster. Neighboring countries in Western Europe have generally made progress together. How is such a thing possible if nobody will ever change unless we make them? Now, if the UK had to tell Sweden what to do every step along the way, Sweden would probably be as mean-spirited and surly as Alabama today.

People hate the feeling of not having self-determination even more than they hate gays.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by molson

The "arbitrary line" is constitutional amendments. The reconstruction amendments were clearly about race. Which does make race different, to me, though obviously there's a million opinions on this.

Well, you have to look at the time when those amendments were put into place and how they are balanced against other related amendments. There was clearly a need to have those put into place. The constitution is not a perfect document and sometimes things need to be changed to make up for a short coming that crops up from time to time. That's not a bad thing (not that you said it was bad) and I think that speaks more to it being a strength rather than a weakness in our constitution and I don't think it's arbitrary when it comes to discrimination of any kind, race, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, rich, poor, etc...Just my opinion though.

[molson]

Or to put it another way, if your opinions of:

"This should be a right"

and

"The 14th amendment guarantees this as a right",

are 100% identical in all circumstances, then I don't think you're looking at this sincerely. And if they are, the constitution is completely redundant, isn't it? We don't need it. We can just say, openly, that the president gets to appoint justices who, based on their own personal opinions, get to say what rights everyone has and doesn't have. We could call them the "Supreme Court of Rights". Maybe that's a good system, I don't know, but can anyone admit that this is our system?

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by molson

I'm not a strict texualist. They're about race (IMO).

And the 4th Amendment is about tax collectors. Since it wasn't about police searches, should we not have a right to privacy from them? Should we be forced to let them search our homes on a daily basis to make sure nothing illegal is going on? I mean if an Amendment can only be used for what it was originally intended for, you must be for all forms of searches without a warrant unless it's for tax collecting.

Originally Posted by molson

I get it but it's not that simple. The Supreme Court can project the minority against the majority, but they don't get to determine what that "protection" entails out of thin air, or out of their own personal opinions. If a majority of people in Alabama want to own slaves, the Supreme Court can say no because our constitution forbids that.

Actually they do get to determine what that protection entails. It is their job to interpret the laws and to enforce the Constitution. If you don't believe in that, you don't believe in having that branch of government. It is exactly what they were put in place to do.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by molson

Or to put it another way, if you're opinions of:

"This should be a right"

and

"The 14th amendment guarantees this as a right",

are 100% identical in all circumstances, then I don't think you're looking at this sincerely. And if they are, the constitution is completely redundant, isn't it? We don't need it. We can just say, openly, that the president gets to appoint justices who, based on their own personal opinions, get to say what rights everyone has and doesn't have. We could call them the "Supreme Court of Rights". Maybe that's a good system, I don't know, but can anyone admit that this is our system?

No one is saying either of those things. They are saying that the 14 Amendment doesn't allow the State to discriminate. If the government institution of marriage was abolished, than that would take care of the problem.

But in this country the constitution doesn't allow you to build a public school and make it only for the white kids. Just as it shouldn't be allowed to create marriage and make it only for the straight people.

[molson]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

Bingo. If Kansas or Oklahoma or Texas wants to end state sanctioning of marriage and all the benefits (tax/benefits/etc.) encompassed with it, I'd be 100% cool with it.

If that happened, I'm sure someone would read a fundamental right to marry into the constitution. It's somewhere near the "right to privacy".

And didn't the Supreme Court already shoot down this strategy? Shutting down the schools isn't a legal way of preventing integration.

[Greyroofoo]

What the hell are these "State's rights" that everyone keeps talking about. Must be some commie athiest fundamentalist fascist notion.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by molson

If that happened, I'm sure someone would read a fundamental right to marry into the constitution. It's somewhere near the "right to privacy".

No they wouldn't. You would still be allowed to get married, it just wouldn't have anything to do with the government.

Originally Posted by molson

And didn't the Supreme Court already shoot down this strategy? Shutting down the schools isn't a legal way of preventing integration.

Not exactly. They shut down a way of circumventing it. It happened in Virginia. They closed all the public schools and then gave vouchers to kids in the area to attend the only private school there which was whites-only. Basically they were using the private school as a public school by funding it.

