Also note the Shrillary will be 69. I have my doubts Granny will be able to
motivate the youth vote that helped bring Obama into power. I'm her age and
I sure as hell wouldn't vote for a bossy old woman.
We have to hold these Turkeys feet to the fire!
On the bright side, I heard that the scuttlebutt
from Republican congressman was that were were not
afraid of the general election, but they were
afraid of the Tea Party in the primaries. So,
there may be a light at the end of the tunnel.
Here is to "begin[ing] the world over again!"
On Sunday, November 9, 2014 2:02:32 AM UTC-5, Todd wrote:
That's light at the end of the tunnel? If they are Republicans
and so afraid of the Tea Party, then it suggests they are
Republicans that aren't conservative and it's going to be more
business as usual.
How exactly are Republicans going to do that when Obama is still
It's possible/probable that they were afraid the TP would split
the vote in the primaries..? My guess anyway.
Good question! There was very little mention of any kind of 'plans'
by either side. Certainly nothing along the lines of what Newt laid
out during the Clinton years. It was all about Obama this cycle, that
you either voted with him or against him. It will indeed be an interesting
2 years ahead. If they <GOP> cannot put forth some good ideas/legislation,
then we might well go ahead and prepare for Hillary. <shudder>
Americans are a very fickle people, and women are just waitin' their chance.
The Tea Party was a good movement, but they seem to have gone off too
far to the right. What we really need are more moderates from both
parties. People that can talk and work together. A congresscritter
that realizes they are working for "the people" and not self-interest
and the highest bidder.
It will be interesting to see what happens. The smarter and sensible
Dems are distancing themselves from him, if for no other reason than
their own survival.
On Sunday, November 9, 2014 7:37:56 AM UTC-5, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
I agree that in some cases, the Tea Party is off the rails. But the "moderate"
approach is what's gotten us where we are, ie big govt, $18tril deficits, more
The first thing coming will be the K pipeline. If Obama vetoes it, very
likely Congress can override the veto. A lot of those Dems must be fed up
with the wreckage Obama has brought to them and the party.
I am eager to work with moderate Democrats who
wish to repeal gun control acts of 1934 and
1968, and to revoke the concept of firearms
permits, which are prior restraint of a Creator
endowed right. My kind of moderate.
I guess we differ on what a moderate is. My definition does not
include bigger government.
What I'd really like to see is a strong sensible Libertarian party.
The problem with the Libertarians, they have a good platform and good
ideas, but they manage to get some kooks to run for office.
On Sunday, November 9, 2014 8:41:24 AM UTC-5, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
It's the moderates of both parties that have come together to pass the
legislation that has given us the big govt and big spending we have today.
The only ones I see objecting to and pointing out the dangers of big govt
and big spending are the conservative Tea Party types. A lot of other Republicans claim they are against big govt, but then to get deals done,
they go along withexactly the opposite. We saw that happen during the Bush years. As for the Dems, I don't know of any that are speaking out on the
dangers of big govt, big govt spending, do you?
Even if they're not kooks, it's impossible for them to win. All they do
is siphon off enough Republican votes so the Democrat wins.
Nothing wrong with that and initially I supported them. One a lower
local level though, some TEA party activists want more radical
changes, not just limits on government.
They have to get on track or be a "party of the whacko extremists"
On Sunday, November 9, 2014 3:34:52 PM UTC-5, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
AFAIK, they really aren't a party. It's more of a movement. What's
going on in CT at the local level could be very different from what's
going on in FL. I agree with you that there are certainly some Tea Party
folks that could use a dose of reality, practicality, etc. For example,
trying to repeal Obamacare the last few years when it was clear it would
never pass the Senate and even if it did, Obama would veto it. I'm also
not a fan of trying to tie issues like that to the budget or debt ceiling.
We had the big debate on Obamacare and we lost. If it's possible someday
in the future to repeal it, after Obama is gone, that's the time to revisit
it. If either party tried to use the budget, debt ceiling, etc to undue
other major issues they lost on, there would be constant chaos.
And apart from the practical side, it looks bad for the Republicans to
many middle of the road voters. It's not worth a spectacle that they know
they can't win. Yet because of their personal beliefs and that they are
trying to keep faith with the Tea Party folks back home, you have them
engaging in unproductive efforts.
I lived in Massachusetts for a brief time in the early '70s and voted for
Edward Brooke. He was the first African-American to be elected to the Senate
by popular vote and was a Republican. Now there's a hat trick. He was also
the last Republican Senator from MA until Scott Brown. At the time, MA was
about 3% black so that wasn't a factor. What ultimately sank his boat was a
pro-choice stance in a heavily Catholic state.
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.