Bluegrassrivals

I just met with Congressman Yarmuth yesterday afternoon. He said that Barack is the most intelligent man he has ever witnessed.....

BoondockSaint Wrote:http://eyeblast.tv/public/video.aspx?v=Q4IrVrkU

You have to try and wrap your mind around it, because it's true.

BoondockSaint Wrote:http://eyeblast.tv/public/video.aspx?v=Q4IrVrkU

At least he is headed for early lame duck status. The November elections will be a referendum on the Obama regime and the Partier-in-Chief is not going to like the results. Maybe he can schedule both weekly White House concerts/parties on the Monday before the elections before Republicans throw a heavy wet blanket over the non-stop festivities.

Hoot Gibson Wrote:At least he is headed for early lame duck status. The November elections will be a referendum on the Obama regime and the Partier-in-Chief is not going to like the results. Maybe he can schedule both weekly White House concerts/parties on the Monday before the elections before Republicans throw a heavy wet blanket over the non-stop festivities.

The November elections will be a referendum on incumbents. None are safe.

BillyB Wrote:The November elections will be a referendum on incumbents. None are safe.

People complain year in and year out of the crap Washington does but yet the same people keep getting voted in?????

BillyB Wrote:The November elections will be a referendum on incumbents. None are safe.

If that were true, Republicans would not be leading in the generic Congressional polls by 9 percent over Democrats. Among independents, the group that gave Obama his winning margin, the margin is 42% to 18% in favor of Republicans.

I know that the Obama talking point says that November will be an anti-incumbent referendum, but the truth is that it will be a referendum on Democrats and socialism and it is a referendum that Obama and the Democrats will lose. Democrat candidates are afraid to even hold town hall meetings because of voter anger.

Generic Congressional Ballot

BTW, some Republican incumbents have either been dumped in the primaries already or are facing stiff challenges from tea party-backed candidates. On the other side of the aisle, Obama has been attempting to stack the deck in favor of incumbents by offering their candidates plum political jobs (i.e., violations of the Hatch Act).

BoondockSaint Wrote:http://eyeblast.tv/public/video.aspx?v=Q4IrVrkU

The people that put Bush W in office gave us Obama, deal with it. After George W, people would have voted for a goat before a Republican.

Hoot Gibson Wrote:BTW, some Republican incumbents have either been dumped in the primaries already or are facing stiff challenges from tea party-backed candidates. On the other side of the aisle, Obama has been attempting to stack the deck in favor of incumbents by offering their candidates plum political jobs (i.e., violations of the Hatch Act).

That's anti-incumbent dude. The fringes are trying to take over both parties. History says that the dems will lose seats this fall. I'm positive it will happen.

BillyB Wrote:That's anti-incumbent dude. The fringes are trying to take over both parties. History says that the dems will lose seats this fall. I'm positive it will happen.

The only Republicans in trouble who are in trouble are those who have voted with Obama. Nearly all other Republican incumbents are safe. That is anti-Obama and anti-Democrat, dude.

Harry Reid's seat is not in jeopardy because he is a Democrat, he is in the hot seat because he has been Obama's go to guy in the Senate and normal people blame him along with Pelosi and Obama for pushing a socialist agenda for the past year and a half that is sinking the economy. Conservatives may be taking over the Republican Party but they have been in no position to damage the nation like the extreme left wing has since Obama took office.

Hoot Gibson Wrote:The only Republicans in trouble who are in trouble are those who have voted with Obama. Nearly all other Republican incumbents are safe. That is anti-Obama and anti-Democrat, dude.

Yeah, like Bob Inglis in SC.

BillyB Wrote:Yeah, like Bob Inglis in SC.

Ingliss supported the Wall Street bail outs and climate change legislation. He supported Obama's agenda and conservatives are making him pay the price. I hope that SC Republicans will remember Lindsey Graham's support of large chunks of Obama's socialist agenda when he runs for re-election too.

Most of the Republicans facing competitive races have voted with Reid and Pelosi on big spending, federal government expanding legislation on at least one or two occasions. John McCain is another good example. It looks like McCain will probably hang on to his seat, but he has been forced to move to the right and spend a lot of money to beat back the strong challenge by Hayworth.

