" but I'm wondering what heinous crime did that woman commit to deserve the nastiness and rabid foaming-at-the-mouth hatred from liberals in this country?"

She's a woman that doesn't follow the party line. The "big tent" party is welcoming as long as you sheepishly fall in line.

Fail to, you'll quickly see how un-liberal the liberals are.

Except that she literally follows the party line.

But not the correct one. You know the one in power during the worst economic time of my lifetime.

Here's the thing, you'd think she was a terrible, hilariously bad candidate too if she didn't support the party you like. Don't act like you wouldn't be saying the same things if she wasn't for your party/ideals.

If she supported a party I support (which is pretty hard because I think the two main parties are obviously crap in many regards and the two big alternatives, Libertarian, and Tea Party have nice ideals but either don't practice them or go to crazy town on many issues) I'd still think she was a bad candidate. Because she is.

fish82;536426 wrote:10:17 pm.

2012

"Here's the thing, you'd think she was a terrible, hilariously bad candidate too if she didn't support the party you like. "

Indeed, but that wasn't the point I was responding to. The point I responded to is how hateful, sexist and just plain terrible 'neo-liberals' are with folks that disagree with them. I've seen it in every stage of academic life/work life.

BGFalcons82;536687 wrote:As a country, we've been duped that only the smartest, ivy-league educated elites are anywhere near capable of leading this nation in the Congress and Presidency. If you are a hayseed from Kentucky or a Joyless Behar "bitch that will rot in hell" candidate from Nevada, then you are automatically rejected as being able to serve in Washington. We've been taught that only those that "know it all" are priviledged enough to be able to understand everything under the sun. This was never the intent of the founders, yet we have evolved into this mindset. Obama is supposed to be the smartest politician of all time, yet all of his academic learning has not been combined with common sense real world experience. His lack of experience and ability to act at the executive level are hurting this country to the core.

Yeah because the founder's weren't elite at all? I'm sure Joe the Plumber could have came up with the Constitution.... You talk about a Hayseed in kentucky, etc. the man you despise was raised in a multicultural environment without a father and a mother preoccupied with her education with no real sense of identity and got himself to Columbia and then to Harvard Law school...on his own merit and not because he had a rich daddy....

If what you say about non-elitists is true....then BHO is your man.

"Columbia and then to Harvard Law school...on his own merit and not because he had a rich daddy...."

Actually, his father went to Harvard. At any rate, he can release his transcript and LSAT so we'll all know he made it on his merit.

Manhattan Buckeye;536790 wrote:"Here's the thing, you'd think she was a terrible, hilariously bad candidate too if she didn't support the party you like. "

Indeed, but that wasn't the point I was responding to. The point I responded to is how hateful, sexist and just plain terrible 'neo-liberals' are with folks that disagree with them. I've seen it in every stage of academic life/work life.

As if this isn't just as true for the other side. I never thought it would get worse than the radical lefties during the Bush years...but it's just as bad.

Manhattan Buckeye;536795 wrote:"Columbia and then to Harvard Law school...on his own merit and not because he had a rich daddy...."

Actually, his father went to Harvard. At any rate, he can release his transcript and LSAT so we'll all know he made it on his merit.

Notice I said "rich daddy" as opposed to "educated daddy who didn't care about him." I mean do you really think he didn't earn his way there? It's been widely reported that he graduated Magna Cum Laude from Harvard. I mean are people just lying? Making it up? What good reason could you have for assuming that he got his way there for any other reason than earning it?

Because he never worked (or practiced) and law school grades are horse manure. If the guy spent his 3 years taking "Law and Puppets" with the folks that have praised him the whole time for being nothing other than who he is, that is a separate path from taking Partnership Tax or Secured Transactions (which he apparently doesn't understand).

Fine. He earned it. How difficult is it for him to post his LSAT, or MBE score. I'm just curious.

So Harvard Law school grades are horse manure? I doubt they have many classes that could be considered "Law and Puppets".

Guess again. HLS has plenty of soft classes. The Scott Turow "One L" fiction is that. Fiction. He likely had to take the first year classes (torts, contracts, civ pro, crim, property and con law), after that, anything goes.

Again, if he wants to make public his transcript, MBE score and LSAT, I'll be the first person to say he's a smart guy. He hasn't done it.

ptown_trojans_1;536675 wrote:Agreed. But, how do you do it...?
I and my Republican friends think the Tea Party is a great start. It just now needs to focus on how to implement this pretty good concept.

I want smaller, more efficient government that puts more emphasis on the private sector too. But, how are we going to do that?

There is way too much party divide and that is what will ultimately ruin the country.

IMO, there is so much that needs to be done to trim budgets but it starts with:

1. Giving the powers that are outlined in the Constitution back to the states. The federal government is much bigger than it should be because it has taken so much power away from the states.

2. Get rid of unions within the government. Unions have no place within the government, at any level. Unions demand pay increases when the private sector can no longer fund it. We need to go back to the way it once was, when public sector employees were paid less (but had great retirement programs which is the incentive to work in public secotr, not private sector)

3. Trim the military spending. Don't get crazy on me, I don't mean weaken it, but close many bases overseas that are no longer needed. We have a military that can strike from anywhere in the world quickly, we no longer need to be in over 100 countries. This is our biggest spending problem, our military budget.

4. Congressional term limits and benefits reduction. This is what causes career politicians and bad policy making. Get elected for life and you get to determine your own paycheck, benefits and retirement? Put term limits and there should be no retirement pensions for politicians. They should have to return to the REAL workforce.

