[Hoot Gibson]

The Last Majority? Did i miss something the past 10 years? I dont recall Bush's terms being the highlife. Unemployment dropped when obama came into office. How exactly is that his fault?

Check the record and you will find that the unemployment rate was more than four points lower when Democrats took control of the House than it is now. You are also very wrong about the unemployment rate dropping when Obama took office. It was well below 8 percent when Obama was sworn in. He pledged that if Congress would only pass his so-called stimulus plan, the unemployment rate would not rise above 8 percent. It stands at 9.7 percent and is about to go higher according to most economic experts.

[Againstme!]

I really dont care...is this a good enough answer...i'm just gonna move to Germany and get out of here

[Hoot Gibson]

I really dont care...is this a good enough answer...i'm just gonna move to Germany and get out of here

If you do leave, please renounce your citizenship so that somebody who loves this country will have an open slot. I know a bunch of men and women who would love to be an American citizen.

[Stardust]

Check the record and you will find that the unemployment rate was more than four points lower when Democrats took control of the House than it is now. You are also very wrong about the unemployment rate dropping when Obama took office. It was well below 8 percent when Obama was sworn in. He pledged that if Congress would only pass his so-called stimulus plan, the unemployment rate would not rise above 8 percent. It stands at 9.7 percent and is about to go higher according to most economic experts.

Let's not get all stuff up in facts, it's not nearly as fun as making up crap and posting it:Thumbs:

[Hoot Gibson]

Let's not get all stuff up in facts, it's not nearly as fun as making up crap and posting it:Thumbs:

I remember reading some comments by the author of the Wag the Dog movie in which he explained that no matter how outrageous a political satire movie is, real politicians will do things that he would never imagine happening in this country.

Anybody who has not watched Wag the Dog, I highly recommend it. It is a very underrated movie. Dustin Hoffman, Robert Di Nero, Woody Harrelson, Anne Heche, Dennis Leary, Kirsten Dunst, William Macy, and more. The movie even featured Willie Nelson, who wrote the theme song for the phony war that was produced by Dustin Hoffman. It is sad how much of the movie is so believable. But it is still a very funny movie.

[Stardust]

LOUISVILLE - U.S. Senate candidates Rand Paul and Jack Conway are offering competing solutions to an age-old dilemma - how to lift more people into the middle class in a state saddled with historically high poverty rates.

http://nky.cincinnati.com/article/AB/201...ebate-jobs


Their differences revolve around the role of government, if any, to spur job growth and higher incomes.

Conway, a Democrat, supports a "hometown" tax credit to reward small and medium-sized businesses for job creation, and he calls for stepped up lending through the Small Business Administration. He talks of "smart oversight" from the government to protect consumers from "hucksters and risky gambles" by the financial sector.

Paul, his Republican opponent, sees government as a deterrent to growth.

"Government must get out of the way so American businesses and families can get back to work," the tea party-backed Paul said in response to a questionnaire from The Associated Press.

Conway talks of restoring "the golden years" of economic growth under President Bill Clinton.

AP asked Paul and Conway to provide written responses to how they would grow household incomes and strengthen the middle class in Kentucky, which lags behind most of the country in income and ranks among the poorest states.

According to U.S. Census Bureau figures, Kentucky ranked 48th with a median household income of $40,072 in 2009, trailing just three states in a survey of all 50 states and the District of Columbia.

In another 2009 Census survey, Kentucky ranked 47th in the percentage of its population ages 16 to 64 that's in the work force. Meanwhile, Kentucky had the third highest percentage of its population living below the poverty level.

Kentucky had 10 percent unemployment in August, putting it above the 9.6 percent national rate. A year earlier, the state's jobless rate was hovering close to 11 percent. Kentucky lost nearly 100,000 manufacturing jobs between 1999 and 2009, according to the state Office of Employment and Training.

University of Kentucky economics professor John Garen said Thursday that the state's economy remains weak. The recession seems to have "bottomed out" in Kentucky, he said, but "growth is pretty minimal." Kentucky tends to recover more slowly from downturns because its economy is more closely tied to manufacturing than many other states, he said.

Congress can significantly influence the national economy with tax and regulatory policies, as well as its work on the financial, health care and energy sectors, Garen said.

Paul blames President Barack Obama and Democratic congressional leaders for holding back the economic recovery by pushing policies that are "creating uncertainty and increasing costs on businesses and individuals."

Specifically, Paul wrote that he would work to repeal the health care overhaul as a way to cut costs to families and businesses. He said the new law will drive up health costs.

