Republicans & Conservatives Archives

Funny how such a position becomes clear when it’s convenient for the ideology of the author.

I’m sure it’s just a coincidence.

Personally, I would hope they would have more class and sense than to do that. But, you know what, even if I agree with that proposition:

1) You’re counting your chickens a little early, aren’t you?
2) You’re directly contradicting all that you’ve said in support of the Filibusters.

After all, the Democrats who remain would simply be observing the will of those who elected them, according to your logic.

By that logic, if you take the Senate, we ought to be able to filibuster your agenda into the ground. Tell me, honestly, how would you like that? Would you see that as Democracy in action, or would you be calling for a nuclear option, right then and there? After all, we would have a much better claim on the motive of saving the country’s economy than your side would.

Your position here is self-serving, in the context of all that you’ve said to this point about your own Party’s disrespect of majority rules.

I’m going to laugh my ass off and jump for joy if the voters finally oust BOTH Democrat and Republican incumbent politicians by the hundreds, as they did in years 1929, 1931, and 1933.

• Start __ End __ Congress _ Re-Election ___ Party Seat-Retention
• Year ___ Year ___ # ______ Rate ________ Rate
• 1927 ___ 1929 ___ 070st ___ 83.6% ________ 96.4% (087 incumbents ousted: 22(D), 64(R), 1(FL) )
• 1929 ___ 1931 ___ 071st ___ 79.7% ________ 92.5% (108 incumbents ousted: 51(D), 44(R), 2(FL), 1(S) )
• 1931 ___ 1933 ___ 072nd ___ 76.8% ________ 88.5% (123 incumbents ousted: 36(D), 87(R) )
• 1933 ___ 1935 ___ 073rd ___ 61.2% ________ 78.7% (206 of 531 incumbents ousted: 59(D), 147(R) )
• … … … … … … … …
• 1989 ___ 1991 ___ 101 _____ 90.1% ________ 99.6%
• 1991 ___ 1993 ___ 102 _____ 87.7% ________ 98.3%
• 1993 ___ 1995 ___ 103 _____ 73.5% ________ 98.1% (142 of 535 incumbents ousted)
• … … … … … … … …
• 1999 ___ 2001 ___ 106 _____ 89.2% ________ 99.3%
• 2001 ___ 2003 ___ 107 _____ 89.2% ________ 98.7%
• 2003 ___ 2005 ___ 108 _____ 87.9% ________ 98.1%
• 2005 ___ 2007 ___ 109 _____ 88.6% ________ 98.7%
• 2007 ___ 2009 ___ 110 _____ 84.9% ________ 93.1% (81 of 535 incumbents ousted)
• 2009 ___ 2011 ___ 111 _____ 86.7% ________ 93.3% (about 71 of 535 incumbents ousted)

So, who among you (if anyone) can list 10, 20, 50, 100, 200, or even 268 (half of 535) incumbent politicians within Congress that are sufficiently not FOR-SALE, incompetent, greedy, arrogant, and corrupt?

And what about the dismal 11% approval ratings for Congress today?

But, unless someone can name at least 268 (at least half), what does that say about Congress, and the voters who repeatedly reward them with 85%-to-90% re-election rates, despite dismal 11% approval ratings for Congress?

Karl Marx (supposedly) wrote “Religion is the opiate of the masses” ?
If true, he severely under-estimated the allure of fueling and wallowing in the blind, circular partisan-warfare, rooted in laziness, delusion, and blaming others.

At any rate, the majority of voters have the government that they elect, and re-elect, and re-elect, at least, possibly, until repeatedly rewarding failure, repeatedly rewarding the duopoly, and repeatedly rewarding FOR-SALE, incompetent, arrogant, and corrupt incumbent politicians in Do-Nothing Congress with 90% re-election rates finally becomes too painful.

Got Gerrymandering?

Stephen, Lawnboy and others

Republicans who are also not reelected might behave poorly. I don’t know who will win. Democrats represented the majority of the people in 2008. I don’t know if they still do in 2010. We will soon find out.

I don’t see the filibuster the same way. A Senator doing it, if he is up for election again, is presumably doing the will of the people who elect him and if not they will vote him out. If he acts differently AFTER the people have chosen someone else, that is a problem.

