[64SUR]

You are a typical Little Lundergan supporter. When asked to name just one legitimate qualification that she possesses or one position that she holds on any issue that she actually thought up on her own, you start spinning Obama and Nixon.

How about Little Lundergan? Is there anything positive that you can tell us that would even hint at the possibility that she is anything but a puppet of her daddy, the Democrat Party, and your boy Barry?

The truth is that she is likely the most dimwitted, know nothing candidate to ever seek election in Kentucky.

And, what is the story on her invisible "husband", Candy Andy?

Why are you worried about her husband he not running for office Harry :popcorn:

[TheRealThing]

I hate to admit this I have picture of me and Nixon shaking hands. I was 18yrs old and I told him I was a democrat and the said my best are Democrat not a bad guy. :truestory:

You know, Nixon shot himself in the foot and there's no escaping that fact. What he did was stupid and he deserved to be sent home packing. I'm glad you brought this up, because it touches on something not many Dems want to admit.

There were a number of good Democrats in Nixon's day and believe me when I tell you we are in sore need them here and now. They were still in the habit of putting country over self and party in that day. And yet, in comparing Nixon's uh-oh against Clinton's, one is left with this inescapable conclusion. Both were unacceptable and an affront to the office of the president and the people of the United States. The difference was that Nixon, having been confronted with the evidence, was smart enough and patriotic enough to step down at some point, and Clinton wasn't. For Bill, it was all about him and it always was. Since Clinton's day, politicians have rather routinely put their own interests and careers over the good of the country or like we say, "the common good."

But things are actually much worse than that. Most Democrats serving today agree with little or nothing, that may be comparable to the loftier notions of JFK when he said; "ask not what your country can do for you." In other words reject welfare, work and be productive to your nation. Contribute something other than a sad story. Liberal/progressives have been drawn by the sign of the donkey at least since the 1930's and until recently, their socialistic views have been successfully beaten back. Hence, the US has managed to prosper for the greatest part of her storied history. Remember, we've only been a sovereign nation since 1776. In a little over 200 years this nation became the world's most formidable superpower. Liberals want us to become Europe West, lay down our achievements and advantages, and forfeit our leadership role to those we have surpassed or even vanquished in wars not of our choosing. Not to mention the Democratic platform's twin nation killing planks of abortion rights, which is nothing more than legalized murder, and gay rights.

So, the short of it is this. One party is pushing change, and one is not. If those changes are for the good, why are so many Republicans resisting them? Democrats have evolved (from about the time you shook hands with Nixon) into the liberal progressives of today, who choose to represent only the minorities and special interest groups with a fist full of dollars, leaving the majority floating out their on their own. People who work are seen as piñata's to beat money out of in order to buy votes and pass out the goodies. In their pursuit of power, they have demonstrated that they will very merrily make changes to the constitution for light and faddish reasons. An action expressly forbidden by Thomas Jefferson himself. The following is a portion of text from the Declaration of Independence; "Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed."

Though to the larger extent, this text is referencing a change of government by the people, we should never permit only one party to make changes to the US Constitution. If said changes are not bi-partisan, the likelihood they are meant for the "common good" is nearly zero. That's why IMHO, the fundamental transformation called for by only one man, that being candidate Barack Obama in his 2008 run up to the White House, should be regarded with much suspicion by the people.

[64SUR]

But Nixon was elected PRESIDENT twice. alute: As with many of your ilk, in your eyes that's what makes a successful president - the ability to get elected.

The difference between you and I is that I don't play party politics. God bless his soul, I hate talking about one who has passed on like this, but I am not a fan of Nixon's politics.

If you had any knowledge about Nixon, you would know that he was probably more liberal than any Republican president we have had.

Now, are you going to post any answers as to Mrs. Lundergan Grimes' qualifications?

She a DEMOCRAT that's all the qualifications I need to know. Now am leaving this Republican lobbyist thread. nicker:

[Harry Rex Vonner]

She a DEMOCRAT that's all the qualifications I need to know. Now am leaving this Republican lobbyist thread. nicker:

He finally answered the question. "She a DEMOCRAT". That says it all and 64SUR is just one of hundreds of thousands of this mentality. He is a perfect example of why voters should have to pass some sort of intelligence test in order to vote.

