TheRealVille Wrote:What made Rand Paul qualified, other than the basic requirements him and Alison share? What made Mitch qualified 30 years ago?
I guess your point is that any idiot, as long as he/she is at least 30 years old, domiciled in his/her state, and has been a US citizen for nine years meets the qualifications to run for the US Senate.
I repeat my question concerning what else, if anything, does sweet Alison have on her resume other than being Jerry's daughter. And, by the way, your governor and sweet Alison's father are political enemies. How will all that work out?
Harry Rex Vonner Wrote:I guess your point is that any idiot, as long as he/she is at least 30 years old, domiciled in his/her state, and has been a US citizen for nine years meets the qualifications to run for the US Senate.
I repeat my question concerning what else, if anything, does sweet Alison have on her resume other than being Jerry's daughter. And, by the way, your governor and sweet Alison's father are political enemies. How will all that work out?
Rand Paul isn't an idiot? What political experience did he have that qualified him? What was on his resume? Was it just that he was a republican? Beshear is done. Alison is more qualified than Rand, being a lawyer, and somewhat familiar with the law. Rand maybe could check the other senators eyes, but that's all his resume held. I don't know if I'd even trust him on that, since he couldn't pass the real board, and had to make his own.
Being a lawyer does not qualify you to be in the US Senate any more than any other occupation does. How many lawyers voted for Obamacare without even reading it? How many voted for the recently passed amnesty bill without reading it?
You don't have to be a lawyer to vote on bills without reading them after lawyers working for special interest groups and staff lawyers write them. There are some good lawyers in Congress but they are badly outnumbered by the bad ones. The results from Washington indicate that we would be much better off with a Congress and Executive Branch in which elected officials represented a broader cross-section of occupations.
I don't like the job that McConnell is doing as Majority Leader and I would be much happier seeing an effective communicator like Ted Cruz (who is an outstanding lawyer) in that position. What we do not need is another liberal Democrat who will march in lockstep to Obama's socialist agenda. I am not saying that McConnell cannot lose but it is very, very unlikely. It is very difficult to defeat an incumbent Senator, regardless of what kind of job he or she has done.
TheRealVille Wrote:Rand Paul isn't an idiot? What political experience did he have that qualified him? What was on his resume? Was it just that he was a republican? Beshear is done. Alison is more qualified than Rand, being a lawyer, and somewhat familiar with the law. Rand maybe could check the other senators eyes, but that's all his resume held. I don't know if I'd even trust him on that, since he couldn't pass the real board, and had to make his own.
That's hilarious. I'd pay big bucks to see you debate Rand Paul on any subject whatever. The name calling liberal girly boys you dial in everyday, launch their assaults against any and everybody who isn't liberal which, BTW is aimed at the democratic voter mushrooms, and you fall right in line. :biglmao:
^ Still no one wants to explain why Rand was a good senator selection, with his "vast" experience?
TheRealVille Wrote:Rand Paul isn't an idiot? What political experience did he have that qualified him? What was on his resume? Was it just that he was a republican? Beshear is done. Alison is more qualified than Rand, being a lawyer, and somewhat familiar with the law. Rand maybe could check the other senators eyes, but that's all his resume held. I don't know if I'd even trust him on that, since he couldn't pass the real board, and had to make his own.
In reality, being "somewhat familiar with the law" is a poor qualification. I would prefer that a candidate be very familiar with the reality of the world in which we live.
The first few years that I was a lawyer, I was "somewhat familiar with the law". In truth, I was more dangerous to my clients than helpful. Would you want a surgeon who is "somewhat familiar with surgery"?
The bottom line is that, as an attorney, she is a novice. She knows about enough real life law to be dangerous. Fortunately for her the Secretary of State of the Commonwealth only needs two talents- to get elected and to stay out of the way and let those who actually run the office do so. She, of course, can, for those who might find her "attractive", keep herself looking good for them.
To you guys, there is only ONE reason Alison isn't qualified. She isn't a conservative, and that's it.
Harry Rex Vonner Wrote:In reality, being "somewhat familiar with the law" is a poor qualification. I would prefer that a candidate be very familiar with the reality of the world in which we live.
The first few years that I was a lawyer, I was "somewhat familiar with the law". In truth, I was more dangerous to my clients than helpful. Would you want a surgeon who is "somewhat familiar with surgery"?
The bottom line is that, as an attorney, she is a novice. She knows about enough real life law to be dangerous. Fortunately for her the Secretary of State of the Commonwealth only needs two talents- to get elected and to stay out of the way and let those who actually run the office do so. She, of course, can, for those who might find her "attractive", keep herself looking good for them.