And if Republicans take the Senate, I expect Democrats will filibuster if they think important things are at stake.

I like Edge’s comment.

Yeah, because the Republicans would never do that!

TOM PRICE: After losing 31 House seats in the 2006 elections, Price expressed his committment to accomplishing the GOP agenda by “stay[ing] in as long as we need to get done as much as we can do realistically.” “If that’s a week, fine. If that’s four weeks, fine,” he added.

JOHN BOEHNER: In 2006, Boehner was also “intent on finishing all [legislative] action,” including action on nine FY07 appropriations bills. When pushed on the length of the session, he was “unwilling to predict a possible closing date” until the agenda was accomplished.

MITCH MCCONNELL: After the ouster of six Senate Republicans in 2006, McConnell supported incoming Majority Leader Sen. Harry Reid’s (D-NV) lame duck agenda, saying “if we can accomplish” the agenda “it would be a very productive lame duck and I like his attitude about it.”

Isn’t the idea behind term limits is that it lets politicians do whats right not what needs to be done to get elected?

What happened to Rush Limbaugh’s idea that leaders don’t put their fingers in the air and see which way the wind is blowing before they make a decision? Oh that right his guy is no longer the leader.

C&J wrote: “I believe in our democratic process. I assume that whoever is elected in November will represent the will of the American people at that time.”

But, you don’t specify WHICH people, and certainly, LOGICALLY, you cannot be referencing all people. The will of the majority of the people will be served when they, not the wealthy corporate and special interest’s money, control the outcome of elections. Until then, the winners in Nov. will try to represent those who contributed to their election first, and foremost, their party, second, their NEXT reelection, third, and in last place, if anything is leftover, the majority of the people may be thrown a tidbit, or two.

Your faith is naive and stands in denial of the reality everywhere about us and covered amply by our media and cultural story telling.

The last time I checked, our Reps are elected for a 2-year term not a 22 month term. They are perfectly within their rights to do anything within the rules during that session. The way the GOP has behaved in the last 2 years with their “filibusters everything” policy, what leads you to conclude that the Dems owe any courtesy to the GOP?

Well, the dems can pick up all their marbles and go home.
Heh heh heh. Wa Wa Wa.
Throw in som reps too. The RINO’s in particular.

tcsned

How profound!!

Mr. Remer wrote about, “special interest’s money.” I am not sure what he means by that. Perhaps he could explain as there are literally thousands of special interest groups and organizations all intent upon electing politicians who will serve their particular issues.

C&J-
Then you might very well have them filibustering Republican policies all the time. What then will be your response?

You know, the Republicans didn’t start this filibuster crap in 2010. They didn’t even start it in 2008. They started it in 2006, the moment we got into office.

That’s what makes your request such an ironic one. Your party hasn’t seen fit to let a Democratic majority rule. Ever. Now you want them to quietly step aside and do nothing if they lose.

tcsned:

So are you saying, the republicans were within the rules of the senate to filibuster?

RF:

“Mr. Remer wrote about, “special interest’s money.” I am not sure what he means by that.”

Well, I am sure Mr. Remer is not including “Union Funds” in that special interest money…IS HE? Hmmm…

Stephen:

“Your party hasn’t seen fit to let a Democratic majority rule.”

Don’t you mean “let the Democratic Party Legislate”?

“RULE” sounds so dictatorial, wait a minute…maybe you did mean rule…

“Rule”, must be a Freudian slip.

Some of the biggest special interest groups are, the military industrial complex, the waste fraud and abuse could save Social Security. Then there is the Oilocracy that has, for several decades, paid the government to ignore foreign energy dependence and global warming; while receiving many benefits from tax payers and consumers. And, who could forget the financial sector that paid the politicians to turn away from capitalism in favor of financialism.

Royal Flush, I am referring to the 1 billion dollars that will be spent over the next 25 months. The bulk of which will come from corporations and the very wealthy. That money buys lies, misinformation, and threats aimed at the public to persuade, dissuade, and cajole them into voting back the same people who gave us the Great Recession, Too Big to Fail, The BP/MMS bedfellows, millions of unemployed, and well over a trillion dollars of losses in 401K’s, pension plans, and more than doubling our national debt in less than 10 years.