[TheRealThing]

She a DEMOCRAT that's all the qualifications I need to know. Now am leaving this Republican lobbyist thread. nicker:

One of the most concisely profound capsulizations of the spirit, depth and the pride of today's Democrat party, I've ever seen. :biggrin:

[WideRight05]

She a DEMOCRAT that's all the qualifications I need to know. Now am leaving this Republican lobbyist thread. nicker:

You have got to be kidding me.

Folks, just think - this person has the capability to cast a vote during an election.

We badly need voter IQ laws.

[64SUR]

Dang you guys are tough on Democrat...who do y'all like for the next President. Name one an I will IQ Geniuses. nicker:

[Harry Rex Vonner]

Dang you guys are tough on Democrat...who do y'all like for the next President. Name one an I will IQ Geniuses. nicker:

Our boy/girl 64SUR has exposed himself/herself. Don't ask him to validate his position. He, like most of them of his ilk, can't do so. Like his/her fellow Democrat voters, his/her only real positions are at the bank cashing welfare checks or at the grocery store spending those food stamps.

[TheRealThing]

Dang you guys are tough on Democrat...who do y'all like for the next President. Name one an I will IQ Geniuses. nicker:

It's not personal 64. Having been coopted into the Democrat fold by the time I was old enough to vote due to the fact that my parents and grandparents were good Democrats, I saw the Dems 'evolve' from being willing advocates of American exceptionalism, during the glory days of the last half of the last century, to the present form of American progressivism. And the comparison is anything but favorable or pretty. Like I have been saying, there was a time when most American politicians could be relied on to always have the good of the country in mind and therefore once sent to DC, they legislated on our behalf. Nowadays however, they are there to push an ideology. Adherents of said ideology, (Dems), are bent on changing the USA. Reforming her if you will in a new image, that of the socialist. Thus, the time came when I could no longer tolerate the distortions and spin I heard when Democrats started playing dirty politics ever more intensely. The more liberal monkey puke the people have been willing to swallow, the more often the bucket has been passed. And believe me, all this polling and probing into what people are thinking is the driver which dictates how thin the Dems are willing to stretch the truth.

So, we're becoming a nation of folks that are fed and otherwise coddled and looked after by the government, rather than a nation of free and self sufficient folks who self govern themselves ala the vision of the founding fathers. Handouts for all may seem innocuous enough while we're all cashing those government checks. But, I can assure you the hand that feeds you can and will eventually smack you down. Therefore, knowing she is a Dem, is not enough to know what road Alison's condescending vote will lead us. What does she believe? Do you really want to cast your fate, your future to the wind or, would you at least like to know if she can even think for herself?

At any rate, most Dems are unwilling to ask the hard questions because they find the answers are usually beneath them. I parted ways with them when I realized Clinton was willing to put his own selfish interests above the country and 300 million red blooded Americans.

[64SUR]

Our boy/girl 64SUR has exposed himself/herself. Don't ask him to validate his position. He, like most of them of his ilk, can't do so. Like his/her fellow Democrat voters, his/her only real positions are at the bank cashing welfare checks or at the grocery store spending those food stamps.

Harry Rex Vonner you are one sick dude. :dudecomeon:

[TheRealThing]

Harry Rex Vonner you are one sick dude. :dudecomeon:

So, I share with you how I saw Dems morph their way from being statesmen to being a regular bunch of Mr Hydes, and still your focus on all this is to psychoanalyze Harry Rex? Will you at least admit they are not the party of your parents and grandparents? And I'll let you in on something else. They aren't interested in enforcing laws and running this country. Rather than governance, they see their mission as one to uplift what they consider to be common people, like some cheesy snake oil reverend out the back end of a conestoga wagon back in the old west. That's why the Dems poster boy could be the likes of Al Sharpton. :please:

I mean, when one lives in a world where he is free to interpret reality in the liberal vein, nothing is impossible. nicker: How else do you think they can continually keep topping one whopper after the other?

[Granny Bear]

Okay, I have searched, researched and read about Mr. Grimes. I still don't know much about him! I would really hate to be vetting him.

Jerry Lundergan is written about quite a bit, though. He appears a little "ethically challenged", IMO. I would think he would be more of debit to Alison than an asset. They even had a public feud with the Beshears! :yikes:
I don't remember reading about that.

I'm not passionate about supporting McConnell, to be honest with you. But against Alison, I will definitely be voting for him.