Can you cite a Republican incumbent who has opposed Obama's agenda who is engaged in a competitive race? There may be a few but I can think of none off the top of my head.

If you think that voters are equally angry at Republican and Democrat incumbents after 18 months of Democratic control of the White House, Senate, and House of Representatives, then you are not paying attention. Barring a miracle (from Democrats' perspective) between now and November, Democrats are headed for losses of historic proportions this fall.

deleated post

TheRealVille Wrote:The people that put Bush W in office gave us Obama, deal with it. After George W, people would have voted for a goat before a Republican.

It appears that they voted for a jack a$$, excuse me I mean donkey instead of a goat!

Old School Wrote:It appears that they voted for a jack a$$, excuse me I mean donkey instead of a goat!

South Carolina Democrats just nominated a candidate for the US Senate to run against Jim DeMint who is facing a possible felony obscenity charge. It reminds me of the time when Indiana Democrats targeted Dan Burton for defeat for his role in the Clinton impeachment and then nominated a felon to run against him. Democrats do not need an excuse to vote for goats...or worse.

The perfect gift for our friends on the lunatic left wing fringe...

[Image: HB_450.jpg]

For all of you liberals (all two or three of you) who believe that the country is simply in an "anti-incumbent" mood and that the far left wing agenda of Obama, Pelosi, and Reid has nothing to do with voter anger, please read this and tell me that with a straight face. Note that this was an NPR poll, not exactly an unbiased source, and certainly one with no right-wing bias.

Even in Democratic Congressional districts, voters are fed up with their Democrat incumbents and poised to throw the bums out of office. The results of this poll is yet more evidence of the anti-Democrat mood in this country.

NPR Poll: Congressional Battleground

Would we have been better off with McCain?

Aslan Wrote:Would we have been better off with McCain?

In the short run, yes, we would have been better off with McCain. In the long run, it is probably better that Americans get shocked with a dose of socialism. People are beginning to realize that a bigger, more intrusive federal government creates more problems than it can possibly solve. It may be too late for us to avoid a total economic collapse, but if that happens maybe Americans will be smart enough not to trust the Democrats to rebuild the system that it and the "moderate" Republicans like McCain are destroying.

Barack Obama is not a socialist. He is a fair scales capitalist. No matter how many times you repeat the mantra, Hoot, being the good little propogandist, it doesn't make it true. Of course, your hope is that 50.1% of Americans, especially in swing electoral states, believe the wash. Incredibly disgraceful politics, but, then again, I have to consider the source.

thecavemaster Wrote:Barack Obama is not a socialist. He is a fair scales capitalist. No matter how many times you repeat the mantra, Hoot, being the good little propogandist, it doesn't make it true. Of course, your hope is that 50.1% of Americans, especially in swing electoral states, believe the wash. Incredibly disgraceful politics, but, then again, I have to consider the source.

+1

thecavemaster Wrote:Barack Obama is not a socialist. He is a fair scales capitalist. No matter how many times you repeat the mantra, Hoot, being the good little propogandist, it doesn't make it true. Of course, your hope is that 50.1% of Americans, especially in swing electoral states, believe the wash. Incredibly disgraceful politics, but, then again, I have to consider the source.

If you are not careful, you are going to convince yourself that Obama is not a socialist by repeating that hogwash, CM. Liberals used to argue that one cannot be a socialist unless one controls the means of production. However, when Obama took over GM and fired its CEO, that argument kind of fell by the wayside. Now, you just resort to a silly name change to call Obama's particular brand of socialism by another name.

BTW, welcome back from wherever you have been.

Hoot Gibson Wrote:If you are not careful, you are going to convince yourself that Obama is not a socialist by repeating that hogwash, CM. Liberals used to argue that one cannot be a socialist unless one controls the means of production. However, when Obama took over GM and fired its CEO, that argument kind of fell by the wayside. Now, you just resort to a silly name change to call Obama's particular brand of socialism by another name.

BTW, welcome back from wherever you have been.