Fortunately, ever greater numbers of voters are tuning that campaign bullcrap out, and adopting the true concept of democracy which obligates voters to vote for challengers instead of ineffective, incompetent, or corrupt incumbents who gave the voter government he/she can’t approve of. And more than 80% of Americans disapprove of the government the Congress under Republicans and Democrats have provided. That’s one wallop of a statistic.

More registered independent voters than either Democratic or Republican. That is another one.

Polls showing disapproval of voters OWN representatives actions at all time record highs, is another one.

Put them, together and they point to a rapidly growing anti-incumbent movement afoot in America. And it is long overdue. It should have taken off the year universal suffrage was passed. We wouldn’t be in the dire shape we are in now, as a nation.

037 said: “Isn’t the idea behind term limits is that it lets politicians do whats right not what needs to be done to get elected?”

That is what many believe. Of course, it could backfire. It could condense the politician’s efforts to favor their wealthy special interest contributors in record time so as to win their payback after leaving office with a cushy golden parachute AVP job when their limited term expired.

Term limits is actually a lazy substitute for voters staying informed, and voting for or against incumbents based on the results from the government the incumbent participated in.

Bottom line though is, term limits will never be passed by politicians if the voters don’t limit their terms voluntarily and repeatedly, first. Of course, if they do that, then legislated term limits are no longer necessary.

Term limits are popular. But, illogically conceived from the gitgo. If we term limited prophets to one year on the pulpit, would Christianity even exist? How about we term limit CEO’s to 4 years? Are their responsibilities and impact on our economy, culture, politics, and future any less than a single Congress person on the House of Representatives? Think about it.

jlw, righton. The government spends 80 billion dollars a year on waste, fraud, and abuse in the military budget. Democrats are talking about proposing a bill which would cut 100 billion dollars over the next 10 years from the military budget (10 billion per year). Guess what, Republicans and some Democrats are already lining up to oppose such legislation.

Talk about corruption! There it is. 800 billion tax dollars will be wasted in the military budget over the next 10 years, and politicians are already lining to oppose cutting 100 billion of that 800 billion. I intend to make these Democrats and Republicans targets for anti-incumbent voters if the bill is defeated or prevented from reaching the floor for an up or down vote.

Baretta9 said: “Well, I am sure Mr. Remer is not including “Union Funds” in that special interest money…IS HE? Hmmm…”

My logical response is: ” “

SD wrote; “Your party hasn’t seen fit to let a Democratic majority rule. Ever.”

Hmmm…how about during the FDR and LBJ days?

Thank you Mr. Remer for anwering my question directly by your comment, “Royal Flush, I am referring to the 1 billion dollars that will be spent over the next 25 months. The bulk of which will come from corporations and the very wealthy.”

If I am understanding what you wrote correctly, the billion refers to campaing funds anticipated to be spent. Right?

I think you left out some very large election contributors in your assessment such as unions, ABA, AMA, and others.

I have changed my mind on VOID and am wishing your organization huge success along with all the other organizations vying for the independent vote. I care little for who gets the credit for throwing the rascals out.

I can’t join and contribute to your organization as that would make me a hypocrit. You see, I will pull the lever in November for the candidate who most closely aligns with my political views. I am certain that you can understand and respect that.

Beretta9-
So, you’re saying that “majority rules” is politically incorrect now? I’m sorry. I guess it’s gone the way of “birthright citizenship” and “free exercise of religion” for your party. Yep. The Republicans: constitutionalists of convenience.

Oh, and that must also mean that “The rule of law” is dictatorial, because of course, the word rule, used to mean governing, leading, policy-making, has been declared a dictatorial word, and must therefore carry such connotations all over the place.

Do I have it right?

Yes, a party rules when it’s the majority. In a non-parliamentary democratic republic, though, majority takes on a more flexible definition. Republicans have been so obsessed with being perfect obstructors, that they’ve passed up many opportunities to form coalitions with conservative and centrist Democrats looking to demonstrate how bipartisan they are.