What were Rand Paul's qualifications? I'd bet you pulled his lever.
Hoot Gibson Wrote:Being a lawyer does not qualify you to be in the US Senate any more than any other occupation does. How many lawyers voted for Obamacare without even reading it? How many voted for the recently passed amnesty bill without reading it?
You don't have to be a lawyer to vote on bills without reading them after lawyers working for special interest groups and staff lawyers write them. There are some good lawyers in Congress but they are badly outnumbered by the bad ones. The results from Washington indicate that we would be much better off with a Congress and Executive Branch in which elected officials represented a broader cross-section of occupations.
I don't like the job that McConnell is doing as Majority Leader and I would be much happier seeing an effective communicator like Ted Cruz (who is an outstanding lawyer) in that position. What we do not need is another liberal Democrat who will march in lockstep to Obama's socialist agenda. I am not saying that McConnell cannot lose but it is very, very unlikely. It is very difficult to defeat an incumbent Senator, regardless of what kind of job he or she has done.
McConnell falls short on a lot of fronts. However, he at least understands what America is supposed to be in light of the vision of the founding fathers. And, unlike his lemming counterparts across the aisle, he votes his conscience not how he's told. Dems will have a tough go of things in 2014. Not much else that could go wrong hasn't already gone wrong, not the least of which, is the dismal failure of ObamaCare. Polls show that most people don't trust this administration to conduct themselves honestly, that will hurt.
TheRealVille Wrote:To you guys, there is only ONE reason Alison isn't qualified. She isn't a conservative, and that's it.
You are so insightful, not. I'm not about to line up behind yet another clueless chick who gets her marching orders shipped in from liberals.
TheRealThing Wrote:McConnell falls short on a lot of fronts. However, he at least understands what America is supposed to be in light of the vision of the founding fathers. And, unlike his lemming counterparts across the aisle, he votes his conscience not how he's told. Dems will have a tough go of things in 2014. Not much else that could go wrong hasn't already gone wrong, not the least of which, is the dismal failure of ObamaCare. Polls show that most people don't trust this administration to conduct themselves honestly, that will hurt.
Given the choice between McConnell and any Democrat, I would vote for Mitch but IMO, he has been a poor excuse of a Majority Leader the past few years. He voted against the amnesty bill but he did little or nothing else to stop its passage and that is not what real leaders do when the survival of the country is at stake. Obamacare and amnesty and voting rights for 30 or 40 million current and future "immigrants" will be a lethal combination for our way of life. Now, we have to trust Boehner to stop the amnesty bill in the House and I don't have much confidence or trust in him either.
TheRealVille Wrote:^ Still no one wants to explain why Rand was a good senator selection, with his "vast" experience?
1. He is not an America-hating community organizer.
2. He believes in personal liberty, personal responsibility, and the Bill of Rights.
3. He is not another bad lawyer. Rand Paul did not go to Washington to create more work for trial lawyers.
4. He has shown that he is not a go along to get along Republican. He has a conscience and so far he has resisted being remolded into a moderate.
I recall you arguing that Obama was qualified to be a US Senator and President with no more qualifications than Rand Paul has. Obama has less than one year working in the private sector in any capacity and described that time as working behind enemy lines. It is hilarious that you would question any candidate's qualifications after supporting a Bozo like Obama no matter how badly he has screwed up and no matter how many times he has made the same mistakes.
Hoot Gibson Wrote:1. He is not an America-hating community organizer.
2. He believes in personal liberty, personal responsibility, and the Bill of Rights.
3. He is not another bad lawyer. Rand Paul did not go to Washington to create more work for trial lawyers.
4. He has shown that he is not a go along to get along Republican. He has a conscience and so far he has resisted being remolded into a moderate.
I recall you arguing that Obama was qualified to be a US Senator and President with no more qualifications than Rand Paul has. Obama has less than one year working in the private sector in any capacity and described that time as working behind enemy lines. It is hilarious that you would question any candidate's qualifications after supporting a Bozo like Obama no matter how badly he has screwed up and no matter how many times he has made the same mistakes.
That's different, he's a liberal. :biggrin:
TheRealThing Wrote:That's different, he's a liberal. :biggrin:
I see Rand Paul as a libertarian, much like his father. I don't always agree with him but the worst threats that this country faces right now are the explosive growth of the federal government, our loss of personal liberty and privacy, and the intentional destruction of our economy by socialists like Obama. Rand Paul is a solid fiscal conservative and I strongly support him for that reason. I would have a hard time supporting him in a race for president unless he won the nomination and ran against a Democrat in the general election. :biggrin:
Hoot Gibson Wrote:1. He is not an America-hating community organizer.