[64SUR]

Dang granny i forgive you. :worthy:

[Harry Rex Vonner]

Okay, I have searched, researched and read about Mr. Grimes. I still don't know much about him! I would really hate to be vetting him.

Jerry Lundergan is written about quite a bit, though. He appears a little "ethically challenged", IMO. I would think he would be more of debit to Alison than an asset. They even had a public feud with the Beshears! :yikes:
I don't remember reading about that.

I'm not passionate about supporting McConnell, to be honest with you. But against Alison, I will definitely be voting for him.

You are right on target, Granny Bear. Most don't like McConnell. However, when you compare McConnell with Little Lundergan, it is like comparing Johnny Bench to a four old midget league catcher in Somerset.

Daddy Jerry has a checkered past, to say the least, but has a lot of money and a lot of Democrat contacts. Otherwise, his little girl would, most likely, be a junior clerk selling shoes at Payless.

Poor Andy, on the other hand, may well be a cutout figure or a mechanical dummy who has been programmed to drive a car with, of course, Little Lundergan in the back seat.

At the risk of being offensive but still stating it as it is, we can only hope that the women voters of the Commonwealth don't fall for all the "War on Women" BS that will inundate the campaign. To vote for the elementary minded Little Lundergan merely because she is female would highlight the immaturity and foolishness of the voters.

[WideRight05]

You are right on target, Granny Bear. Most don't like McConnell. However, when you compare McConnell with Little Lundergan, it is like comparing Johnny Bench to a four old midget league catcher in Somerset.

Daddy Jerry has a checkered past, to say the least, but has a lot of money and a lot of Democrat contacts. Otherwise, his little girl would, most likely, be a junior clerk selling shoes at Payless.

Poor Andy, on the other hand, may well be a cutout figure or a mechanical dummy who has been programmed to drive a car with, of course, Little Lundergan in the back seat.

At the risk of being offensive but still stating it as it is, we can only hope that the women voters of the Commonwealth don't fall for all the "War on Women" BS that will inundate the campaign. To vote for the elementary minded Little Lundergan merely because she is female would highlight the immaturity and foolishness of the voters.

I'm going to be offensive saying this and I really don't care, but you're describing a lot of the women voters to a tee by using the terms "elementary minded." Most vote merely based on emotion and not the factual situation as a whole.

Look at Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock, for example. Women turned out in droves to make sure that they would suffer the consequences all for their comments about abortion. Not the fact that Akin had been a successful member of the U.S. House of Representatives for 12 years, not the fact that Richard Mourdock had a successful track record from his time as the Treasurer of Indiana and had a good knowledge of the issues.

A lot of women fall for the "War on Women" that the democrats have brought to the forefront. The democrats have used it like a charm - similar to how a guy would treat a girl horribly, yet all the while she is begging and pleading that he stay in her life to make her situation better. The democrats claim they are for women, yet many of them do not have good track records on the issue - all the while, women keep pleading for them to get into office with the thoughts that their situations will be better.

[Image: http://liberallogic101.com/wp-content/up...-101-2.jpg]

[Harry Rex Vonner]

Do you suppose any of these low information women voters will be influenced by the fact that Little Lundergan's daddy is, according to news reports from 1989, a convicted criminal?

[WideRight05]

Do you suppose any of these low information women voters will be influenced by the fact that Little Lundergan's daddy is, according to news reports from 1989, a convicted criminal?

Most if not all of them will have voted for Obama, so they probably do not care if Mr. Grimes is a convicted criminal.

[TheRealThing]

Do you suppose any of these low information women voters will be influenced by the fact that Little Lundergan's daddy is, according to news reports from 1989, a convicted criminal?

Tsk tsk tsk, be tolerant Harry Rex. After all, we are one big brotherhood of man. For example, there isn't actually One True God who created and will therefore judge all, rather there are many gods. It follows then that there is no such thing as natural affection, for man is equally as moral when he 'makes it' with all manner of flora and fauna. Any wonder why I like to refer to the liberal line of reason as monkey puke? No, tolerance is the quick silver of man's ultimate rebellion.

D James Kennedy --- [SIZE="2"]"Tolerance is the last virtue of a depraved society. When you have an immoral society that has blatantly, proudly, violated all of the commandments of God, there is one last virtue they insist upon: tolerance for their immorality. They will not have you condemning what they have done as being wrong, and they have created a belief system in which it is not, and in which they are no longer the criminal or the villain or the evil person, but you are!