Power in Washington isn’t just what is and isn’t allowed, it’s what can and can’t be done, and one thing we can certainly say is not out of the realm of possiblity would be Republicans negotiating with Democrats to water down liberal legislation and pass more conservative legislation.

Republicans could have rebuilt their reputations on policy, or at the very least not play the risky part of the boat anchor at a time when people want America to change course.

Republicans didn’t merely want to be part of a majority that rules, they want to rule, period, majority or not. In the process, though, they are making it more difficult for their potential allies on the left to keep their jobs. It is only common sense to say that no majority will much love the folks within it who make it more difficult to exercise their power.

If you take a look at who’s most endangered, it’s not the most liberal folks. It’s the Centrists and Conservatives who are the easiest pickings. If a Liberal majority does come back, does it come back with people willing to make deals with Republicans, or does it come back with folks for whom the deal making of this time bears a bitter lesson in the futility of bargaining with a Party of No?

Royal Flush-
Did you read the preceding paragraph?

Baretta9 - the filibuster is certainly within Senate rules. I think that filibustering every single bill that has come up has earned them 0 courtesy in the lame duck session if they manage to take control of either house. Running candidates like Rand Paul and Sharon Angle won’t help their chances. The GOP has spent two years behaving worse than my 2-year old. Whining about rules of courtesy after the way they acted is laughable. I certainly don’t support such behavior, but all the GOP has earned if they do manage to get control is filibusters of every bill they try to bring up for a vote.

Politicians of all stripes behave incredibly shortsightedly they engage in actions if returned on them would make them cry like a stuck pig.

tcsned:

So, to bring your statement to a conclusion: the filibuster is legal, the republicans were wrong to use it to block bad legislation, but it will be okay for democrats to use the filibuster against the majority, when the republicans are in the majority. Now this is typical liberal logic…

SD:

I think you rattle on so much with your dissertations that you forget the subject of the conversation.

You said:

“Your party hasn’t seen fit to let a Democratic majority rule.”

I said:

“Don’t you mean, “Let the Democratic Party Legislate”?

“RULE” sounds so dictatorial…”

You come back with this:

“Beretta9-
So, you’re saying that “majority rules” is politically incorrect now…Oh, and that must also mean that “The rule of law” is dictatorial, because of course, the word rule, used to mean governing, leading, policy-making, has been declared a dictatorial word, and must therefore carry such connotations all over the place.

Do I have it right?

Yes, a party rules when it’s the majority. In a non-parliamentary democratic republic, though, majority takes on a more flexible definition. Republicans have been so obsessed with being perfect obstructors, that they’ve passed up many opportunities to form coalitions with conservative and centrist Democrats looking to demonstrate how bipartisan they are.”

1. I didn’t say anything about political correctness; it is the liberals who live for political correctness.

2. I didn’t say the “rule of law ” was dictatorial, you did. Ruling over people and observing the rule of law, are two completely different subjects.

3. You say, “a party rules when it’s the majority”, as if you are correct, and then you say, “Republicans didn’t merely want to be part of a majority that rules, they want to rule, period, majority or not.”

You say your party is sent to Washington for the purpose of ruling and then you accuse the republicans of trying to “rule” whether they are in the majority or not.

You are hung up on ruling. Do you believe the purpose of congress is to “Rule” or to “Legislate”? I have read the link I am including below, and I read nothing about the job of congress is to rule over the American people, but the link does say the purpose of the congress is to legislate.

http://centeroncongress.org/learn_about/feature/qa_role.html

I promise you Mr. Daugherty, when and if the republicans take control of the House or Senate, you will continue with your bashing of republicans. You won’t care about bipartisanship and you will be posting dissertation after dissertation on WB about how the democrats should block everything the republicans try to do. Your words and lofty standards are no more than partisan political hot air. The left is like the Pharisees of old, they loved to stand on the street corners and proclaim they were the masters of intelligence and brag about their lofty standards. But in realty, they were hypocrites of the most debase sort. The mean spirited answers by liberals on WB show their true selves to be the most partisan and arrogant group. And you will justify the blocking of republican legislation by saying, “you did it first”. The republicans block bad legislation because we (the conservatives in flyover country) call them and write them and tell them to block the legislation. Is that so hard for the left to understand? We try to get involved with the lawmaking process as much as we can and are not like the mind numbing liberals who are like a bunch of Lemmings, eager to dive off the cliff if it means following a democrat politician. Jesus said of the Pharisees, “They are the blind leading the blind, and if the blind lead the blind, they will all fall in the ditch”.