Conway supports the health care law but says it could be improved. He has said hundreds of thousands of Kentuckians will get health coverage for the first time thanks to the overhaul.

Paul also said in his response that the threat of federal regulation of greenhouse gas emissions is causing more uncertainty for businesses, especially in Kentucky's coal regions.

He said he favors extending tax cuts that passed when Republican George W. Bush was president. The reductions are due to expire at the end of the year unless Congress extends them.

Paul also said he will push to balance the federal budget "to stop the unsustainable debt that Washington is piling on future generations and end government takeovers and bailouts of businesses."

Conway wrote he has found $430 billion in savings by closing corporate tax loopholes that encourage companies to ship jobs overseas, allowing Medicare to negotiate lower prescription drug prices and cutting other waste.

He said his tax credit proposal will "encourage businesses to expand their payrolls and create jobs" - which he called the most immediate way to increase family incomes and boost the middle class.

To get more credit flowing to small businesses, Conway said he'll push for expanded lending from the Small Business Administration, along with reduced fees and increased guarantee levels.

[Westside]

LOL, if we required voters to know their candidates policies, do you really think Obam would be president! You are correct in your analogy, but unfortunately you are the MORAL MINORITY!

:Thumbs::Cheerlead:Clap:irateSho

[LeeCoUKFan]

Rand Paul already has this won!

[hawg laig]

Conway is political veal. He was born and bred to be Senator. Articulate, handsome and smooth. Paul is a complete nut case. He speaks his mind, has his own ideas, and actually had the nerve to speak out against King Hal (his own party) and his pork barrel projects. The only draw back I see is Ran Paul having Jeb Bush appear at a fund raiser. Ditch the old!! In with the new!! I'm backing Paul. TERM LIMITS!!!

[LWC]

I honestly wonder, after reading this thread, how many BGR users just push the button at the top of the voting machine that says Democrat, Republican, etc...

This is really sad. I understand in real life (I was a campaign manager for a current Ky House member) that you talk as little about issues and as much about fluff as possible. But on a message board, why not discuss the candidates?

It was sad because when I was working with one candidate helping him to fluff, the other candidate was a young, smart, handsome, well-experienced in Frankfort candidate. He made the big mistake of actually talking about issues at a debate and it burnt him. Isn't America sad? I know that I was heart-broken after the election, because I actually wanted the other candidate to win after hearing from him, but I knew that he would be gobbled up in Frankfort by party-ism, and favors.

How about this. Could someone PLEASE post some type of platform about the candidates, even if it means doing this:

Rand Paul- hates Obama and is a Republican
Jack Conway- loves Obama and is a Democrat

Sadly, that would be more than what is being put on here now.

I mean lets try to inform the potential voters.

[Stardust]

I honestly wonder, after reading this thread, how many BGR users just push the button at the top of the voting machine that says Democrat, Republican, etc...

This is really sad. I understand in real life (I was a campaign manager for a current Ky House member) that you talk as little about issues and as much about fluff as possible. But on a message board, why not discuss the candidates?

It was sad because when I was working with one candidate helping him to fluff, the other candidate was a young, smart, handsome, well-experienced in Frankfort candidate. He made the big mistake of actually talking about issues at a debate and it burnt him. Isn't America sad? I know that I was heart-broken after the election, because I actually wanted the other candidate to win after hearing from him, but I knew that he would be gobbled up in Frankfort by party-ism, and favors.

How about this. Could someone PLEASE post some type of platform about the candidates, even if it means doing this:

Rand Paul- hates Obama and is a Republican
Jack Conway- loves Obama and is a Democrat

Sadly, that would be more than what is being put on here now.

I mean lets try to inform the potential voters.

Lol, I commend you in trying but sorry, there are not many posters on that know policy. This also fits the voting public equally! You are asking for something that is just not real!

[Hoot Gibson]

I honestly wonder, after reading this thread, how many BGR users just push the button at the top of the voting machine that says Democrat, Republican, etc...

This is really sad. I understand in real life (I was a campaign manager for a current Ky House member) that you talk as little about issues and as much about fluff as possible. But on a message board, why not discuss the candidates?

It was sad because when I was working with one candidate helping him to fluff, the other candidate was a young, smart, handsome, well-experienced in Frankfort candidate. He made the big mistake of actually talking about issues at a debate and it burnt him. Isn't America sad? I know that I was heart-broken after the election, because I actually wanted the other candidate to win after hearing from him, but I knew that he would be gobbled up in Frankfort by party-ism, and favors.

How about this. Could someone PLEASE post some type of platform about the candidates, even if it means doing this:

Rand Paul- hates Obama and is a Republican
Jack Conway- loves Obama and is a Democrat

Sadly, that would be more than what is being put on here now.