Here’s how it works. If you discuss atheism with an atheist, you are finding fault with that man and not just criticizing his views. You can’t separate the two. If you find fault with a thief and criticize his stealing, you are finding fault with him, not merely what he does. The same thing is true of a homosexual. You cannot have a rational discussion of the rightness or wrongness of homosexuality.

We’re rapidly sliding downhill. Does it matter? Yes, it matters because when you are criticizing what that person believes or what he does, you are hurting his “feelings.” You are intolerant. You are demonstrating hatefulness to him, and that is a “hate crime.” That can cause you to end up in court or jail." [/SIZE] http://www.goodasyou.org/good_as_you/200...ns_fo.html

Is that eerie or what? Tolerance gone rabid, has literally cost we Americans nearly every freedom we have. Even more chilling is the fact that this line of reason was very likely his last great contribution from among the many he made to the Christian community, as he made these statements way back in 2007. I believe you might find the whole article very nearly prophetic. At any rate, just try putting forth the Christian view point with regard to homosexuality (the cleaned up version is same sex marriage), or the murderous practice of slaughtering the unborn innocents for the sake of convenience (women's health), and see how viciously you will be accosted. Democrats routinely speak, as if to accept the practice of these twin nation killers as normal behavior, is beyond question and is as morally sound as the one man and one woman model given to man by God Himself.

I mean, just look at the Democratic party platform. Candidates run their entire campaign on abortion rights or, homosexual rights. Complicitous news media are merciless in their attempts to get conservative candidates on record in a way they can skew to make them appear biased or intolerant. Like Wide called out so well with regard to Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock. I understood what Mourdock meant when he said 'intended' rape pregnancies was God's Will. He wasn't saying God condoned rape, who in their right mind would ever try to substantiate something so ridiculous? No, he was saying things happen in God's permissive will sometimes, that although being clearly criminal and heinous, God can still make things turn out alright in the end. Specifically, although the rapper deserves to be locked up for a coon's age, if the woman decides to keep the baby rather than to abort, that child could conceivably grow up to be somebody very special. Let me ask a question. Who, finding later in life they were a child conceived of a rape crime, would not want to go on living? I dare say they would want to stay with the living, LOL.

[Truth]

Undoubtedly the most obvious oxymoron in present day life is one who claims to be a devout Christian and who also votes Democratic. There is no place in Christianity for abortion. Period. There is no place in Christianity for homosexual marriage. Period. Those who weasel out with "personally opposed but ..." are abominations.

[WideRight05]

Undoubtedly the most obvious oxymoron in present day life is one who claims to be a devout Christian and who also votes Democratic. There is no place in Christianity for abortion. Period. There is no place in Christianity for homosexual marriage. Period. Those who weasel out with "personally opposed but ..." are abominations.

Very true, which brings me to a question - any others feel free to chime in as well. We're getting to the point, I hate to say, what if there is a Republican running that favors things like homosexual marriage (Someone like Rob Portman on this issue) and abortion but they are running against a Democrat who is worse? Do you vote the Republican or not vote at all?

[Harry Rex Vonner]

Very true, which brings me to a question - any others feel free to chime in as well. We're getting to the point, I hate to say, what if there is a Republican running that favors things like homosexual marriage (Someone like Rob Portman on this issue) and abortion but they are running against a Democrat who is worse? Do you vote the Republican or not vote at all?

Excellent question. I would never vote for anyone who favors abortion or homosexual marriage- Republican or Democrat. I can't see the Republican Party ever accepting abortion. However, I see a lot of subtle movement from some Republicans toward "accepting" homosexual marriage.

Well planned and executed pressure to be "open", "non-judgmental", and "accepting of differences" mainly coming from public education but also from the media and the entertainment industry is taking a tremendous toll on younger people. Personally, I think the most dangerous institution in the country today is what I call the "government schools". If one believe otherwise, that person is either not informed or in agreement with the indoctrination of our youth.

[WideRight05]

Excellent question. I would never vote for anyone who favors abortion or homosexual marriage- Republican or Democrat. I can't see the Republican Party ever accepting abortion. However, I see a lot of subtle movement from some Republicans toward "accepting" homosexual marriage.

Well planned and executed pressure to be "open", "non-judgmental", and "accepting of differences" mainly coming from public education but also from the media and the entertainment industry is taking a tremendous toll on younger people. Personally, I think the most dangerous institution in the country today is what I call the "government schools". If one believe otherwise, that person is either not informed or in agreement with the indoctrination of our youth.

I'll admit that I was one to nearly fall for the indoctrination of the public school system. Despite being strongly against abortion and gay marriage, I held a grudge against the rich and believed in liberal economic policies but it was the liberal bias of my teachers in a religion and a philosophy class in college that woke me up. One used the religion class to try to do anything he could to prove the Bible wrong as a former pastor, the other used the philosophy class to teach "tolerance and open-mindedness," while using the opportunity in class to bash Christians and conservatives (although she claimed to be a Christian herself).

In fact, an accounting/law professor I had - a wise conservative who was very good - recently switched to the Catholic Church from where he was attending prior. As someone who used to attend the same Church I did, we knew each other somewhat, so the topic came up and we discussed and debated it. Later on, the philosophy professor told me that she overheard our discussion and because "he didn't have the degrees" that he shouldn't be discussing that with me, which made me irate so I slammed her for it. That is the type of attitude we are dealing with in the public school system - "I have the degrees, so I know it all."

The Republicans have been nothing short of disappointing. Just because the public is embracing homosexuality right now, doesn't mean that it will be in the future. America is becoming more and more pro-life, for example. Some of the abortion laws being passed right now would have never passed in the 1990's. I hate to see people cave in to public pressure on their values, a lot of the "pressure" of which is made up by the liberal media. The Nevada Republican party has dropped their opposition to homosexual marriage and one senator from Utah declared yesterday that nationwide homosexual marriage was "inevitable," although he is against it. We are going down that slippery slope as a country, and I hope it's not too late before we are able to pull it together.

[TheRealThing]

I'll admit that I was one to nearly fall for the indoctrination of the public school system. Despite being strongly against abortion and gay marriage, I held a grudge against the rich and believed in liberal economic policies but it was the liberal bias of my teachers in a religion and a philosophy class in college that woke me up. One used the religion class to try to do anything he could to prove the Bible wrong as a former pastor, the other used the philosophy class to teach "tolerance and open-mindedness," while using the opportunity in class to bash Christians and conservatives (although she claimed to be a Christian herself).

In fact, an accounting/law professor I had - a wise conservative who was very good - recently switched to the Catholic Church from where he was attending prior. As someone who used to attend the same Church I did, we knew each other somewhat, so the topic came up and we discussed and debated it. Later on, the philosophy professor told me that she overheard our discussion and because "he didn't have the degrees" that he shouldn't be discussing that with me, which made me irate so I slammed her for it. That is the type of attitude we are dealing with in the public school system - "I have the degrees, so I know it all."

The Republicans have been nothing short of disappointing. Just because the public is embracing homosexuality right now, doesn't mean that it will be in the future. America is becoming more and more pro-life, for example. Some of the abortion laws being passed right now would have never passed in the 1990's. I hate to see people cave in to public pressure on their values, a lot of the "pressure" of which is made up by the liberal media. The Nevada Republican party has dropped their opposition to homosexual marriage and one senator from Utah declared yesterday that nationwide homosexual marriage was "inevitable," although he is against it. We are going down that slippery slope as a country, and I hope it's not too late before we are able to pull it together.

^I too hope it's not too late and we will 'choose' to do the right thing and start to pull things back together again. The dire predictions conservatives began making upon Barack's ascension have all come to pass. Even though up until recently, the left were laughing them to scorn. Meanwhile, all but an occasional and weak smattering of liberal defenders for this administration, have vanished.

I wish I were wrong but, here's the way I see things. I believe that God prepared Mr Obama for this very occasion. A society which continues to insist it is a Christian society, and yet who has the blood of 78 million new born and unborn infants on their hands, can well expect to experience God's wrath and the subsequent judgment. Something about the way Mitt Romney was defeated just seemed too much to be a mere chapter in America's history. The poor 3rd debate showing and then the arrival of hurricane Sandy striking deep into the heart of the New England area, bode ominous to me. I have since concluded that Mitt's derailment was a part of God's judgment, and we Americans are getting exactly what we deserve. Hence the 'moment in history' chill that beset my heart. We have sown the wind and now we reap the whirlwind.