Barretta9 “So, to bring your statement to a conclusion: the filibuster is legal, the republicans were wrong to use it to block bad legislation, but it will be okay for democrats to use the filibuster against the majority, when the republicans are in the majority. Now this is typical liberal logic…”

Maybe you should reread what I said. I didn’t say it was bad for Republicans but ok for Democrats. I said that politicians act like 2 year old’s or worse. When one side does something, the other side pays them back and goes a little further. The GOP is certainly the group acting like a child now - if the tables do turn, I expect the Dems to do the same thing. If they do filibuster every single bill that comes up they too will be acting childishly and like sore losers.

I guess you missed this part, “I certainly don’t support such behavior”

To read something, not understand it, and then just make up a conclusion based not on what was said is typical non-thinker logic. There are plenty of valid, real arguments to be had you don’t need to invent things to argue about.

And Santa Claus said, “Ho, ho , ho!”

Beretta9, do you even read what you post? You are arguing whether it’s law or rule or majority rules or ruling majority or laws of rules or rules of law?

Really, who gives a flying fig. That was a total waste of white space.

Generic Congressional Ballot
Generic Ballot: Republican 48%, Democrat 36%
Monday, August 16, 2010

“Republican candidates have jumped out to a record-setting 12-point lead over Democrats on the Generic Congressional Ballot for the week ending Sunday, August 15, 2010. This is the biggest lead the GOP has held in over a decade of Rasmussen Reports surveying.”

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/generic_congressional_ballot

If the majority of voters continue to simply flip-flop between Democrat and Republican incumbent politicians, and continue to repeatedly reward BOTH with 85%-to-90% re-election rates (despite dismal 11% approval ratings for Congress), things will most likely only get worse … at least, perhaps, until enough voters are jobless, bankrupt, homeless, and hungry (or worse).

At any rate, the majority of voters have the government that they elect, and re-elect, and re-elect, at least, possibly, until repeatedly rewarding failure, repeatedly rewarding the duopoly, and repeatedly rewarding FOR-SALE, incompetent, arrogant, and corrupt incumbent politicians in Do-Nothing Congress with 90% re-election rates finally becomes too painful.

“The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit Monday put the brakes on an Aug. 18 implementation date for U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker’s order overthrowing the will of 7 million California voters with regard to marriage.

The court granted a motion filed by the ProtectMarriage.com legal team, including attorneys with the Alliance Defense Fund, that asked the court to stay the judge’s Aug. 4 decision in Perry v. Schwarzenegger until the appellate court has time to hear the case.”

http://mail.aol.com/32447-111/aol-1/en-us/Suite.aspx

SD

Which of the documents that make up our form of government uses democracy? A democracy is about as bad as a dictatorship. Neither is good for the people who must live under such circumstances. Our founding fathers used republic with no adjectives or adverbs to enhance what they were saying. It was straight forward and with clear mind that they spoke. Their words on paper prove that. The Magna Charta, Declaration of Independance, The Constitution of the United States and the Federalist Papers were all documents that did not advocate any form of democracy. So whatever it is that was taught to you and that you learned is in error.

Royal Flush-
Rasmumssen always seems to have its numbers about ten or twelve points lower for the Democrats than other sites I see. Also, a Generic ballot has one small problem with it.

Okay, a big problem. Namely, nobody’s going to be voting this way for individual Congressmen and Congresswomen. They won’t be voting for generic candidates, either.

While it’s not the best indicator in the world for Democrats, concerning the mood of the country, it’s not relevant to how people in districts and states might vote, except at a distant tangent.

Republicans aren’t done alternatively shooting themselves in the foot and sticking their foot in their mouths. Already, lousy situations have improved, and many seats that could potentially Go Republican are likely to go Democrats.

I expect Republicans to continue self-destructing at every opportunity until the election. And if they win? Nothing’s going to stop them there. By the time they’re through, Republicans will be lucky to get elected dogcatcher.