I could go on and on and I have been very broad, but these are some of the major ones that need to be addressed right away IMO.

ptown_trojans_1;536696 wrote:Ok, so Angle is elected, she gets to the Senate and pledges to cut the debt and cut federal spending.
Has she said how she is going to do it?
How will O'Donnell?

Where, how and on what scale, are they going to cut things?

What is their option for SS? Privatize, semi-privatize, raising the retirement age?
How would they work with other Senators to accomplish the goals?

How would she repeal the healthcare bill, or if repealing was not possible, what would she do to add or remove portions?
What about defense, how would she act there?

It's one thing for Angle and O'Donnell to say smaller government, it is another to tell and explain how they would do it in a practical and pragmatic way. It is not like I don;t like outsiders, it is just I want to know specifics and how they will run the government since they are outsiders and new.

Goodluck getting even the smartest people in government to give you a good answer to those questions.

ptown_trojans_1;536705 wrote:......but this is an important time and we need to really examine analytically each candidate and what they bring.

And in 2010, we are finding that we should have done a better job of this in 2006 and in 2008. If we had, and many tried to but their cries were muffled, maybe we wouldn't be in the mess that we are currently in.

BoatShoes;536803 wrote:I mean do you really think he didn't earn his way there?

So how exactly did BHO "earn his way there?"

Not many "poor because rich black daddy left poor white mommy all alone in the world" kids manage to "earn" their way through Harvard Law School....without some "outsider" assistance.

The fact that he attended Harvard is not the issue. Good for him. The issue in my always skeptical mind is the profound lack of personal transparency (not-to-mention absence of common-sense vetting on the part of the 4th Estate and the Democratic Party) in BHO's past which is ironically at odds with the alleged "most transparent presidency in the history of the United States."

The logistics behind Obama's meteoric rise in the Democratic Party and the American political landscape is chock full of mystery.

So now he prematurely occupies the White House. Come next Tuesday his party will pay the price for it. God knows the nation already has.

Manhattan Buckeye;536904 wrote:Guess again. HLS has plenty of soft classes. The Scott Turow "One L" fiction is that. Fiction. He likely had to take the first year classes (torts, contracts, civ pro, crim, property and con law), after that, anything goes.

Again, if he wants to make public his transcript, MBE score and LSAT, I'll be the first person to say he's a smart guy. He hasn't done it.

Then why didn't you go to Harvard Law? (Not meant in a snarky way, it's just that if HLS isn't particularly difficult I can't imagine why one wouldn't go there considering the enormus upside of having that school on your diploma/resume.)

Because I got a scholarship at UVA. Graduating with $50,000 of debt was a much better option at the time than graduating with $150,000 of debt (best decision I ever made, other than marrying my wife). I still got the same $145,000 job out of law school I would have got from HLS. And I actually practiced, unlike Obama. And I can guaran-damn-tee you I didn't get an AA or legacy bounce, it was straight GPA/LSAT homie, which is why I'm curious to as to Obama's stats. Not to be snarky, but I'm 100% sure I did better than he did on the LSAT/MBE.

Yeah that does sound like a good decision.

I wouldn't be surprised if you did better on the LSAT or whatever. It's just that people claiming he didn't earn his way there when there is zero evidence that he didn't confuse me a bit.

Not that it matters at this point...but I found it interesting that O'Donnell has cut Coons' lead from 19 to 10 points in the last week.

fish82;537515 wrote:Not that it matters at this point...but I found it interesting that O'Donnell has cut Coons' lead from 19 to 10 points in the last week.

Yea, i also was kinda surprised to notice, from what i've been seeing, that O'Donnell seems to be closing the gap a bit, but not sure if she has enough time left. Will be an interesting November 2nd, for sure.

cbus4life;537523 wrote:Yea, i also was kinda surprised to notice, from what i've been seeing, that O'Donnell seems to be closing the gap a bit, but not sure if she has enough time left. Will be an interesting November 2nd, for sure.

Nah...she doesn't. She might make it close enough to entertain the talking heads Tuesday night and give them some fodder to talk about during the "filler" periods, but that's about it.

True...i agree that the race probably won't even get a lot of "air-time," i guess, given the other "hot" races, like Alaska, Kentucky, Nevada, etc. Though, i think Paul has Kentucky wrapped up. Nevada...who the hell knows, i don't envy the choices Nevadans have. Same with Alaska.

Will be entertaining, that is for sure! I don't think i'm going to be getting a lot of work done on election day.

What did any of the mainstream candidates do to deserve the hatred? It does not matter "conservative" or "liberal" both ends of the spectrum have lost sight of the fact that most Americans are in the middle. We live in a democratic society not a theocracy, keep the religion out of it. People run around talking about the morals of the candidates but we live in a fairly amoral society that places monetary value above the value of people. I am not saying socialism is the answer, it is not. BUT we shouldn't not have people sleeping in the streets and going hungary.

STOP hating each other and practice a little compassion and common sense. If you don't want to vote for a former witch don't, but you can't hold a young 20 something to a higher standard than "you" personally have set. I wouldn't vote for a Palin or an O'Donnell because of their "moral" standings but I am not going to trach them for being stupid in their youth. Think about the things you have down in your late teens or 20's that would make headlines today if you were running for office. Most of us wouldn't leave our houses if our dirty laundry was on the front page of the local newspaper let alone the lead story on CNN.

Any first year accountant or finance student can balance a budget, why can't the idiots in D.C. do it?