I mean lets try to inform the potential voters.

If you don't like what is being posted here, LWC, why don't you post here more frequently? I would love to see stronger participation in this forum.

I would like to address the portion of your post that I have highlighted in bold type. I too used to have a problem with straight ticket voters who, I assumed, did not really care about the issues or take time to learn candidates' positions on the issues. I was wrong - at least I was wrong in a good many cases. Some people do simply cast straight party ballots out of willful ignorance or laziness. Others, myself included, believe that we have valid reasons for doing so and we also believe that we are adequately informed about the issues.

After years of following national political issues and candidates I have reached the conclusion that in the case of national candidates, nothing is more important than the ® or the (D) beside of their name. The reason is simple. Votes for (D)s will help ensure that Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid (or some equally unappealing alternatives) will be setting the nation's legislative agenda for the next two years. That legislative agenda will result in bills that are radically different than the ones on which I want my Congressmen and Senators voting. I want people representing me in Congress who will have an opportunity to vote in favor of legislation that I support. That will rarely happen with liberal Democrats in charge of Congress.

Members of the minority party in the US House of Representatives and the US Senate are not powerless, but the most important vote that they will cast by far will be to elect the Speaker of the House or Majority Leader of the Senate. By being a member of the minority in either house of Congress, a representative or senator has very few opportunities to shape legislation that is important to him or her.

Even if a Democratic candidate says that if elected, he will vote exactly as I would vote and even if he is telling the truth, in reality, he will not have an opportunity to vote in favor of legislation that I would support. So why should the Democratic candidate's positions really matter to me?

Granted, if the majority party only controls Congress by a narrow margin, moderates in the minority party will be able to win some compromises in legislation that the majority members propose, but conservatives and liberals are not going to be pleased with such compromises. For us, gaining large legislative majorities are a must because compromise frequently means throwing core principles to the wind.

As it relates to this particular Senate campaign, it really makes no difference to me what Jack Conway's positions on any issues are. If he and Harry Reid are both elected, then Conway will support Reid and he will support most, if not all, of Obama's agenda.

At the state or local levels, I have no problem voting for the "best man" or the "best woman" running for an office, regardless of their political affiliation. In the past, I have also cast protest votes against Hal Rogers and George H. W. Bush (I voted for Perot the first time) but that was before I finally saw the error of my ways.

As long as the political agendas of the two major national parties are as radically different as they are today, I will always vote for the most conservative Republican running for national office. If a Democrat is running unopposed for a national office, then I will vote for a candidate running on ticket of the the Libertarian or Constitution Party or any other third party candidate. I will not grant approval of the national Democratic Party by voting for one of its candidates.

True conservatives, given today's political realities should never vote for Democrats in a national election, nor should true liberals ever vote for Republicans. With moderates, it really does not matter. They tend to be less well informed on issues and candidates that most appeal to them tend to be political opportunists like John McCain and his ilk. I happen to think that the kind of "splitting the baby" solutions crafted by moderates is often worse than the more extreme alternatives on either side.

As for a posting a platform for each candidate, I like the ones that you posted. :biggrin:

They are concise and they cover the most important positions of the candidates. This election is a national referendum on Obama and his thieving accomplices in Congress. The (D) and the ® beside Paul's and Conway's names is all that people need to understand before making an informed decision and casting their ballots.

[LWC]

If you don't like what is being posted here, LWC, why don't you post here more frequently? I would love to see stronger participation in this forum.

I would like to address the portion of your post that I have highlighted in bold type. I too used to have a problem with straight ticket voters who, I assumed, did not really care about the issues or take time to learn candidates' positions on the issues. I was wrong - at least I was wrong in a good many cases. Some people do simply cast straight party ballots out of willful ignorance or laziness. Others, myself included, believe that we have valid reasons for doing so and we also believe that we are adequately informed about the issues.

After years of following national political issues and candidates I have reached the conclusion that in the case of national candidates, nothing is more important than the ® or the (D) beside of their name. The reason is simple. Votes for (D)s will help ensure that Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid (or some equally unappealing alternatives) will be setting the nation's legislative agenda for the next two years. That legislative agenda will result in bills that are radically different than the ones on which I want my Congressmen and Senators voting. I want people representing me in Congress who will have an opportunity to vote in favor of legislation that I support. That will rarely happen with liberal Democrats in charge of Congress.

