Writerbuckeye;542530 wrote:If not raising the debt ceiling means bankruptcy, then you raise it and start working to CUT as much as you can out of the next budget.

You don't arbitrarily decide to vote no on something like that just to make a point -- and just because someone has run an entire election on reducing government spending does NOT mean they should be stupid. If it takes one more extension of the debt before cuts can be made, then you do it.

But I'm sure if the debt ceiling gets raised, there will be "children" who point fingers and say all kinds of idiotic and stupid things. It is Washington, after all.

I'd love for this to happen, but I have a better chance of winning the lottery. The only way the government is going to make the massive cuts to the budget that are necessary is if the federal government defaults on their debt. The politicians have no desire and no incentive to cut the budget right now, despite what they may have "run" on.

believer;542592 wrote:Obama has shown little if any willingness to reach across the aisle contrary to the bipartisan rhetoric he spewed during his campaign in 2008. When he's ready to acknowledge that a lot if not most Americans are indeed different than himself and then show willingness to live up to his own bipartisan rhetoric, he might become more than just a stubborn, arrogant, and inept socialist ideologue. JMO

If that's true then why are so many liberals equally dissatisfied with him? Why are people calling him "Bush with a tan," bemoaning his "fascist" healthcare bill, dumbfounded by his lack of climate change legislation, etc. He could have rammed most of that through before Scott Brown if he wouldn't have "bothered" with feeble attempts at bipartisanship.

BoatShoes;542522 wrote:The Roe v. Wade was famously criticized by Scalia, not because it protected a right to an abortion inasmuch as it nationalized the abortion debate and created rigid sides on the issue rather than letting political compromise play out.

Your whole post was good. I don't agree with quite all of it, but their is a lot of things that make a lot of sense in it. I don't have the time to comment on the whole thing. But the part of it I quoted is why I so strongly believe that our federal government has gotten way to big (constitutional arguments aside). Basically way to many things become national issues where one side has to force its will on the other side across the whole nation. This causes anger and divisions between us. You will never find consensus in 300 million people and you will rarely find compromise.

If California wants to have a socialist utopia, go for it. As long as they are willing to bare the burden if it fails. Maybe at the federal level of governance we just have some irreconcilable differences and eventually some of us will just have to part ways.

BoatShoes;542650 wrote:If that's true then why are so many liberals equally dissatisfied with him? Why are people calling him "Bush with a tan," bemoaning his "fascist" healthcare bill, dumbfounded by his lack of climate change legislation, etc. He could have rammed most of that through before Scott Brown if he wouldn't have "bothered" with feeble attempts at bipartisanship.

We're talking about the same Obama who said just this week that Republicans need to find a seat in the back of the bus, right?

1 senate seat down, 9 to go. Indiana is now a red state in the senate.

How about a new thread without all the bullshit. Just results and comments on the RESULTS not what he or she said last week

bases_loaded;542730 wrote:How about a new thread without all the bullshit. Just results and comments on the RESULTS not what he or she said last week

that's what I intended it to be, but we are at 82 posts already .............

bases_loaded;542730 wrote:How about a new thread without all the bullshit. Just results and comments on the RESULTS not what he or she said last week

Create the thread.

Portman wins, Fischer loses.
Rand Paul...the penultimate Tea Party candidate...wins.
Rubio...the 2nd best Tea Party candidate...wins easily.

Drink the tea...it's flowing freely tonight.

BGFalcons82;542703 wrote:1 senate seat down, 9 to go. Indiana is now a red state in the senate.

They just called Delaware for Coons.

The Tea Party tonight cost Delaware a Senate and House seat as Democrats picked up Mike Castle's old seat. Castle would have won that Senate race by 20+ points, and nominating O'Donnell just gave it to the Democrats for free.

If Republicans fall 1 seat short of the Senate (which seems possible) it will be because the Sarah Palin's of the world thought it better to have a Chris Coons in the Senate that is an Obama rubber stamp for everything instead of a Mike Castle who might vote with Democrats only 20% of the time.

The way it is looking in some early house races, R's will get 50-60 house gains, getting the majority.

IggyPride00;542741 wrote:They just called Delaware for Coons.

The Tea Party tonight cost Delaware a Senate and House seat as Democrats picked up Mike Castle's old seat. Castle would have won that Senate race by 20+ points, and nominating O'Donnell just gave it to the Democrats for free.

If Republicans fall 1 seat short of the Senate (which seems possible) it will be because the Sarah Palin's of the world thought it better to have a Chris Coons in the Senate that is an Obama rubber stamp for everything instead of a Mike Castle who might vote with Democrats only 20% of the time.

Eh, I don't believe for one second a Republican had much of a chance in Delaware. Those folks elected Biden, after all. And to turn your theory around: if conservative Dems aren't forced to vote for things like the health care bill and cap & trade, you don't see so many of them getting tossed out. The leftists are the ones who forced that to happen and set in motion events that created the Tea Party movement.

Hurt wins in C'ville. Knocked off a moderate, but loyal Obamamite in Periello.

IggyPride00;542741 wrote:They just called Delaware for Coons.

