Major election wins for conservatives...
Printed From: Tippmann Paintball
Category: News And Views
Forum Name: Thoughts and Opinions
Forum Description: Got something you need to say?
URL: http://www.tippmannsports.com/forum/wwf77a/forum_posts.asp?TID=183504
Printed Date: 03 February 2026 at 9:53am
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.04 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Major election wins for conservatives...
Posted By: FreeEnterprise
Subject: Major election wins for conservatives...
Date Posted: 04 November 2009 at 8:19am
|
So the republican party is still "finding" itself, while the large majority of Americans call themselves conservative, the "big tent" philosophy of the republican party has again cost them at election day. Since when do they nominate and spend $900,000 to try and get a liberal elected?
She was pro choice, pro obamacare, pro stimulus, pro card check, and anti "republican", and yet she was the nominee for the GOP.
Well, as long at the GOP continues down this road, they will lose support. I for one would never send them a dime, when they will just use it to try and defeat a candidate that is actually a Reagan conservative...
Amazing. The saddest part is, when the media tells the republican leadership that they need to be more "big tent" and more moderate, the big dummies actually listen to them.
Hey GOP, the liberal media wants you to fail... Get it?... They want you to piss off your conservative base, and push them out of the "tent".
Look at their analogy... "BIG TENT". Nice foundation, a good swift wind, and the whole thing goes down.
See, you have to standards, or absolutes to be a party, not this "whatever works for the good of all" garbage.
There are people that don't want to work, they would rather you do everything for them. They are lazy and giving them money just makes them lazier. Then there are hard working people who are tired of paying HUGE amounts of the money they earn that the politicians just give to the lazy group, to waste.
Wake up GOP.
Hoffman would have won if you had put the real republican on your ticket. Look at the numbers...
And yet, you make choices that will keep you in the wilderness for another 40 years. (biblical reference).
Who runs this party and why are they so stupid?
Ever heard of contract with America? Yeah, that one. Well, it worked as there were significant conservative principles that all the candidates agreed with, and the voters got behind them. And now look at you, nominating a liberal, and spending $900,000 to try and defeat a conservative... pathetic. If you want to be liberal, do like your candidate did and join the democrats. All you do is infuriate your true base, you know the FOUNDATION of the party...
You got your rear ends handed to you because you act like the liberal democrats. Sending huge pork projects home to your voters, and being corrupt, supporting the "stimulus", and "bail outs" just like the democrats? What is the difference?
http://hotair.com/archives/2009/11/02/the-stupid-party/ - http://hotair.com/archives/2009/11/02/the-stupid-party/
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9BOGTOO0&show_article=1 - http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9BOGTOO0&show_article=1
"Dierdre Scozzafava, a moderate Republican, withdrew from the race Saturday under pressure from the party's right wing because of her support of http://topics.breitbart.com/abortion+rights/ - abortion rights and same-sex marriage. She had still picked up 5 percent of the vote.
Hoffman started at a distant third and was viewed as a spoiler at best, cutting away at Scozzafava and opening the door for Owens. But prominent Republicans such as former vice presidential candidate http://topics.breitbart.com/Sarah+Palin/ - Sarah Palin and Minnesota Gov. http://topics.breitbart.com/Tim+Pawlenty/ - Tim Pawlenty endorsed Hoffman instead of the party-picked Scozzafava. An Owens victory could signal renewed strength among Democrats, or at least reassure them of Republicans' perceived weakness. The seat has been strongly Republican for decades and is one of only three in the state's 29-seat delegation held by the party. Republican http://topics.breitbart.com/John+McHugh/ - John McHugh vacated the seat in September to become Army secretary. "They're in a civil war over the definition of their party," said http://topics.breitbart.com/Paul+Blank/ - Paul Blank, a Democratic consultant. "And the extremists have won." No matter the outcome, Republicans will be sorting out their identity as the party tries to strike a balance between growing its ranks and preserving the values that set it apart from the http://topics.breitbart.com/Democratic+Party/ - Democratic Party. "I think that the Republican Party is broad enough to handle many different candidates, but the fact is that I'm a commonsense conservative Republican—I am not a radical," Hoffman said Monday. "The point is that Assemblywoman Scozzafava was not a moderate Republican. She was an ultraliberal Republican." " Yes, ignoring the "extremists" as the liberals love to call people of conviction, will be a death blow to the republican party if they don't wake up.
I for one will never again vote for a "mccain" type candidate. The reason the country and most Americans turned against Bush at the end was his willingness to try and partner with the liberals, and spend our tax money to give "special" rights instead of equal rights.
Why is it that the liberal democrats never go across the isle, and yet the republicans think they have to get their approval all the time, while selling their values down the river.
Just look at obamacare, it will increase the cost (guess Obama won't vote for it, huh?...) It does cover abortion, and it still has death panels in it...
But, do the republicans stand up with conviction and character to refute it? Nope, the GOP nominates a liberal to the one seat that is opened up.
Guess how she would have voted on Obamacare?...
And they lost.
I for one am glad. I'd rather lose than have sell my principles down the river for a "liberal moderate" republican. ------------- They tremble at my name... 
|
Replies:
Posted By: High Voltage
Date Posted: 04 November 2009 at 8:34am
|
tl;dr
------------- 
|
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 04 November 2009 at 9:08am
|
After the party of the Office of the Presidency switches, the next few election cycles almost always go in favor of the party that the president isn't. The odd part is that political scientists who specialize in electoral politics really don't know why this seems to consistently happen. |
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 04 November 2009 at 9:11am
 |
FreeEnterprise wrote:Posted By: oldsoldier
Date Posted: 04 November 2009 at 9:21am
|
There is an investigation brewing against the 23rds DNC and RNC on the Dierdre Scozzafava fiasco. There are claims that this was a done 'deal' made to elect the Democrat long before Hoffman jumped in the race. The 23rd District ceases to exsist after the 2010 census so the surrounding Democrat districts will absorb the 23rd anyway. Dierdre Scozzafava's campaign is being ionvestigated on the 2million given it from the RNC for an election she knew deep down was a no win. The local RNC people are running for cover on the Hoffman loss, and the 'deal' will probably come to light here soon. Watertown and Ft. Drum areas are fuming over this, and feel they were betrayed by the RINO Dierdre Scozzafava, and the 'fix' was already in before Hoffman appeared. Scozzafava,a registered Republican showed her true colors hours after she folded her campaign by backing the Democrat, again enraging the traditional Republicans of the 23rd, for her total role in the election was seen to be as the spoiler to ensure the Democrat win. TO far left to get the Republican vote, basically you were voting for Democrat A, or Democrat B, and Hoffman was the victim of political gamesmanship. ------------- 
|
Posted By: tallen702
Date Posted: 04 November 2009 at 9:51am
My feeling on this has always been that people who "win" an election (in this instance, Dems) tend to feel less inclined to take time out of their day to vote in local/state elections while the losers of the national elections turn out in droves to make their voices "heard" even if it is on a different level than the presidential election. Most of the wire services were saying that exit polling here in VA showed that far fewer minority and lower-income voters turned out for the state elections than for the national elections while the white/middle-to-high income turn out was almost the same. As for the argument FE seemed to be making for non-moderate candidates being necessary to the survival of the "Republican" Party, I say yet again that the Party of Reagan is dead and gone. The current incarnation of the Republican party that kowtows to the religious right and continues to argue witch-hunt politics like Roe v Wade and prayer in school every election rather than tackling the big issues of globalization of the economy and America's future in that marketplace is nothing like the Reagan era or even the post-classic era of Bush Sr. Look at the race for Governor in VA. The candidates chosen in the primaries were polarized. The reason? A lot of us (including myself) chose to vote in the Democratic primary in a move to make sure the worst possible candidate got chosen to run against the un-contested Bob McDonald. The result? Creigh Deeds, a miserable no-talent apparatchik with poor communications skills and polarizing opinions that only the most liberal of liberals would agree with was the Democratic candidate. From there, it was a no-brainer. You could either vote for some doofus or you could vote for someone who had their act together. Had anyone been put forth on the Democratic ticket that was worth a damn, McDonald would have been in hot water trying to cover his butt on the whole "Thesis" issue. Instead, he had the time and talking room to put the whole thing behind him, effectively turning it into a non-issue. McDonald even took Democratic endorsements from prominent Virginia delegates to the General Assembly. The reason? He's fairly moderate when all is said and done. While he sticks on those few "witch hunt" issues, they weren't made big issues in this race (like they always are in national elections) he is very middle of the road in everything else, he has to be to have been able to work as the Attorney General under two terms of Democratic rule in Richmond. ------------- <Removed overly wide sig. Tsk, you know better.> |
Posted By: __sneaky__
Date Posted: 04 November 2009 at 10:16am
------------- "I AM a crossdresser." -Reb Cpl Forum Vice President RIP T&O Forum |
Posted By: Benjichang
Date Posted: 04 November 2009 at 12:44pm
|
FE;dr
-------------  irc.esper.net #paintball |
Posted By: jmac3
Date Posted: 04 November 2009 at 12:49pm
So she just wasn't your idea of a Republican? ------------- Que pasa? 
|
Posted By: oldsoldier
Date Posted: 04 November 2009 at 1:21pm
|
Like I said...the investigation into Dierdre Scozzafava has started. Political shenanigans and a 'deal' seems to be the reasoning and rationale for her nomination. The 23rd District disappears after 2010 census, absorbed by Dem couny's surrounding it. So the RINO pick was some sort of deal. She drops from campaign and immediatly supports the Democrat candidate, showing her true colors. Watertown and Ft Drum area are convinced of political shenanigans and the investigation is originating from there. -------------
|
Posted By: choopie911
Date Posted: 04 November 2009 at 3:11pm
|
Posted By: oreomann33
Date Posted: 04 November 2009 at 3:28pm
------------- 
|
Posted By: Rofl_Mao
Date Posted: 04 November 2009 at 3:49pm
| you guys are so cool. |
Posted By: ParielIsBack
Date Posted: 04 November 2009 at 3:50pm
I LOL'ed. ------------- BU Engineering 2012 |
Posted By: brihard
Date Posted: 04 November 2009 at 5:28pm
Whale, you win this thread. Best use of XKCD I've ever seen. But yeah, I'm not sure where this idea is coming from that Americans recoiled against Bush because he was going too liberal. Sounds like pure speculation to me, and the opposite of what I would perceive to be true. If anything, Bush was perceived as being far too unilateral and destroying America's reputation abroad, squandering the good will America received after 9/11 from the world community. Bush did many wrong things. Working with liberals was not one of them. ------------- "Abortion is not "choice" in America. It is forced and the democrats are behind it, with the goal of eugenics at its foundation." -FreeEnterprise, 21 April 2011. Yup, he actually said that. |
Posted By: choopie911
Date Posted: 04 November 2009 at 5:37pm
Agreed. I think a BIG problem currently is the over all obliviousness to the perception of America worldwide. People didn't hate on bush because he was too liberal, as Brihard said, if anything it was the opposite. Just like now the right is railing on Obama for every little detail, while the rest of the world (practically) thinks he's still a good step in the right direction. The perspective is very skewed, which isn't good. |
Posted By: MeanMan
Date Posted: 04 November 2009 at 5:48pm
/thread ------------- 
hybrid-sniper~"To be honest, if I see a player still using an Impulse I'm going to question their motives." |
Posted By: Evil Elvis
Date Posted: 04 November 2009 at 6:23pm
|
I'm the only registered Republican in my ward. I think the thinking that Republicans are Bible Pushing Borderline Bigots of the Republican Party is what's killing the Party. Throw in people that think speak out stating that Mix religion with Politics just makes matters much worse. This "base" they keep talking about like it's a huge centralist group. is nothing more than fluff... if that was the case we wouldn't have a Democratic Controlled House and Senate and defiantly not a president.
I think of those republicans as the old folks who yell at kids whose ball lands on his lawn. Just as those Berkley liberals do the same for the Democratic Party. It's getting to the point where we will need a new Political Party so we can get things done. ------------- 
|
Posted By: Peter Parker
Date Posted: 04 November 2009 at 7:15pm
Perhaps from NRO, which conveniently has an opinion piece today on this exact topic: http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZWI2NDcyNWVkMjJiYjcyNTVjNDFmNzQ1ZTczMDQxZDU - http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZWI2NDcyNWVkMjJiYjcyNTVjNDFmNzQ1ZTczMDQxZDU = ------------- "E Pluribus Unum" does not mean "Every man for himself". Pop Quiz: What do all the Framers of the Constitution have in common? |
Posted By: tallen702
Date Posted: 04 November 2009 at 11:32pm
The NRO? I'm a registered Republican and even I think that the NRO is a bit light in the commonsense/intelligence dept. As I've said many many many times before: Screw the right wing nutjobs and uber-religious zealots. Who the heck are they going to vote for anyway, if not the Republican candidate? It's not like they'd vote for the Democratic candidate, they simply wouldn't vote. And if you can't get your party in office without scraping up all the nutjobs and zealots, then you're doing it wrong. There are so many centrists out there that can be swung given the right candidates that you shouldn't have to resort to the old Tammany Hall tactic of grabbing bums off the street to stuff the ballot boxes. The party of Lincoln and Reagan is dead. And anyone who disagrees needs to take a good hard look in the mirror. What the US needs now more than ever is a third party that is willing to put common sense ahead of zealotry and toeing the party line. ------------- <Removed overly wide sig. Tsk, you know better.> |
Posted By: Frozen Balls
Date Posted: 05 November 2009 at 1:27am
|
c[_] ------------- 
|
Posted By: ParielIsBack
Date Posted: 05 November 2009 at 12:49pm
The weird thing is that this was pretty much recognized before Obama was elected, and people still don't get it. ------------- BU Engineering 2012 |
Posted By: __sneaky__
Date Posted: 05 November 2009 at 12:56pm
------------- "I AM a crossdresser." -Reb Cpl Forum Vice President RIP T&O Forum |
Posted By: Peter Parker
Date Posted: 05 November 2009 at 12:57pm
That was really my point. This whole issue seems a bit manufactured to me. I wouldn't be surprised if Hannity and/or Beck also discussed this "grass-roots rise of true conservatism." Kind of a talking points bootstrap mechanism.
------------- "E Pluribus Unum" does not mean "Every man for himself". Pop Quiz: What do all the Framers of the Constitution have in common? |
Posted By: tallen702
Date Posted: 05 November 2009 at 9:32pm
If you look at the Virginia election results, and not just the Gubernatorial figures, you'll see that it wasn't some "major victory for 'conservatives'" like the loudmouthed neo-cons are making it out to be. In VA, Fairfax county went Republican in their gubernatorial vote for the first time in 16 years. However it continued to lean to the left in its choices for their delegates for the General Assembly. If grass-roots "conservatives" were really the driving factor behind the republican victory in this state, then Fairfax would have had republican delegates elected to the G.A. as well. The fact of the matter is that the far right doesn't mean diddly-squat when it comes to winning elections, just as the left-wing commies don't mean jack crap either. The guys like myself who sit in the middle and support Roe-v-Wade but also support our second amendment rights and wish for fiscally conservative moves on the part of our government are the ones who BOTH parties should be aiming to sway. ------------- <Removed overly wide sig. Tsk, you know better.> |
Posted By: mbro
Date Posted: 05 November 2009 at 11:26pm
 Truth.------------- 
Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos. |
Posted By: StormyKnight
Date Posted: 06 November 2009 at 4:51am
|
I think what you're seeing with these recent Republican wins has nothing to do with Republicans stepping up to try and counter Obama. I think it has more to do with the independant voters that were swayed by Obama to vote for him just didn't show up to vote Democrat this time. Perhaps it was voter's remorse on their part for swinging left to counter the last 8 years of Bush. Maybe most of them didn't vote at all. And just maybe they didn't show up because Obama hasn't been as moderate as he said he was going to be and has been leaning hard left instead, alienating those independant voters that helped him win.
I think we'll get a better picture next November for sure. ------------- 
|
Posted By: oldsoldier
Date Posted: 06 November 2009 at 6:32am
|
Typical, if a Republican wins, downplay it as a fluke. Yes the independants realize that the joke of 08 was on them, believing that the Dems were the answer. The shine is rapidly coming off the Democtratic Rose, and even the Dems in congress are rethinking career moves. NJ, VA and NY 23rd was a prelim of things to come if the Dem's keep up thier bravo sierra. NY 23rd Scossafava is being 'investigated' for shenanigans abiet resulting in the Dem winning. NJ was a gimme, and just wait till NY in 10, Paterson is circling the bowl as we speak. -------------
|
Posted By: FreeEnterprise
Date Posted: 06 November 2009 at 7:17am
|
I remember posting back after the election that the democrats would overreach.
Well, they have...
The sad thing is, this will affect all of you in ways you don't even realize yet. You will personally have way less income to spend on stuff, as you will be paying much higher energy costs, and your health care costs, (I would guess most of you don't even have insurance) will skyrocket.
Not to mention you won't be able to find jobs...
Its sad really, but keep believing the hype.
72 hours to review the final bill... They are still making changes and the vote is tomorrow...
Typical. ------------- They tremble at my name...
|
Posted By: ParielIsBack
Date Posted: 06 November 2009 at 7:50am
Your opinion =/= facts. Fact is, the standard of living isn't going to change much. Stop playing it up so much. ------------- BU Engineering 2012 |
Posted By: FreeEnterprise
Date Posted: 06 November 2009 at 8:41am
Citation needed...
I am allowed an opinion just like you, and the difference is, I can cite sources for unemployment numbers that will go up today when released, and news stories that show the effect of higher minimum wage and how it has affected the youth. Plus the current bill is still undergoing changes, and the vote is tomorrow...
Which opinions I posted above aren't also facts?... Do we need a poll to see how many of the youth that post on here have insurance now? Because under Obamacare they will be paying for a minimum plan, or a penalty.
That is higher costs... which equals less spending ability in my world. ------------- They tremble at my name...
|
Posted By: FreeEnterprise
Date Posted: 06 November 2009 at 8:43am
|
Oh, and the unemployment numbers are projected to be similar to the numbers in the 1983 recession... And how did we as a country get out of that one?
Not by raising taxes, and making people MORE dependent on government...
You would think history would teach us to not to make the same mistakes. But, some people never learn.
Just keep spending, just keep spending... ------------- They tremble at my name...
|
Posted By: ParielIsBack
Date Posted: 06 November 2009 at 10:03am
|
I will bet you $5 that over 75% of the "youth" on this board are covered under their parents insurance plans -- that seems to count as having insurance in my book. Personally, I'm covered by two insurance plans (my parents, and a school student-athlete plan that is required for all varsity athletes, and is essentially a secondary plan to cover major sports-related injuries). My family has always, and will probably continue, to use plans that cover just about everything, and which are therefore more expensive. I could care less if other people choose to take plans that will force them to pay a lot out of pocket when they have a major medical bill, but almost every statistic says that it's not going to work out in the long run. Please, go ahead and cite your unemployment numbers -- then step back and realize that this is all short term. Most of the "youth" on this board won't be getting jobs in the next few years, and more importantly most of them won't be entering the fields that have been hurt the worst. Most of us "youth" on this board are either in engineering or the sciences, neither of which has been hit heavily (in fact, science spending increased this year). I can tell you that engineering internships and hiring made a strong come back from last year, and frankly that's all I care about. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/07/business/economy/07jobs.html?ref=global-home
I'll just leave that here. Again, in five years, Americans will have again forgotten what difficult economic times are like. ------------- BU Engineering 2012 |
Posted By: StormyKnight
Date Posted: 06 November 2009 at 11:45am
-------------
|
Posted By: tallen702
Date Posted: 06 November 2009 at 11:48am
|
OS and FE, you guys are delusional to think that the lack of turnout by voters in the recent elections has anything to do with "voter's remorse." It has more to do with the fact that the gubernatorial races NOT national races and thus hold less interest for most voters. Furthermore, the fact that the Obama election was a historic milestone got more people who don't regularly vote, or who had never voted in the past to turn out in droves. What we are seeing in these votes is the return to voter apathy which has less to do with the performance of Democrats in government than it does people who would rather watch the World Series than get out and vote. All you have to do is look at the exit polling numbers and you realize this. Of course No one has ever accused the two of you of doing much research before shooting off your mouths.
As for the economic situation, it's getting better. McCain couldn't have made the economy move any faster than it is right now. He may have decided to not bail out failing auto companies and banks like Obama did, and thus have kept the national debt a little better in check, but the fact of the matter is that the economical issues of this country will require far more than the actions of the office of the president or even congress to get us out of this mire. New regulations on the banking industry are needed to not only keep this kind of thing from happening again, but to also boost consumer confidence in their financial institutions so that they won't be afraid to invest again. A higher minimum wage won't hurt the economy in the long-run either. It gives more people more money to pay for more products meaning far more manufacturing and retail jobs as well as white-collar jobs that go along with the increase in production and sales (managers, accountants, payroll officers, etc.) Right now, things are stabilizing and even getting better to some extent. The National Restaurant Association (the other NRA) just reported in their November edition that teens and college students have begun spending more at restaurants, bars, and retail outlets than they have since November of last year. This is an excellent indicator of economic stability as most college students rely on their parents for spending money. We haven't seen as big an uptake in the adult end of the spectrum, but most economic analysts believe that this isn't due to any lack of funds, but rather smarter spending on the part of bread winners these days. Whereas before people would purchase on credit, these days purchase plans such as layaway are making a comeback. This is VERY important since an economy based around credit is an economy built on a shaky foundation compared to real-sales and real-dollars. ------------- <Removed overly wide sig. Tsk, you know better.> |
Posted By: StormyKnight
Date Posted: 06 November 2009 at 12:05pm
Before Obama was elected I heard and read that if you wanted a good idea what the country will look like under Obama, look at Michigan under Jennifer Granholm. She made a pretty little speech in January of '06 stating "In five years, you’re going to be blown away by the strength and diversity of Michigan’s transformed economy." Five years. So far in the 4 years since that speech Michigan has one of the worst economies in the union with a 15% unemployment rate. A full 5% higher than the national average. If she couldn't transform Michigan in this time, what could possibly happen to make the American people forget what hard economic times are like? Are all the people that lived during and just after the Great Depression just going to have spontaneous amnesia or will they all be dead in five years? -------------
|
Posted By: FreeEnterprise
Date Posted: 06 November 2009 at 12:53pm
Yeah, its just us...
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704013004574517924229019190.html?mod=rss_opinion_main - http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704013004574517924229019190.html?mod=rss_opinion_main
Hello, tipping point for Obama... ------------- They tremble at my name...
|
Posted By: ParielIsBack
Date Posted: 06 November 2009 at 1:11pm
You're talking about the state that has had increasing unemployment for the last decade and a half because they can't make a car worth buying. Also, perhaps I should expand on my statement: Americans will start spending like there's no such thing as hard times again. Every economic downturn and upturn shows that this is exactly the case, for the last century of economics. ------------- BU Engineering 2012 |
Posted By: tallen702
Date Posted: 06 November 2009 at 1:36pm
Holy failarity Batman! OpEd =/= fact there FE. Furthermore, if you read past the rhetoric that you seem to love so much, you'll see that the numbers thrown out in your OpEd actually back up what I've been saying. Voter turnouts were lower than they were for the presidential elections here in VA, and that, rather than any incensed objection to the White House is what allowed VA Republicans to regain their stake in the state's legislative and executive branches. Again, you are delusional, same as the person who wrote that OpEd. You take whatever you can find to support your opinion and twist it to fit your case. Neo-Cons such as yourself are nothing more than a fringe, you are exactly the same as those you scream about and rail against at every opportunity. You are the cancer that has destroyed the Republican Party. ------------- <Removed overly wide sig. Tsk, you know better.> |
Posted By: oldsoldier
Date Posted: 06 November 2009 at 3:27pm
|
Yes how long did it take the nation to forget Hoover and that economic downturn. As the economy continues to spiral the bowl faster and faster with the help of current Dem policies, will the masses forget the promises made and immediately broken. The Stimulus just spead up the process, instead of reversing it. Now burden the economy with another giant spending give away (health care) and the flush will be complete. BTW what happened to Pelosi's promise of a on web review of the bill for 72hours prior to the vote? What does she fear? -------------
|
Posted By: Peter Parker
Date Posted: 06 November 2009 at 3:36pm
I predict that two years from now, we will NOT be on a downward spiral and no "flush" will have occurred.
Is that a good test of our respective hypotheses?
Heck, I predict that two years from now we will be more or less back to normal.
------------- "E Pluribus Unum" does not mean "Every man for himself". Pop Quiz: What do all the Framers of the Constitution have in common? |
Posted By: ParielIsBack
Date Posted: 06 November 2009 at 6:06pm
I'm sorry, are you actually looking at any of the numbers currently being recorded in relation to our economy? I could care less what Pelosi does or says about the health care bill -- there's a clear consensus on both sides of what's going to happen with it, and people have both had more than enough time to talk about it and to write their senators demanding answers. ------------- BU Engineering 2012 |
Posted By: StormyKnight
Date Posted: 06 November 2009 at 8:02pm
Define "normal". -------------
|
Posted By: tallen702
Date Posted: 06 November 2009 at 10:33pm
I've been saying all along that we ARE at normalcy when you look at the logarithmic charts depicting the actions of the markets and economic outlook from the early 1900's through today. The only people who think that we're seriously bad off right now are the same ones who think that 'Merica can do no wrong and that tariffs on foreign goods are a good idea. It isn't the gov't that got us here people, it's you, me, and everyone else. The gov't didn't help, but it wasn't any one particular president's fault. Rather the actions of both Reagan and Clinton that allowed common people to put our economic livelihood at risk. ------------- <Removed overly wide sig. Tsk, you know better.> |
Posted By: mbro
Date Posted: 07 November 2009 at 2:07am
|
/\ That combined with the Fed Reserve's unwillingness to raise interest rates to make credit less available.
....Just one of many factors, but still. Interest rates were ridiculously low after '01 and for too long. -------------
Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos. |
Posted By: Frozen Balls
Date Posted: 07 November 2009 at 2:51am
|
I love watching you guys bash your heads against each other. The economy works in cycles, in much the same way as seasons, women, and tides. -------------
|