Members of the minority party in the US House of Representatives and the US Senate are not powerless, but the most important vote that they will cast by far will be to elect the Speaker of the House or Majority Leader of the Senate. By being a member of the minority in either house of Congress, a representative or senator has very few opportunities to shape legislation that is important to him or her.

Even if a Democratic candidate says that if elected, he will vote exactly as I would vote and even if he is telling the truth, in reality, he will not have an opportunity to vote in favor of legislation that I would support. So why should the Democratic candidate's positions really matter to me?

Granted, if the majority party only controls Congress by a narrow margin, moderates in the minority party will be able to win some compromises in legislation that the majority members propose, but conservatives and liberals are not going to be pleased with such compromises. For us, gaining large legislative majorities are a must because compromise frequently means throwing core principles to the wind.

As it relates to this particular Senate campaign, it really makes no difference to me what Jack Conway's positions on any issues are. If he and Harry Reid are both elected, then Conway will support Reid and he will support most, if not all, of Obama's agenda.

At the state or local levels, I have no problem voting for the "best man" or the "best woman" running for an office, regardless of their political affiliation. In the past, I have also cast protest votes against Hal Rogers and George H. W. Bush (I voted for Perot the first time) but that was before I finally saw the error of my ways.

As long as the political agendas of the two major national parties are as radically different as they are today, I will always vote for the most conservative Republican running for national office. If a Democrat is running unopposed for a national office, then I will vote for a candidate running on ticket of the the Libertarian or Constitution Party or any other third party candidate. I will not grant approval of the national Democratic Party by voting for one of its candidates.

True conservatives, given today's political realities should never vote for Democrats in a national election, nor should true liberals ever vote for Republicans. With moderates, it really does not matter. They tend to be less well informed on issues and candidates that most appeal to them tend to be political opportunists like John McCain and his ilk. I happen to think that the kind of "splitting the baby" solutions crafted by moderates is often worse than the more extreme alternatives on either side.

As for a posting a platform for each candidate, I like the ones that you posted. :biggrin:

They are concise and they cover the most important positions of the candidates. This election is a national referendum on Obama and his thieving accomplices in Congress. The (D) and the ® beside Paul's and Conway's names is all that people need to understand before making an informed decision and casting their ballots.

I respect your opinion and I agree, I have no problem with well-informed voters that decide that every candidate of one party is their favorite. Often times, that is what happens, people align themselves with a party's agenda and that is why we have parties, lol.

My biggest problem were the "yellow-dog" voters. As in if a big yellow dog was running against a well-respectable candidate, if the yellow dog was running for their party, they have their vote.

I do agree, Washington has gotten very sickening. It is almost impossible to reach across party lines anymore. James Madison warned us about political parties, and I guess he was right, lol. I also feel as if a person HAS to pick their poison between "stingy, money-****ry, war-mongering" EXTREME Republicans or "Robin-hooded, baby-killing, hippie-like" EXTREME Deomocrats. Nobody is willing to be an Henry Clay and try to bring both sides together, (even though he had his faults, you know what I am trying to say )

If the Tea-Party had candidates that were not so crazy and just totally ridiculous, I would be able to latch on. I like the idea of shaking up Washington. It is too hard for a good man/woman to be moral, by any stretch of the imagination. I honestly believe that MANY congress men and women would NEVER vote if they were not required. That way they would be able to avoid the campaign bullets.

I don't believe that a Democrat can appeal to Republican or vice-versa in Washington anymore. If you notice that almost every major bill that has been passed in the last 10 years has been either a democrat-favored bill or a republican favored bill. Nothing major that has been passed has been liked by both sides. Many times a bill can be drafted at 30-35 pages, but by the time all the crap has been added to it it is a 500-1000 page piece of garbage that congress-people don't even read!

I know that I have totally hi-jacked this thread and I apologize. It doesn't even matter because unless I drive from Jamestown to Brodhead, I wont be able to vote. (I made a vow to never be registered in the same county that I pastor in, to avoid HUGE church fights, but that is another story, :lmao: )

Continue on

[jetpilot]

I honestly wonder, after reading this thread, how many BGR users just push the button at the top of the voting machine that says Democrat, Republican, etc...

This is really sad. I understand in real life (I was a campaign manager for a current Ky House member) that you talk as little about issues and as much about fluff as possible. But on a message board, why not discuss the candidates?

It was sad because when I was working with one candidate helping him to fluff, the other candidate was a young, smart, handsome, well-experienced in Frankfort candidate. He made the big mistake of actually talking about issues at a debate and it burnt him. Isn't America sad? I know that I was heart-broken after the election, because I actually wanted the other candidate to win after hearing from him, but I knew that he would be gobbled up in Frankfort by party-ism, and favors.