Therefore there is only one hope I know of.
2 Chronicles 7:14 (KJV)
14 "If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land."

We Americans have offended the Living God and we must therefore return to obedience, HIS WAY.^^^^!!!!

The people of earth, God's Creation, reveled in their rebellion against Him the first time until the flood came and washed them off the face of the earth. Likewise, the people of Sodom reveled in their rebellion against Him until the fire and brimstone burned all traces of their civilization off the face of the earth. And yet, it was our deference to Him that brought us His blessing. Equally, our contempt for Him and His precepts has now brought us His judgment, in the very same manner it came to those mentioned above. Many, from the common man to state and federal legislators, all the way up to the SCOTUS, have shaken their fists in the face of God. Rejecting His laws and supplanting them with their own, we revel in our misguided sense of authority. There is one way out and it is spelled out in 2 Chronicles 7:14, and it my firm conviction that the same fate is on it's way to America, will we bow again before Him?

[WideRight05]

^I too hope it's not too late and we will 'choose' to do the right thing and start to pull things back together again. The dire predictions conservatives began making upon Barack's ascension have all come to pass. Even though up until recently, the left were laughing them to scorn. Meanwhile, all but an occasional and weak smattering of liberal defenders for this administration, have vanished.

I wish I were wrong but, here's the way I see things. I believe that God prepared Mr Obama for this very occasion. A society which continues to insist it is a Christian society, and yet who has the blood of 78 million new born and unborn infants on their hands, can well expect to experience God's wrath and the subsequent judgment. Something about the way Mitt Romney was defeated just seemed too much to be a mere chapter in America's history. The poor 3rd debate showing and then the arrival of hurricane Sandy striking deep into the heart of the New England area, bode ominous to me. I have since concluded that Mitt's derailment was a part of God's judgment, and we Americans are getting exactly what we deserve. Hence the 'moment in history' chill that beset my heart. We have sown the wind and now we reap the whirlwind.

Therefore there is only one hope I know of.
2 Chronicles 7:14 (KJV)
14 "If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land."

We Americans have offended the Living God and we must therefore return to obedience, HIS WAY.^^^^!!!!

The people of earth, God's Creation, reveled in their rebellion against Him the first time until the flood came and washed them off the face of the earth. Likewise, the people of Sodom reveled in their rebellion against Him until the fire and brimstone burned all traces of their civilization off the face of the earth. And yet, it was our deference to Him that brought us His blessing. Equally, our contempt for Him and His precepts has now brought us His judgment, in the very same manner it came to those mentioned above. Many, from the common man to state and federal legislators, all the way up to the SCOTUS, have shaken their fists in the face of God. Rejecting His laws and supplanting them with their own, we revel in our misguided sense of authority. There is one way out and it is spelled out in 2 Chronicles 7:14, and it my firm conviction that the same fate is on it's way to America, will we bow again before Him?

I wish I could say that we will, but in reality it's probably going to get worse. After 9/11 for a short time, I felt that we were beginning to go down the right track. Churches were filling up, prayer restrictions were being lifted in schools, and for the first time in my lifetime, I felt we were coming closer to God as a country. A few years later, we not only start drifting down that same path of destruction we were on in the 1990's, we go further along the path than we were at that point.

[TheRealThing]

I wish I could say that we will, but in reality it's probably going to get worse. After 9/11 for a short time, I felt that we were beginning to go down the right track. Churches were filling up, prayer restrictions were being lifted in schools, and for the first time in my lifetime, I felt we were coming closer to God as a country. A few years later, we not only start drifting down that same path of destruction we were on in the 1990's, we go further along the path than we were at that point.

Exactly, and what you're saying proves two things. First, God indeed has revealed Himself to "every man" through His Created universe. And despite their bold declarations to the contrary, just as soon as all men come face to face with the reality of their own mortality, they will come running back to beg God for deliverance. Secondly, and just as predictably, when things are good, men get the idea they can handle anything that comes along and they again turn their backs on God. 9/11 is the perfect example.

[Mr. Onion Head]

I'm going to be offensive saying this and I really don't care, but you're describing a lot of the women voters to a tee by using the terms "elementary minded." Most vote merely based on emotion and not the factual situation as a whole.