2. He believes in personal liberty, personal responsibility, and the Bill of Rights.
3. He is not another bad lawyer. Rand Paul did not go to Washington to create more work for trial lawyers.
4. He has shown that he is not a go along to get along Republican. He has a conscience and so far he has resisted being remolded into a moderate.
I recall you arguing that Obama was qualified to be a US Senator and President with no more qualifications than Rand Paul has. Obama has less than one year working in the private sector in any capacity and described that time as working behind enemy lines. It is hilarious that you would question any candidate's qualifications after supporting a Bozo like Obama no matter how badly he has screwed up and no matter how many times he has made the same mistakes.
Wrong. I've posted all of his private sector jobs on here before.
Hoot Gibson Wrote:I see Rand Paul as a libertarian, much like his father. I don't always agree with him but the worst threats that this country faces right now are the explosive growth of the federal government, our loss of personal liberty and privacy, and the intentional destruction of our economy by socialists like Obama. Rand Paul is a solid fiscal conservative and I strongly support him for that reason. I would have a hard time supporting him in a race for president unless he won the nomination and ran against a Democrat in the general election. :biggrin:
Sorry, was speaking of Obama, I intended that 'liberal' quip to be like a PS to follow the last statement in your post. Agreed, he is a little out there on some stuff but, shines like the noon day sun in comparison to our present fearless leader.
TheRealVille Wrote:Wrong. I've posted all of his private sector jobs on here before.
List the ones that lasted longer than a summer, documented by somebody other than his lying campaign staff. It seems that he just worked when he wanted to and he didn't feel like working very often. His do-nothing career was great preparation for his current role as a do-nothing president. The $100 million that he is blowing on his African trip (not including the $7 billion in economic aid that he promised) would have paid for a lot of White House tours for students.
Fireworks displays have been canceled around the world at military bases but Obama shows no inclination to slow the pace of his expensive vacations. Hospital workers at veteran's hospitals have been forced to take furloughs, but the Obama spending spree continues unabated.
Obama's job approval rating is continuing to decline, so most people are obviously beginning to understand what a failure he has been. No wonder he decided to have somebody else announce that his administration will not be enforcing part of the Obamacare law until after the 2014 elections. He is our first Outlaw President. He violates his oath of office every day that he "serves."
TheRealThing Wrote:Sorry, was speaking of Obama, I intended that 'liberal' quip to be like a PS to follow the last statement in your post. Agreed, he is a little out there on some stuff but, shines like the noon day sun in comparison to our present fearless leader.
No problem. Sorry that I misunderstood but I realize that not every conservative has given up on McConnell like I have. I know that he has his strengths but I just think a leader has to be willing and able to shape public opinion and very few Republicans seem to fit that model.
TheRealThing Wrote:McConnell falls short on a lot of fronts. However, he at least understands what America is supposed to be in light of the vision of the founding fathers. And, unlike his lemming counterparts across the aisle, he votes his conscience not how he's told. Dems will have a tough go of things in 2014. Not much else that could go wrong hasn't already gone wrong, not the least of which, is the dismal failure of ObamaCare. Polls show that most people don't trust this administration to conduct themselves honestly, that will hurt.
you said the same thing in 2012 and we all know how that turned out
vector Wrote:you said the same thing in 2012 and we all know how that turned out
In Kentucky, the way it turned out was with Romney carrying Kentucky by a wide margin - roughly by the same margin that polls show Grimes trailing McConnell.
One thing we can be sure of, McConnell will run his usual rolling in the mud campaign.
TheRealVille Wrote:One thing we can be sure of, McConnell will run his usual rolling in the mud campaign.
Another thing that we can count on is your dishonest posts in support of anybody running with a "(D)" next to their name. Show me an independent poll that shows McConnell tied with Grimes - just one not paid for by Democrats.
Hoot Gibson Wrote:Another thing that we can count on is your dishonest posts in support of anybody running with a "(D)" next to their name. Show me an independent poll that shows McConnell tied with Grimes - just one not paid for by Democrats.
Any different than you only pulling ® levers?
Show me one that has him ahead, that isn't paid for by republicans.
TheRealVille Wrote:Any different than you only pulling ® levers?