How about this. Could someone PLEASE post some type of platform about the candidates, even if it means doing this:

Rand Paul- hates Obama and is a Republican
Jack Conway- loves Obama and is a Democrat

Sadly, that would be more than what is being put on here now.

I mean lets try to inform the potential voters.

It may not reflect it on here, but the voters know very, very well the difference(s) in these candidates.

[LWC]

I did a little research and here is some more info that people want on the candidates:

Rand Paul's endorsements:

Citizens United Political Victory Fund
Gun Owners of America
Liberty Slate 2010
National Right to Life Committee
One Nation PAC
Republican Liberty Caucus
Republican National Coalition for Life PAC
Right March
Senate Conservatives Fund
Team America
The Club for Growth

Jack Conway's Endorsements:

National Education Association
(I'm sure there are more but that is the only one I could find)

Also:
2008 Attorney General Conway supported the interests of the Association of Community Organization for Reform Now (ACORN) - Home Foreclosures 80 percent in 2008.

[LWC]

http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/Jack_Conway.htm

http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/Rand_Paul.htm

This website is supposed to be a non-affiliated website that ONLY uses on-the-record sources. No propaganda or fluff. I like it.

[jetpilot]

I respect your opinion and I agree, I have no problem with well-informed voters that decide that every candidate of one party is their favorite. Often times, that is what happens, people align themselves with a party's agenda and that is why we have parties, lol.

My biggest problem were the "yellow-dog" voters. As in if a big yellow dog was running against a well-respectable candidate, if the yellow dog was running for their party, they have their vote.

I do agree, Washington has gotten very sickening. It is almost impossible to reach across party lines anymore. James Madison warned us about political parties, and I guess he was right, lol. I also feel as if a person HAS to pick their poison between "stingy, money-****ry, war-mongering" EXTREME Republicans or "Robin-hooded, baby-killing, hippie-like" EXTREME Deomocrats. Nobody is willing to be an Henry Clay and try to bring both sides together, (even though he had his faults, you know what I am trying to say )

If the Tea-Party had candidates that were not so crazy and just totally ridiculous, I would be able to latch on. I like the idea of shaking up Washington. It is too hard for a good man/woman to be moral, by any stretch of the imagination. I honestly believe that MANY congress men and women would NEVER vote if they were not required. That way they would be able to avoid the campaign bullets.

I don't believe that a Democrat can appeal to Republican or vice-versa in Washington anymore. If you notice that almost every major bill that has been passed in the last 10 years has been either a democrat-favored bill or a republican favored bill. Nothing major that has been passed has been liked by both sides. Many times a bill can be drafted at 30-35 pages, but by the time all the crap has been added to it it is a 500-1000 page piece of garbage that congress-people don't even read!

I know that I have totally hi-jacked this thread and I apologize. It doesn't even matter because unless I drive from Jamestown to Brodhead, I wont be able to vote. (I made a vow to never be registered in the same county that I pastor in, to avoid HUGE church fights, but that is another story, :lmao: )

Continue on

LOL, sure you would. This sentence proves you do exactly what you are accusing others of, just voting for the D. You don't think Tea-party candidates aren't running against some liberal crazy loons??? You need to examine the positions of the candidates a little more closely...:biggrin:

[LWC]

LOL, sure you would. This sentence proves you do exactly what you are accusing others of, just voting for the D. You don't think Tea-party candidates aren't running against some liberal crazy loons??? You need to examine the positions of the candidates a little more closely...:biggrin:

I should have worded more carefully. I would not care if the Tea Party was D or R or I or G. I was merely stating that I would support a Tea Party movement if they had more reasonable candidates. I tend to vote fairly down the middle because on Social issues I am conservative and on Economic issues I tend to be divided. I do not like the corporate greed but at the same time I believe that much of the welfare and social security needs reform but needs to exist. I don't know what that makes me, and I have heard dozens of answers, including crazy :lmao:

I did not intend to directly support one party by posting that, it is just that I do not see a single Tea Party candidate that I like. I am not overly excited about Jack Conway either, he has a lot of Republican views for a Democrat! I was really amazed by his public record and how many times he sounded like an R.

[Stardust]

I should have worded more carefully. I would not care if the Tea Party was D or R or I or G. I was merely stating that I would support a Tea Party movement if they had more reasonable candidates. I tend to vote fairly down the middle because on Social issues I am conservative and on Economic issues I tend to be divided. I do not like the corporate greed but at the same time I believe that much of the welfare and social security needs reform but needs to exist. I don't know what that makes me, and I have heard dozens of answers, including crazy :lmao:

I did not intend to directly support one party by posting that, it is just that I do not see a single Tea Party candidate that I like. I am not overly excited about Jack Conway either, he has a lot of Republican views for a Democrat! I was really amazed by his public record and how many times he sounded like an R.

Just get on your donkey and get out of the way - LOL (jk)

[Cowchip]

"the stimulus package costs 1 trillon dollars, if you divide it out it costs $413,000 PER JOB. But more importantly we have to ask, where does the money come from? Jack Conway acts like the money is for free just go and get it from Santa Claus in Washington, the money is not for free it has to be borrowed" -- Rand Paul

[Hoot Gibson]

I should have worded more carefully. I would not care if the Tea Party was D or R or I or G. I was merely stating that I would support a Tea Party movement if they had more reasonable candidates. I tend to vote fairly down the middle because on Social issues I am conservative and on Economic issues I tend to be divided. I do not like the corporate greed but at the same time I believe that much of the welfare and social security needs reform but needs to exist. I don't know what that makes me, and I have heard dozens of answers, including crazy :lmao:

I did not intend to directly support one party by posting that, it is just that I do not see a single Tea Party candidate that I like. I am not overly excited about Jack Conway either, he has a lot of Republican views for a Democrat! I was really amazed by his public record and how many times he sounded like an R.

What is reasonable about Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Alan Grayson, Charles Rangel, Maxine Waters, Barbara Boxer, or Debbie Wasserman Schultz as candidates? These are the people who have sponsored and signed bills that have resulted in laws responsible for the largest increase in the national debt than at any time in our nation's history. These are the people who think that it is okay to sign bills spending $1 trillion or more without even taking time to read them. They are the people who say legislation must be passed so that we can find out what is in it.

I have yet to hear a single candidate backed by the various tea parties whose craziness even begins to approach the insanity of some of the most senior and most senior Democratic leaders in Congress.

[Bob Seger]

I respect your opinion and I agree, I have no problem with well-informed voters that decide that every candidate of one party is their favorite. Often times, that is what happens, people align themselves with a party's agenda and that is why we have parties, lol.

My biggest problem were the "yellow-dog" voters. As in if a big yellow dog was running against a well-respectable candidate, if the yellow dog was running for their party, they have their vote.

I do agree, Washington has gotten very sickening. It is almost impossible to reach across party lines anymore. James Madison warned us about political parties, and I guess he was right, lol. I also feel as if a person HAS to pick their poison between "stingy, money-****ry, war-mongering" EXTREME Republicans or "Robin-hooded, baby-killing, hippie-like" EXTREME Deomocrats. Nobody is willing to be an Henry Clay and try to bring both sides together, (even though he had his faults, you know what I am trying to say )

If the Tea-Party had candidates that were not so crazy and just totally ridiculous, I would be able to latch on. I like the idea of shaking up Washington. It is too hard for a good man/woman to be moral, by any stretch of the imagination. I honestly believe that MANY congress men and women would NEVER vote if they were not required. That way they would be able to avoid the campaign bullets.

I don't believe that a Democrat can appeal to Republican or vice-versa in Washington anymore. If you notice that almost every major bill that has been passed in the last 10 years has been either a democrat-favored bill or a republican favored bill. Nothing major that has been passed has been liked by both sides. Many times a bill can be drafted at 30-35 pages, but by the time all the crap has been added to it it is a 500-1000 page piece of garbage that congress-people don't even read!

I know that I have totally hi-jacked this thread and I apologize. It doesn't even matter because unless I drive from Jamestown to Brodhead, I wont be able to vote. (I made a vow to never be registered in the same county that I pastor in, to avoid HUGE church fights, but that is another story, :lmao: )

Continue on

Would you be so kind as to outline what Tea Party endorsed candidate is (what you refer to as being) crazy and what specifically is it that you deem ridiculous?

[LWC]

I listed links that had many platforms pieces for each candidate. Check them out for yourselves. I did not feel it was necessary to paste all of that information on here. That will answer your questions.

[charlie22]

Rand Paul all the way for me. Does he have some rather extreme positions? To me, the answer is yes. But on balance, he is much more in line with my values and beliefs than Conway is. To the extent he is extreme, we probably need some extreme right wingers to counter balance the likes of Reid, Pelosi and the like. So even his extremeness, if you will, has positives for me.

I'm what I would call a moderate R. I supported McCain and firmly believe that had he been elected, this country would be way better off today than we are. He would not have passed Healthcare reform. Reform that took a brutal toll on any chance of bi partisanship in DC. That so devastated Obama's political capital he is pretty much powerless to do any good to solve the economic problems of today. He ignored the Republicans and he ignored what a clear majority of Americans wanted, if you are to believe the polls, on health care reform. He didn't care though because health care reform was a pet project of his.

I know healthcare reform was a big pet project of Obama, Reid and Pelosi, and I understand the principle of "striking while the iron is hot" but in not realizing the affect his health care reform would have on the ability to operate in the middle and gain cooperation across the aisle, Obama and the like were foolhardy and reckless. Plus it will prove immensely expensive, thus hurting our ability to take financial steps to help improve the economy.

I dissent from the R right wingers in that I believe the federal govt does have to spend heavily on capital projects to stimulate the economy. Yet I agree with the R right wingers in that I believe that we have too much debt to be able to do big capital spending right now and that such debt undermines our long term economic stability. Healthcare reform made the issue even worse.

Thus we should not have touched healthcare reform until we got the country economically strong. Right, wrong or otherwise, the time was not right for healthcare reform. Unfortunately Obama and his supporters weren't capable of realizing that and pushed forward on their pet project.

I totally agree with Hoot in that a vote for Conway will be a vote for Obama, Pelosi, Reid etc. Conway can say whatever he wants, but he will be beholden to those folks once he gets elected. He just seems like someone that wants to be the professional politician. It is almost impossible to get re-elected unless you can "get things done" while in office; buck your party leaders and you get nothing done. It's that simple; sad but true. And Conway, much much more than Paul, seems to be the kind of elected official that is very, very interested in serving in DC for a very long time. So of the two, I see Conway as being someone willing to sell out his principles in order to get along with his party's leadership for the sake of getting re-elected. Maybe I'm reading Paul wrong, but I can see him giving the R leadership and establishment the middle finger salute when they try to get him to buckle to them. And I like that in him.

Oh, and I love the idea of term limits by the way. Two 6 year terms for Senators; six 2 year terms for House members. 12 years is enough time to be in DC for any one. If term limits are smart for the President, they are smart for the folks in Congress. I'm tired of looking at bios of people in Congress that have done nothing in their lives than serve in Congress for the last 20 plus years. The longer you are in DC, the less you understand Main Street. Show me the politicians that are the strongest party loyalists that put the party and their reelection efforts ahead of the country and I'll show you the politicians that have been in office and power the longest. Heck, most have to get reelected because they have been out of the workforce so long, they aren't qualified to do any thing other than be in elected office. They are scared to death that if they lose an election, their livestyles will be greatly diminished. So they grovel to their party and party leadership so they can "get things done" and get reelected.

[Bob Seger]

I listed links that had many platforms pieces for each candidate. Check them out for yourselves. I did not feel it was necessary to paste all of that information on here. That will answer your questions.

I can look at all of the links and it can detail each candidate's platform, but that doesn't tell me one single thing. I still wouldn't know which candidate or idea that you personally consider as being either crazy or ridiculous, now would I? Someone else might be totally disagreeable with whatever you personally refer to as crazy. I just wanted to understand where you were coming from. Your are the one that made the claim, right?

I think that with you completely dodging my question that you have effectivly answered my question in saying that you really dont have any idea how to anwser my question, because there just may not be any validity to your assertions. Right? For someone who quotes they they feel so strongly about a candidates mental state or agenda, it should have been very easy to rattle one off the top of your head. Or at least that is my take on it. Am I correct?

[Hoot Gibson]

I can look at all of the links and it can detail each candidate's platform, but that doesn't tell me one single thing. I still wouldn't know which candidate or idea that you personally consider as being either crazy or ridiculous, now would I? Someone else might be totally disagreeable with whatever you personally refer to as crazy. I just wanted to understand where you were coming from. Your are the one that made the claim, right?

I think that with you completely dodging my question that you have effectivly answered my question in saying that you really dont have any idea how to anwser my question, because there just may not be any validity to your assertions. Right? For someone who quotes they they feel so strongly about a candidates mental state or agenda, it should have been very easy to rattle one off the top of your head. Or at least that is my take on it. Am I correct?

:Thumbs: I could name a crazy TP candidate or two but for every candidate endorsed by the Tea Party who I could describe as crazy, I can easily name 10 incumbent Democratic candidates that fit that description. As for platforms and position papers, they are nothing but worthless scraps of paper - especially once a person has actually served a term in elected office. In government, performance is everything. Don't promise me anything unless you can prove that you have delivered on your past promises.

[LWC]

I can certainly tell where this forum lies on the political scale... I actually considered myself moderate, for this board, I am EXTREME left!

Why take offense when a moderate says that both parties are wacky and crazy? Welcome to the world of politics, everyone has an opinion, everyone has public statements, and everyone has a record.

What that website is for is to show what a candidate says, AND it tells anything that is on record, voting records, etc... what is bad for Kentucky voters is that neither candidate has relevant experience. One candidate wore a white coat and the other's experience isn't much more relevant.

Basically, what I am saying is that neither candidate is worth voting for. A lot of elections lately have me picking the worst of two evils. This election will be the same way. I am not trying to directly bash one party or the other. A lot of Dem's and Rep's have made this country fall farther and farther. Is it still the best, absolutely. Will the Tea Party be any better? Probably not. It COULD be a nice change. People though the same about Lincoln's Republicans and Progressives, right?

If Paul or Conway turn out to be great, I will eat crow, PROUDLY. I would love to be the guy that was wrong. In my heart, I have faith that this State can be great, and I have faith that whatever candidate is elected, will be great. My head just gives me doubt.

[LWC]

Saw this on Kentucky.com this morning: (if I see a Conway story, I will post one to be fair as well)

http://www.kentucky.com/2010/10/10/14740...e-for.html

Republican Senate candidate Rand Paul raised the idea Sunday that wealthier people like his opponent, the co-owner of a Kentucky Derby horse, should pay more for Medicare coverage.

Paul warned in a speech in his hometown that unless the U.S. starts dealing with its mounting debt, it risks eventually facing some of the chaos that erupted in debt-plagued Greece, which was rocked by violent protests.

[Hoot Gibson]

I can certainly tell where this forum lies on the political scale... I actually considered myself moderate, for this board, I am EXTREME left!

Why take offense when a moderate says that both parties are wacky and crazy? Welcome to the world of politics, everyone has an opinion, everyone has public statements, and everyone has a record.

What that website is for is to show what a candidate says, AND it tells anything that is on record, voting records, etc... what is bad for Kentucky voters is that neither candidate has relevant experience. One candidate wore a white coat and the other's experience isn't much more relevant.

Basically, what I am saying is that neither candidate is worth voting for. A lot of elections lately have me picking the worst of two evils. This election will be the same way. I am not trying to directly bash one party or the other. A lot of Dem's and Rep's have made this country fall farther and farther. Is it still the best, absolutely. Will the Tea Party be any better? Probably not. It COULD be a nice change. People though the same about Lincoln's Republicans and Progressives, right?

If Paul or Conway turn out to be great, I will eat crow, PROUDLY. I would love to be the guy that was wrong. In my heart, I have faith that this State can be great, and I have faith that whatever candidate is elected, will be great. My head just gives me doubt.

Well over half of our US Senators are attorneys. What makes you think that a doctor is not qualified to represent the citizens of his state? Do you prefer sending a steady stream of lawyers to Washington who are too busy to even read the 1,000 page bills that lobbyists draft for their signature? Do you honestly believe that our sitting Senators are better qualified to make rational decisions in the national interest than Rand Paul because he is a doctor? Really? Rand Paul is not qualified because he has no track record of contributing to the decline of this great nation?

[Bob Seger]

I can certainly tell where this forum lies on the political scale... I actually considered myself moderate, for this board, I am EXTREME left!

Why take offense when a moderate says that both parties are wacky and crazy? Welcome to the world of politics, everyone has an opinion, everyone has public statements, and everyone has a record.

What that website is for is to show what a candidate says, AND it tells anything that is on record, voting records, etc... what is bad for Kentucky voters is that neither candidate has relevant experience. One candidate wore a white coat and the other's experience isn't much more relevant.

Basically, what I am saying is that neither candidate is worth voting for. A lot of elections lately have me picking the worst of two evils. This election will be the same way. I am not trying to directly bash one party or the other. A lot of Dem's and Rep's have made this country fall farther and farther. Is it still the best, absolutely. Will the Tea Party be any better? Probably not. It COULD be a nice change. People though the same about Lincoln's Republicans and Progressives, right?

If Paul or Conway turn out to be great, I will eat crow, PROUDLY. I would love to be the guy that was wrong. In my heart, I have faith that this State can be great, and I have faith that whatever candidate is elected, will be great. My head just gives me doubt.

But that is not what you said. Need we go back to the quote?

Who took offense? You made a statement and was kindly asked to explain and yet still refuse to do so. Dont blame it on a perceived lean on this board. Back up what you say, is all that's being asked.

Will you not explain because:

A) I didn't know what I was talking about.
B) Cant find a good example.
C) I am really a Tea Party basher.
D) other