You just described nearly every voter in America. Most voters go on emotion, just like you mentioned the "War on Women" could describe many voters in EKY who know nothing of politics but shout "War on Coal"

But I'm sure they're all above being "elementary minded", despite being one of the lowest educated areas in the country.

[TheRealThing]

You just described nearly every voter in America. Most voters go on emotion, just like you mentioned the "War on Women" could describe many voters in EKY who know nothing of politics but shout "War on Coal"

But I'm sure they're all above being "elementary minded", despite being one of the lowest educated areas in the country.

See, I'm not so sure about that. And, to a large extent I would say that you're right, many voters do go on emotions. But, to say that many voters sell their vote to the highest bidder, is equally undeniable. Why else would Dems keep making all the promises they do? Obama promised every man woman and child the moon during his run up to the white house, so much so that more than one political cartoonist made sport of the situation by calling out that very point. Further, I would challenge anybody to put up a plausible defense on the Dems rabid opposition to voter ID's. If it's not about coddling minorities and illegal immigrants what other reason could they have? I mean, we're willing to make a combination social security card/voter ID that will be free to every citizen. Dems are against that too. It ain't rocket science, it's obvious what that is all about. He'll open the entitlement floodgates as the mid-terms get closer. You can look for a lot more goodies to get handed out and whined about as increasing the minimum wage is the forerunner of the coming inducements.

Big labor is convinced Democrats are their only hope. They believe as long as there is a Democrat in the White House, the work situation for union workers is a virtual shoo-in. That's not true of course, as the last 5 plus years have proven. The law of supply and demand dictates the financial fortunes of the working man. If folks can afford cars, they're gonna buy them, thus the demand goes up, factories strain to keep up with that demand and workmen are hired. Same in the construction industry, when the demand for hospitals, schools, housing, and industrial expansion beckons, people go to work by the hundreds of thousands and up goes the GDP. This has always been the case. I can't tell you how many times I've sat across from union brothers trying to explain why a contract does not guarantee them so much as the first hour of work. Somebody out there has to have a big checkbook and an overriding confidence in the economy to spend that kind of money, that's when contractors call the hall for union workmen to produce all manner of goods.

I saw the economy pick up and hit all four gears under a Republican President by the name of Ronald Reagan. In fact, so insightful were his economic policies that all the successive Presidents since Reagan have been able to ride his coattails of economic success. Then came 911, the 3 plus trillion dollar price tag associated therewith, and the global economic downturn of 2007-2009. All rode Reagan's coattails except this President that is. In his case, ideological concerns outweigh the financial well being of the American citizen, which is clearly evidenced in the laws and regulations foisted upon us over the past 5 years. Nobody I know has ever given a satisfactory answer to why this administration absolutely will not okay the XL Pipeline. Or why they are trying to close every last coal fired generating station. Or why they are trying to paint fracking for natural gas as something evil. Or why they refuse to allow drilling in so many oil rich reserves this land has to offer. Frankly, he's on tape admitting he's anti fossil fuels over the years including 2008. He's totally all in on this global warming deal and he'll not cave on mining coal or drilling for gas and oil because he's convinced the sky is falling.

I will admit I'm up on the Dem's back a lot but, they are the one's including the global warming madness in their party platform. I don't think it's much fun paying 4 dollars a gallon for gas, and who knows how high that will go? Utilities/energy concerns of all kinds will skyrocket for a theory that is anything but proven. In fact, global alarmists have been caught more than once doctoring data to make it conform to their dire prognostications. That along with the twin nation killing scourges of homosexual rights and abortion on demand rights, make the Dems a little suspect in my book.

[Granny Bear]

I'm just going to monitor this thread, sit here quietly and be damn proud to be a female voter living in the coal fields of Harlan County.

[TheRealThing]

I'm just going to monitor this thread, sit here quietly and be damn proud to be a female voter living in the coal fields of Harlan County.

Don't fret Granny. You're waaay out of their league. You think for yourself, and you make informed decisions. :rockon:

[Granny Bear]

Thank you! However, that post was not directed at you.

I have great admiration for the posters on this thread and was surprised at how these generalized comments affected me. Harry Rex....we've butted heads before so I know that he's more conservative than even I. I was; however, surprised to hear a couple of his comments knowing his level of education.

WideRight05...I know this cat much better!! I'm considering kicking in his teeth!