Spin and blur…disavow and deny seems to be Mr. Daugherty’s answer, in his comments, to the polling I cited by Rassmussen.

Mr. Daugherty writes, with no source quoted, the following…

“Already, lousy situations have improved, and many seats that could potentially Go Republican are likely to go Democrats.”

Care to elaborate Mr. Daugherty?

Considering the fact that our Founding Fathers excluded 2/3 to 3/4 of the people from participation and representation in the government while denying those people the same rights and privileges as themselves lends credence to the anti-democracy theme presented by tom humes.

In this light, the democratic use of the amendment process to grant rights and participation in the election process to slaves, women and the riff raff is an abominated distortion of original intent.

As the democracy movements continue to grow, the anti-democracy advocates will be forced to consider imposing their will to crush these movements. Anti-democracy propaganda alone will not be enough. But wait, 7 million Californians went to the polls, not to elect a representative, but to actually participate in democracy. The conclusion of that vote is touted by the anti-democracy crowd.

Poll question: Do you think this country needs more or less democracy or do you think we have about the right amount of democracy?

Beretta9 said,

Jesus said of the Pharisees,” They are the blind leading the blind, and if the blind lead the blind, they will all fall in the ditch.

So appropriate, the blind have been leading the blind and we have fallen into the ditch.

Four options:

Disperse the hungry crowd.

Teach the hungry crowd to fish, fishermen are on staff.

Divide the fish and feed the hungry crowd.

Divide the fish and sell them to those in the hungry crowd that have the means to pay.

I wonder which option the Pharisees would have chosen.

I picture the banks of the Sea lined with blind fishermen.

Was this video doctored?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fv4jnlkxOaw

Royal Flush-
Well, Rand Paul’s making it easier for Jack Conway to get elected, the Colorado Senate Seat’s getting easier because Tancredo is playing the spoiler, and of course Harry Reid’s doing much better now that he’s facing a walking gaffe machine.

A generic ballot is just that, and with Rasmussen, it’s quite a few points off of many other generic ballots.

I’m not taking anything for granted in the next election. But I am also not conceding an election battle before it is fought.

As for the video?

Why do you bother us with such stupid ****?

Barack Obama has spent more than a decade now talking about his father, and what he actually did do. Your thesis is that somehow, someway, he actually said to himself, “Gee, I can make him a WWII veteran, too!”

Neat trick given that his father was nine or ten when WWII ended.

You honestly think an honors grad of Harvard law is trying to get away with that boneheaded of a lie?

He misspoke. It’s easier for him to flub a few words like this, than it is to get such obvious facts wrong.

Come back to me when you’ve got a matter of actual substance to discuss.

democrat=flub
republican=lie
liberals=no logic

I will place Mr. Daugherty’s name on the list of those who believe the video is not doctored. All the rest of his comment is superflous and mere guesswork.

Mr. Daugherty in his many comments refers to his love of facts. Well, it appears it is a fact that Obama did say what is recorded on the video.

A less defensive supporter of Obama might have just said…Yup, he uttered those words and it was an obvious flub.

The video looks real to me. I don’t know but could he have meant his grandfather?

Stanley Dunham is the grandfather of Barack Obama. He was born in 1918 and served as a sergeant in the U.S. Army during World War II, enlisting just after the attacks on Pearl Harbor. Stanley and his wife Madelyn raised Obama in Honolulu, Hawaii. In addition to President Obama, Stanley is related to six US presidents: James Madison, Harry Truman, Lyndon Johnson, Jimmy Carter, George H. W. Bush, and George W. Bush.[26][27] He died in Honolulu, Hawaii in 1992 and is buried at the Punchbowl National Cemetery.
Ralph Dunham, Ph.D.
Great-uncle of Barack Obama, older brother of Stanley Dunham, born 1916. He served in the U.S. Army as an assignment and personnel officer during World War II, landing at Normandy’s Omaha Easy Red beach on D-Day plus four and working his way through France, Italy and Germany.[28][29]
How about that pretty interesting.

Jeff,

Thanks, for the Obama family and military history. It seems quite logical that Obama could misstate his grandfather as his father since in reality he was his de facto father.