Thank you for asking. Yes, it is very much different. I freely admit that I often vote for the lesser of two evils when I vote for the Republican candidate. that was true when I voted for McCain, Romney, and every single time that I voted for Hal Rogers. I often don't like the alternatives that Republicans offer to the liberal Democrats on the ballot, but as long as the Democratic Party insists on putting forward liberal candidates committed to destroying our way of life, then I will vote against them.
Unlike you, I am a frequent critic of Republicans and write this down - I will vote for no Republican who votes in favor of amnesty for illegal aliens. The Republican Party seems to be self-destructing and if that is what they continue to do, then I will begin to help them by withholding my votes.
You on the other hand, have shown a willingness to lie and repeat the lies of the DNC to help dishonest Democrats win elections. If you believe that is in the best interest of this country, then I have nothing but pity for you and others like you.
TheRealVille Wrote:Show me one that has him ahead, that isn't paid for by republicans.
The only poll taken since Grimes announced she was running is the one poll that you represented as three polls. However, Republicans paid for one last month:
2014 Kentucky Senate GE - McConnell 47%, Grimes 40% (Wenzel Strategies 6/1-6/2)
Obama is even less popular in Kentucky than he was when he won reelection last year. He has escalated the war on coal and it is extremely unlikely that Grimes will be able to run away from Obama's fast enough to beat an incumbent Republican Senator, or at least that is what Nate Silver said in the fourth article that you misrepresented as a poll showing the two candidates tied. You really should start reading the articles to which you link.
Hoot Gibson Wrote:Thank you for asking. Yes, it is very much different. I freely admit that I often vote for the lesser of two evils when I vote for the Republican candidate. that was true when I voted for McCain, Romney, and every single time that I voted for Hal Rogers. I often don't like the alternatives that Republicans offer to the liberal Democrats on the ballot, but as long as the Democratic Party insists on putting forward liberal candidates committed to destroying our way of life, then I will vote against them.
Unlike you, I am a frequent critic of Republicans and write this down - I will vote for no Republican who votes in favor of amnesty for illegal aliens. The Republican Party seems to be self-destructing and if that is what they continue to do, then I will begin to help them by withholding my votes.
You on the other hand, have shown a willingness to lie and repeat the lies of the DNC to help dishonest Democrats win elections. If you believe that is in the best interest of this country, then I have nothing but pity for you and others like you.
The only poll taken since Grimes announced she was running is the one poll that you represented as three polls. However, Republicans paid for one last month:
2014 Kentucky Senate GE - McConnell 47%, Grimes 40% (Wenzel Strategies 6/1-6/2)
Obama is even less popular in Kentucky than he was when he won reelection last year. He has escalated the war on coal and it is extremely unlikely that Grimes will be able to run away from Obama's fast enough to beat an incumbent Republican Senator, or at least that is what Nate Silver said in the fourth article that you misrepresented as a poll showing the two candidates tied. You really should start reading the articles to which you link.
Republicans paid for the one you post? How is your poll any different than mine?
TheRealVille Wrote:Republicans paid for the one you post? How is your poll any different than mine?
I didn't misrepresent the poll as four polls when there was only one for starters. Democrats know that Obama's war on coal makes it extremely unlikely that McConnell is beatable in Kentucky. That's why they are already spreading lies to the contrary, like you are - desperation. If Democrats wanted to beat McConnell, then they should run somebody against him in the Republican primary. As long as Obama is destroying this country from Washington, Democrats fac uphill battles in states like Kentucky.
BTW, I disclosed that the poll I posted was paid by Republicans. Given you very limited computer skills, it is unlikely that you would have discovered that fact on your own had I chosen to omit that fact. There is really nothing to be gained by misrepresenting the facts in these threads, RV. Maybe eventually you will learn that lesson.
Hoot Gibson Wrote:I didn't misrepresent the poll as four polls when there was only one for starters. Democrats know that Obama's war on coal makes it extremely unlikely that McConnell is beatable in Kentucky. That's why they are already spreading lies to the contrary, like you are - desperation. If Democrats wanted to beat McConnell, then they should run somebody against him in the Republican primary. As long as Obama is destroying this country from Washington, Democrats fac uphill battles in states like Kentucky.
BTW, I disclosed that the poll I posted was paid by Republicans. Given you very limited computer skills, it is unlikely that you would have discovered that fact on your own had I chosen to omit that fact. There is really nothing to be gained by misrepresenting the facts in these threads, RV. Maybe eventually you will learn that lesson.
I didn't misrepresent anything. The first link was to my google search, and the other links came off of it. I just posted the links showing them tied. I didn't look at who did the polling.