The Tea Party tonight cost Delaware a Senate and House seat as Democrats picked up Mike Castle's old seat. Castle would have won that Senate race by 20+ points, and nominating O'Donnell just gave it to the Democrats for free.

If Republicans fall 1 seat short of the Senate (which seems possible) it will be because the Sarah Palin's of the world thought it better to have a Chris Coons in the Senate that is an Obama rubber stamp for everything instead of a Mike Castle who might vote with Democrats only 20% of the time.

What are you drinking --- Castle is identical to Coons; they are one in the same. They both vote FOR radical liberal policies. There is no difference. I would much rather not have the seat than have an imposter R continually vote FOR the socialist/marxist agenda.

WOW - I am stunned you don't see that.

The West Virginia race has just been called for Manchin. That pretty much makes it impossible for the Republicans to take over the Senate.

Divided government here we come.

IggyPride00;542762 wrote:The West Virginia race has just been called for Manchin. That pretty much makes it impossible for the Republicans to take over the Senate.

Divided government here we come.

So long as the House goes Red and most states elect Republican leaders, I'm a happy camper. When business sees Obama can no longer ram through crap like health care & cap & trade, we'll see the economy start to rebound. I predict it won't take too long, and we'll see marked improvement in 2011.

What are you drinking --- Castle is identical to Coons; they are one in the same. They both vote FOR radical liberal policies. There is no difference. I would much rather not have the seat than have an imposter R continually vote FOR the socialist/marxist agenda.

Castle would have been a vote for Senate Majority leader Mitch McConnell, Coons is not.

As far as his voting record, Castle received a 52 conservative rating. Chris Coons is projected to be a 12 based on his prior history.
http://www.nationalreview.com/campaign-spot/245790/just-what-mike-castles-voting-record

You have been listening to far too much talk radio if you think it is more helpful to the cause of stopping BHO that having a non-ideologically pure Republican like Castle was a worse alternative than a full blown liberal Obama rubber stamp like Coons.

IggyPride00;542741 wrote:They just called Delaware for Coons.

The Tea Party tonight cost Delaware a Senate and House seat as Democrats picked up Mike Castle's old seat. Castle would have won that Senate race by 20+ points, and nominating O'Donnell just gave it to the Democrats for free.

If Republicans fall 1 seat short of the Senate (which seems possible) it will be because the Sarah Palin's of the world thought it better to have a Chris Coons in the Senate that is an Obama rubber stamp for everything instead of a Mike Castle who might vote with Democrats only 20% of the time.

I wasn't aware that Sarah Palin was registered to vote in Delaware.

It doesn't matter anyway...they're going to fall 2 seats short.

IggyPride00;542774 wrote:Castle would have been a vote for Senate Majority leader Mitch McConnell, Coons is not.

As far as his voting record, Castle received a 52 conservative rating. Chris Coons is projected to be a 12 based on his prior history.
http://www.nationalreview.com/campaign-spot/245790/just-what-mike-castles-voting-record

You have been listening to far too much talk radio if you think it is more helpful to the cause of stopping BHO that having a non-ideologically pure Republican like Castle was a worse alternative than a full blown liberal Obama rubber stamp like Coons.

I respectfully, and emphatically, disagree. Castle is no ally of mine or of the tax payers, job creators, producers, and risk takers. HE IS A FAIL, and I am glad he is not in the Senate, especially with an R beside his name.

IggyPride00;542762 wrote:The West Virginia race has just been called for Manchin. That pretty much makes it impossible for the Republicans to take over the Senate.

Divided government here we come.

Manchin as Senator will be up for re-election in 2012, since this is to fill the late Sen. Byrds seat. So, if Manchin says he will vote against Obama in the Senate as promised on the campaign trail, then this is basically a win for the R's if he wants his job come 2012.

Manchin (D-WV) is more conservative than Castle (R-DE).

Anyone that disagrees, hasn't been to West Virginia, or Delaware.

I just heard Marsha Blackburn (Congresswoman from Tennessee) on MSNBC talking to Chris Matthews about the need to cut taxes and cutting government spending, just not defense, Medicare, Medicaid, or Social Security.

If that is the battle plan, the budget is already running a deficit if all those things are off the table as far as cuts go even if you cut every other dollar the government spends. Maybe a remedial math course needs to become mandatory for all politicians before they are allowed to take office each session.

IggyPride00;542798 wrote: Maybe a remedial math course needs to become mandatory for all politicians before they are allowed to take office each session.

Amen to that .......... likewise remedial testing for voters.

Manhattan Buckeye;542789 wrote:Manchin (D-WV) is more conservative than Castle (R-DE).

Anyone that disagrees, hasn't been to West Virginia, or Delaware.

Yes...that is true. Manchin is up for re-election in 2 years, so he MUST deliver what he ran on...which were conservative principles. For those bashing the Tea Party...the majority of winners run on conservative values tonight. Those that run with the annointed messiah are being dismissed left and right. Adios statists. Have a nice day packing your shit.

Mr. Fuckstick, Alan Grayson, is officially toast. Goodbye toadstool. You are a shithead and I'm surprised you even got 1/3 of the pond scum to vote for you.