You missed it all!! VP Biden was standing behind him whispering in his ear because the teleprompters were messing up. lol

So TH this is all you got is a spitball?

Was video this doctored? Presidential quotes

quote text

If only he had went into comedy instead of politics just think how much better this country could have been. It begs the question who’s the bigger fool…the fool or the fools that follow.

Jlw:

Steal the fish from those whom want to feed their families and give the fish to those too lazy to fish for themselves.

RF:

A cardinal sin is to quote Rasmussen Polls to Stephen….

The video was hilarious and I want to quote 1 comment by PJChilds:

· “I think people are just jealous that he comes from such a remarkably noble family. I mean his father was just a little 5 year old Kenyan kid when he fought in WWII and his Uncle fought along side the Russians to free the prisoners in the Auschwitz concentration camp.
I know how he feels because my Grandmother lived to be 473 years old and was once Queen of the World and my Grandfather is from the planet Octagon
Oh boy!!! The cart with the meds is here!!!!”

You guys are killing me… You’re going to have Stephen so upset, he will start cursing again. Poor guy, I’m starting to feel sorry for him. He can’t get a break.

Come on beretta that’s all you got. You and a few others trying to gang bang Stephen? More often then not he’s right. You can twist the truth or make up your own truth but it don’t change the facts.

What do we have being manifested here. A new elite group call the “thinskiners”. I think they are a split off of the mule skinners of song. Lighten up Jeff. Don’t take the fun so personal. If your spit is more potent then make your own spitball, if not mine will have to do.

Now to be a bit serious. I thought in the course of conversations that when the term spitball was used it was about the strength of a retort or statement. I’m glad I’m not a political liberal. It has to be a real egg beater out there in the liberal world.

Now see you have a spitball and an egg beater. Next is the curve ball. Just warning you.

Mr. Humes I thought that was what I was doing. Believe me I am not thin skinned. I can give and take with the best.

Beretta9-
No, the real question is, why do you rarely cite anybody else’s polls?

I mean, hell, I’m not picky. I’ll site everything from Gallup to Harris. You? I can’t remember the last time you cited a poll that wasn’t Rasmussen. It’s absurd.

You guys are jumping on a small little mistake that is not the stuff of serious gaffes. There’s nothing offensive about it, no rational reason to believe that he was actually trying to be deceptive.

But hey, you’re opportunists. You’re not looking for the truth, you’re looking for a chance to bash Obama, no matter how collosally stupid the attempt is.

That’s what’s infuriating. It’s like truth doesn’t even matter to you folks. You care more about pointing out how much of an essay writer I am, or bashing me because of my beloved facts than actually responding to what I’m really talking about.

I’m trying to constrain the debate to the real world, but I guess the real world isn’t colorful enough for the kinds of things you want to say about Barack Obama. You guys just want to waste time thinking up clever names for him, rather than actually talking about real world issues that actually affect us. I mean, is it any wonder that you party has fallen through floor on policy, and pretty much just nixes Liberal policy instead of providing their own alternatives? Republicans have actually gotten to thinking that just the fact they keep liberals out of an office entitles them to keep that office. That’s all you think you have to do. Well, if you guys are successful, if you get back to office, I got news for you: people will expect results.

People like me? We push for that. But conservatives lately have become all about simply being the blackhole that swallows policies that get too close to changing their favored agenda items. Any idiot, literally any idiot, given the Republican candidates, can do that.

But having idiots in charge is what killed you guys in the first place. The stupid, it burns, and the Republicans are playing with the stupid every day. What other party at this point would elevate a half-term failed governor and Vice Presidential candidate to such a level of authority in their party?

The only problem in my party is that too many politicians are basically the same folks you’ve been stomping for the last thirty years. They don’t stand up so well for themselves. But what you’re going to find is that thin-skinned or not, there are a lot of Democrats nowadays, my generation in particular, who are sick of that, and want the party members to start kicking your asses.

My generation is going to be the break their foot off generation, as far as your politics go. You better prepare yourself now.

Well then, I guess you don’t have a thing to worry about in November. Sounds like you got it all figured out. Why should I have to quote any other polls, they all say the same thing? I use Rasmussen, because you don’t like Rasmussen… The left is easy…