Read Wealth of Nations. I am more than willing, and I mean more than willing, to debate you on your free market fanaticism as gaged against Adam Smith's overall philosophy. Barack Obama is not socialist. This is beneath you, Hoot, and is disgraceful political smack. Arguing for a just capitalism, a fair scales approach to labor/management relations, a leveraged assessment of corporate power in a free society, these seem not to interest you, Hoot, which leaves me a bit dubious as to the actual seriousness with which I should take you.

thecavemaster Wrote:Read Wealth of Nations. I am more than willing, and I mean more than willing, to debate you on your free market fanaticism as gaged against Adam Smith's overall philosophy. Barack Obama is not socialist. This is beneath you, Hoot, and is disgraceful political smack. Arguing for a just capitalism, a fair scales approach to labor/management relations, a leveraged assessment of corporate power in a free society, these seem not to interest you, Hoot, which leaves me a bit dubious as to the actual seriousness with which I should take you.

...and your failure to acknowledge the Obama's regime in extending the duration of this nation's economic catastrophe leaves me to wonder why you are so anxious to ignore the evidence at hand to pursue a philosophical debate disconnected from reality. Obama is a socialist and he is missing the leadership skills that have always characterized good presidents of the past. Even Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann have begun moving toward the lifeboats, acknowledging that the Obama ship of state has run aground and is taking on water at an alarming rate. Don't go down with the ship, CM. That is Captain Obama's responsibility.

Hoot Gibson Wrote:...and your failure to acknowledge the Obama's regime in extending the duration of this nation's economic catastrophe leaves me to wonder why you are so anxious to ignore the evidence at hand to pursue a philosophical debate disconnected from reality. Obama is a socialist and he is missing the leadership skills that have always characterized good presidents of the past. Even Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann have begun moving toward the lifeboats, acknowledging that the Obama ship of state has run aground and is taking on water at an alarming rate. Don't go down with the ship, CM. That is Captain Obama's responsibility.

You don't see to recognize the business cycle is just that: a cycle. You don't seem to acknowledge that we are currently fighting two "wars," with no call to the American people for sacrifice, which is, in these egocentric times, way out of fashion. I never really blamed Bush for the economic downturn, as the economy and all the machinations therein are far more complex than, "Blame the President." However, an ignorant populace needs a scapegoat... always have, always will. You seem to believe that I am defending Barack Obama's Presidency. I am not. I am suggesting that you may not agree with his economic policies, which is fine. But, calling him a "socialist" every day, every week, every month for a year and a half is disgraceful. Read Wealth of Nations and put up or shut up.

thecavemaster Wrote:You don't see to recognize the business cycle is just that: a cycle. You don't seem to acknowledge that we are currently fighting two "wars," with no call to the American people for sacrifice, which is, in these egocentric times, way out of fashion. I never really blamed Bush for the economic downturn, as the economy and all the machinations therein are far more complex than, "Blame the President." However, an ignorant populace needs a scapegoat... always have, always will. You seem to believe that I am defending Barack Obama's Presidency. I am not. I am suggesting that you may not agree with his economic policies, which is fine. But, calling him a "socialist" every day, every week, every month for a year and a half is disgraceful. Read Wealth of Nations and put up or shut up.

Calling this president a capitalist every day, every week, every month for a year, ignoring his assault on the private sector is disgraceful. I would have much more respect for you if you simply defended Obama's brand of socialism for what it is. If I want to understand Obama better, I will be reading titles by Alinsky and Marx. :lmao:

Hoot Gibson Wrote:Calling this president a capitalist every day, every week, every month for a year, ignoring his assault on the private sector is disgraceful. I would have much more respect for you if you simply defended Obama's brand of socialism for what it is. If I want to understand Obama better, I will be reading titles by Alinsky and Marx. :lmao:

Frankly, Scarlet, whether you respect me or no, I don't give a darn. Barack Obama is a fair scales capitalist, which you would know if you would actually read the fellow from which much of the whole "free market" zealotry is *******ized. But, you won't... which is typical among Right Wing Flirties. Congratulations... you are a first class, card carrying member of the Flirtie Elite.

Hoot Gibson Wrote:In the short run, yes, we would have been better off with McCain. In the long run, it is probably better that Americans get shocked with a dose of socialism. People are beginning to realize that a bigger, more intrusive federal government creates more problems than it can possibly solve. It may be too late for us to avoid a total economic collapse, but if that happens maybe Americans will be smart enough not to trust the Democrats to rebuild the system that it and the "moderate" Republicans like McCain are destroying.

:Thumbs::Thumbs::Thumbs: