8 DAYS TO DECIDE: Both Parties Predict Control of House

[Bubblehead1980]

Originally Posted by SteamWake

Its simple... buyers remorse.

This isnt the change they were hoping for.

Unlike many in my age group I did not get caught up in "Obamamania" because after reading his books and looking into his backround as much as possible, in addition to listening to his speeches, I knew he was full of bs.I tried to tell people but they would not listen.Now many of those same people have admitted I was correct.

Sad thing is, sometimes our country as a whole has to learn the hard way.2012 is around the corner though and perhaps can redeem ourselves.

Unlike many in my age group I did not get caught up in "Obamamania" because after reading his books and looking into his backround as much as possible

Bubble, since you have been going on the birther /muslim wingnut reading fringe as regards your presidents background, do you not think your fellow schoolkids may have been laughing at you with good cause?

[Bilge_Rat]

Originally Posted by SteamWake

This isnt the change they were hoping for.

what did voters expect?

[tater]

Originally Posted by Bilge_Rat

what did voters expect?

Obama came into the limelight with that 2004 speech. He was well-spoken, and seemed pretty moderate. His voting record in the Senate, and back home in IL was very very far left by the usual left/right ranking schemes (the one used by the dems to rate themselves, and the reps to rank themselves tend to pretty close agreement). Least when he bothered to vote )(admittedly, a very poor sample size given his no-shows)

So he appears as a moderate, but his far-left voting record (again, using metrics the parties both use themselves) gets lost (dunno how).

Then he starts the job, and surprise, he's really far left. Was not surprising to anyone paying attention before hand.

[UnderseaLcpl]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

I predict that the government will continue to spend like there's no tomorrow, regardless of who's in charge.

I predict that mookie is mostly correct. People don't seem to understand just how much political inertia is needed to change state institutions. Moreso, they often fail to understand that backing their own particularly justifiable cause, be it farms or green industry or military manufacturing potential or what have you, is exactly what makes mookie's statement true. You get a government like the one we have today by looking out for number one and going to Washington to make your case. Legislators who don't know any better will adopt your cause based on the number of votes it will garner and the advice of aides, which is why we continue to have subsidies and tariffs and trade protectionism in industries that are completely dead and without a world market. Other nations spend years trying to get an audience in Washington just trying to get limited permission to trade their wares in this country because of impossibly complex regulation and taxation. Is it any wonder that we have invoked the ire of much of the world with our message of free trade and free thought? Is it surprising that we have so much trouble convincing other nations that the free market is the way to go when we spend billions of dollars' worth of public and private funds at home to "guarantee" our own jobs and prosperity? A goal which, I might mention, is completely counterintuitive to the free-market model. We're basically saying that the rest of the world needs to play by rules that we are exempt from; abusing the wealth of our nation to take advantage of others.

This mindset has been backfiring for decades, as anyone who moans about the state of US exports and manufacturing can attest, and yet we do nothing to fix it. We are paying for failure based upon the judgements of people who largely know nothing about business, upon which, whatever the hardcore leftists may say, the economy is based.

Take it from me, I'm an expert in industries and endeavours that exploit the government. I'm not proud to say it, but I'm a pretty lazy guy. I'm a hard worker when I have motivation to work, but it is tough for me to find the motivation in the first place. In fact, I'm probably the worst libertarian in the world because I just don't want anything. I have no desire to get married or have kids or own a yacht or whatever because I just don't care about those things. There is very little that I want out of life. Adam Smith would be at a loss to describe my lack of self-interest.

Even so, I managed to gravitate towards a union railroad job that offered maximum pay for minimum effort and recently, a VA pension that pays over $2000 per month for service-connected disabilities, though I was never physically wounded. Anybody see anything wrong with that picture? I feel bad enough about it that I've submitted my request for a cessation of benefits, but how many people do that? Even with my request, I personally used nearly ten thousand dollars' worth of taxpayer money (mostly back-payed) for my own purposes before I realized what I was doing. In my defense, every one of my family and close friends said that I needed to get VA help because I wasn't "the same person", but I still owe every American here an apology for taking that money. Worse, it turns out that it isn't possible to return it, and I have compromised my integrity as a US Marine by accepting it.

I won't go into depth on my experiences, but the point is that even a person who prides him or herself on integrity is not necessarily a saint, let alone those who seek to abuse the system, or those who don't think about such things. These people are not neccesarily bad, but they find it easy to convince themselves that their own interest is the best interest of everyone. Sometimes, they don't even bother with that, they're just selfish jerks. That being the case, it is easy to see how industries, lobbies, and PACs become immovable financial and legislative obstacles. I seriously doubt that there is even one of you who would make a derious case for why I shouldn't get VA benefits. After all, I put my life on the line to oppose enemies of freedom and fight terror and all that other BS. I don't need to make a case because the establishment has done it for me. Nevermind that a lot of our troops and officers are dickless cowards and/or worthless. Take that same situation and apply it to farmers, or aluminum manufacturers, or the textile industry, or the steelmakers, or whatever. It's the same damn thing. Everybody has a freaking sob story. Everybody has a legislator and/or a legislative aid that is tasked with relaying this crap to the masses and making a case for it. It's always about somebody's job or kids or whatever the hell else an entity with political connections can come up with. It is, after all, easy to justify one's own livliehood. You just have to put a little thought into it and let human nature do the rest.

This is why I maintain the stance that government should be severely restricted. We're all people, and we all more or less care for each other, but the state is a tool for the less agreeable elements of our nature. It's easy to convince ourselves that what is good for us (Even if it isn't. I call upon any parent who has children that enjoy sweeties) is good for everyone, that's just a result of natural selection, as is the ability to rationalize that which is most inclined to our own benefit. This is why established political institutions are so dang difficult to dislodge, even in a Republican system. A proponent of freedom is not fighting just one enemy, but rather an amalgamation of self-interested parties who have found a common cause around which to rally. Together, they naturally result in the Washington garbage heap we have now, with literally thousands of of lobbyists. In giving them a political mechanism with which to realize their own agenda, we are giving them unlimited power, and this is doubly so when we accept a liberal interpretation of the Constitution (excuse me, but it doesn't make a bit of damn sense that a document focussed solely upon restriction of government powers would include a commerce clause that lets the government do whatever it wants based upon the interpretation of the Supreme Court.) Only with a state that has virtually no power to exploit can we ever be free of the self-justified interests of people who are, should we be honest, just like us.

And yet, this is what we have. Everybody wants something, but nobody wants to earn or give up anything. Human nature in a handbasket. That simple truth is how we have ended up with a federal government nobody is happy with and all the pork-laden bills and defecit and everything else.

----------------------------------------------------------------

Frankly, though, I see a change happening in the GOP. It is being forced to accept Tea-Party, Independant, and Libertarian ideals in order to maintain its status, which is not at all unusual for a major political party. The Reps and Dems have changed places many times over the past couple of centuries, and it wouldn't surprise me to see the Republicans changing their platform in order to keep the vote. We're seeing this already, and the elections in November will give us an indication of how many people have grown disillusioned with the old system of state.

Again, however, I agree with mookie. The state is broken enough that hope for fiscal responsibility and any kind of immediate action has already been dashed by the hope of politicians for something, anything, that will secure their positon in 2012. When you build the political (two-party)machine in such a way, you shouldn't be surprised at the results.

[Platapus]

And I am sure I am not the only one who did not vote "for" Obama, but voted "against" McCain.

We didn't exactly have a stellar choice that year.

One of these days, I just want to be able to vote FOR a candidate. Just once so I can say I did it.

[Bubblehead1980]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Bubble, since you have been going on the birther /muslim wingnut reading fringe as regards your presidents background, do you not think your fellow schoolkids may have been laughing at you with good cause?

There you go again Tribes.You know a lot of people put you on the ignore list but I strangely enough enjoy your nonsense so I shall indulge you. I am no birther, I think there is some suspcious activity in that area and it should be investigated to clarify things which would prob ultimately prove he was born in the US.

Can not be disputed that he was raised a muslim and attended a muslim school.Do I think he is a muslim? no Obama's Islamic backround gives him a skewed view that makes him often act contrary to the best interests of the US when dealing with "muslim issues" such as the Mosque.I believe he is more an atheist than anything, which is fine with me because I'm an atheist although I dislike his claiming to be other but I let him pass on that mostly, public atheists just won't get elected to the Presidency in America at this time.


Well most people my age are idiots when it comes to politics, then they grow up.Most do not come into college with strong beliefs and opinions when it comes to political issues.I've read many times people tend to be pretty liberal when young and go conservative as they get older.Of course you have those who never do but point is most people my age are idiots in that regard and thus why Democrats try to court them, so they can exploit that like they do the poor, working poor and less educated.

Just love how many people who fell for the Obama facade have realized and several have personally told me I was right.I knew Obama was a Far Left hack way back and tried to tell people, esp my age group but they were caught up in it, oh well.

By the way, how are books authored by Obama himself "wingnut" reading material? The book "Dreams From My Father" was the last time Obama has been honest in public in a very, very long time.Obama was honest how he felt about race and many other things and it showed what a flawed person he really is.

The Audacity of Hope was mostly BS because he was a Senator by then and considering a run for President or already was in the early part of the race.

[Bubblehead1980]

Originally Posted by Platapus

And I am sure I am not the only one who did not vote "for" Obama, but voted "against" McCain.

We didn't exactly have a stellar choice that year.

One of these days, I just want to be able to vote FOR a candidate. Just once so I can say I did it.

I never understood how anyone could think Obama was less of a risk than McCain? lol I guess if everyone who voted had read his books and did some probing and not took their line from the press who were just in love with Barry O, they would not be shocked by what we have now.Ah well, we learned quick, thus what is coming tuesday.

[SteamWake]

Originally Posted by Bilge_Rat

what did voters expect?

[krashkart]

Originally Posted by UnderseaLcpl

...but I still owe every American here an apology for taking that money. Worse, it turns out that it isn't possible to return it, and I have compromised my integrity as a US Marine by accepting it.

Okay, but I will not accept your apology. You do know that they don't give those benefits out for just any ol' reason, right? Use it to get over the hump. That's what it's there for.

[tater]

undersea, I pay loads of taxes. Your payment is one I'm happy to support. As far as I'm concerned, I'd axe almost all entitlement spending—say reduce all entitlement spending by 50%. I'd take a chunk of the savings from that and raise the pay of those at the sharp end by a lot (the rest to deficit/debt reduction).

People make the entirely bogus claim that teachers are not paid well enough all the time. That's clearly nonsense because public school pay rates are not far off private school teacher pay (usually higher I think)—a free market price.

Combat troops, OTOH, are not paid nearly well enough for what they do for us. Literally risking everything they have, or ever will have.

Apology not accepted, because it was not needed to tender one.

<S>

[Gerald]

PHOENIX -- A federal appeals court has struck down a key part of Arizona's law requiring voters to prove they are citizens before registering to vote or casting ballots.

Tuesday's decision by a panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found that the law requiring voters to prove their citizenship while registering is inconsistent with the National Voter Registration Act. That federal law allows voters to fill out a mail-in card and swear they are citizens under penalty of perjury, but doesn't require them to show proof as Arizona's law does.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010...rove-citizens/


Note:Published October 26, 2010

[Bubblehead1980]

Originally Posted by Vendor

PHOENIX -- A federal appeals court has struck down a key part of Arizona's law requiring voters to prove they are citizens before registering to vote or casting ballots.

Tuesday's decision by a panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found that the law requiring voters to prove their citizenship while registering is inconsistent with the National Voter Registration Act. That federal law allows voters to fill out a mail-in card and swear they are citizens under penalty of perjury, but doesn't require them to show proof as Arizona's law does.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010...rove-citizens/

Note:Published October 26, 2010

Another BS decision from the 9th.Prob the most dangerous appeals court in the nation.

I need an ID to purchase Sudafed, but not to vote. Crazy!

[Gerald]

Originally Posted by Bubblehead1980

Another BS decision from the 9th.Prob the most dangerous appeals court in the nation.

in the bureaucracy track,