[JPhillips]

In 2050 we'll balance the budget. I promise.

The Tea Party Patriots, one of the the largest Tea Party umbrella organizations, with over 1,000 local chapters, hosted a press conference this morning to offer its reactions to last night’s elections and its vision going forward.

Co-founder Mark Meckler tried to pre-empt expectations among the faithful that Washington would shrink and the federal deficit would close overnight, instead alluding to a “forty-year plan” that the group was busy working out with its members. The plan, according to Meckler, was a highway with four lanes, only one of which was explicitly political. The other three were educational, judicial and cultural.

“All civilizations and empires have fallen because their cultures became decadent,” Meckler said. “We need to lift up conservative culture, family values and wholesome things by supporting conservative musicians, writers, artists and producers.”

Tea Party is just Republican spelled funny.

[Buccaneer]

I rarely go to Fox News and don't know one contributor from another but is someone like Joe Trippi worth quoting?

Joe Trippi is a Fox News contributor and political strategist who worked for Ted Kennedy, Walter Mondale and Gary Hart and turned Howard Dean into an unlikely front runner in 2004. For more visit JoeTrippi.com.

[RainMaker]

We'll find out pretty quick if they are for real with their rhetoric. Big vote will come on the debt ceiling and we'll see where their balls are at then. While they talked about it, I guarantee that not a single one of them will filibuster it.

Like I've been saying, they're both the same partiy. They'll just pick retarded wedge issues that don't mean shit to argue over while pillaging the country even more.

[chesapeake]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

I rarely go to Fox News and don't know one contributor from another but is someone like Joe Trippi worth quoting?

It depends on what the subject is. He has worked on a lot of campaigns, and certainly could give some good insights into the process. But he's lost every presidential campaign he's been a part of -- some spectacularly so. He's got the same 'loser' taint that Bob Shrum has in Democratic circles, in no small part because he was Shrum's protege.

[larrymcg421]

I don't think Trippi can really be blamed for Gary Hart, who would have probably won (both the primary and the general) if not for the scandal. 1984 was unwinnable no matter what strategy was used. He was pretty instrumental in making Dean from a nobody into the frontrunner, but did receive some blame for the Iowa failure and was fired shortly thereafter.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

In 2050 we'll balance the budget. I promise.



Tea Party is just Republican spelled funny.

That's called building in some job security.

[JPhillips]

Stop being mean to the banks!

Spencer Bachus, a potential Republican chairman of the House financial services committee, has fired the first salvo in a battle with regulators – warning them against harming US banks by curbing their trading activity. [...]

Underlining the change in Congress, Mr Bachus, who as ranking Republican on the committee could replace Barney Frank as chairman of the panel, expressed concern that shareholders of Goldman Sachs and JPMorgan Chase will be hurt because the banks will be less profitable. [...]

“The derivatives provisions in Dodd-Frank alone… as they stand now they’re going to take a trillion dollars out of our economy. Think how many jobs that’s going to kill,” he said.

Derivative trading adds little to nothing to the economy. If anything it scims off money that could be put to productive use.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Stop being mean to the banks!



Derivative trading adds little to nothing to the economy. If anything it scims off money that could be put to productive use.

He's got to pay them back somehow for all those campaign contributions they gave him...

[chesapeake]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

I don't think Trippi can really be blamed for Gary Hart, who would have probably won (both the primary and the general) if not for the scandal. 1984 was unwinnable no matter what strategy was used. He was pretty instrumental in making Dean from a nobody into the frontrunner, but did receive some blame for the Iowa failure and was fired shortly thereafter.

Deserved or not, I can only tell you that both Trippi and Shrum have had their reputations as top strategists in the party damaged significantly by being involved with so many losing presidential campaigns.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by chesapeake

Deserved or not, I can only tell you that both Trippi and Shrum have had their reputations as top strategists in the party damaged significantly by being involved with so many losing presidential campaigns.

If they were GOP strategists they would have been exiled to Fox with just one failed presidential campaign.

But look at the bright side, neither is as bad as Mark Penn.