punked Posted June 29, 2010 Report Share Posted June 29, 2010 No, what they're saying is that they don't trust massive federal bureaucracies to fix problems. Which is absolutely true. By definition, massive bureaucracies are inefficient. The problem is, that Democrats always wanna make the already massive federal bureaucracy bigger. Just making it more and more wasteful and inefficient. When did the government grow the most? UNDER REAGAN! See the government grows the most under republicans because the military is part of the government. Another lazy argument by Shady. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted June 29, 2010 Report Share Posted June 29, 2010 No, what they're saying is that they don't trust massive federal bureaucracies to fix problems. Which is absolutely true. By definition, massive bureaucracies are inefficient. The problem is, that Democrats always wanna make the already massive federal bureaucracy bigger. Just making it more and more wasteful and inefficient. Partisan nonsense. Republicans have expanded government every bit as much as democrats or more. Two recent examples would be the DHS (the largest new department of government created in modern history), and the Prescription Drug bill (the largest new entitlement created in modern history). There is no difference between Dems and Repubs in this area. No, what they're saying is that they don't trust massive federal bureaucracies to fix problems What they are saying is that they dont trust the US government to do anything usefull. Regardless of whos in charge. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted June 29, 2010 Author Report Share Posted June 29, 2010 Republicans have expanded government every bit as much as democrats I agree. and the Prescription Drug bill (the largest new entitlement created in modern history). Yes, and Democrats didn't think it was large enough. There is no difference between Dems and Repubs in this area. Intellectually lazy nonsense. All Republicans and all Democrats aren't the same. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sharkman Posted June 30, 2010 Report Share Posted June 30, 2010 Every week brings more bad news for the Dems and yet the rank and file seem completely unaware of the threat. The mid-terms will be very interesting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted June 30, 2010 Author Report Share Posted June 30, 2010 The mid-terms will be very interesting. Definitely. It's going to be very entertaining. I'm planning on making a big bowl of popcorn and enjoying the festivities! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted August 30, 2010 Author Report Share Posted August 30, 2010 Big news, big news! Halperin: Raise the Ceiling on the House projectionsMark Halperin, this morning, via Politico: “Mark Halperin e-mails elaboration on a “Morning Joe” prediction: “Based on the current national environment, the enthusiasm gap, the state of the economy, the failure to materialize of a lot of what Democrats were counting on (health care law getting more popular, and ‘recovery summer’ taking hold), and polling in individual races, on the current trajectory, with no unexpected intervening events, Republicans are in a position to pick up as many as 60 seats.” NR 60 seats! GOP Takes Unprecedented 10-Point Lead on Generic BallotPRINCETON, NJ -- Republicans lead by 51% to 41% among registered voters in Gallup weekly tracking of 2010 congressional voting preferences. The 10-percentage-point lead is the GOP's largest so far this year and is its largest in Gallup's history of tracking the midterm generic ballot for Congress. Gallup Largest generic lead in the history of Gallup's midterm tracking. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted November 3, 2010 Report Share Posted November 3, 2010 The best thing that could have happened for Obama...now he can blame Congress. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sharkman Posted November 3, 2010 Report Share Posted November 3, 2010 I'm not so sure, who was he blaming before? Bush and big business. As the election results show, people didn't buy that and it remains to be seen if they'll buy a, "It's not my fault, blame Congress!" He had 2 years of Congress and the Senate in his back pocket and the voters were pretty unhappy with his results. I think it's the results they are after and excuses don't fly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted November 3, 2010 Report Share Posted November 3, 2010 I'm not so sure, who was he blaming before? Bush and big business. As the election results show, people didn't buy that and it remains to be seen if they'll buy a, "It's not my fault, blame Congress!" He had 2 years of Congress and the Senate in his back pocket and the voters were pretty unhappy with his results. I think it's the results they are after and excuses don't fly. What they wanted was a miracle. When Obama didn't turn out to be the Messiah, they turned to the Republicans. Same political cycle it ever was, except this time a bunch of lunatics gained seats, and the GOP is going to have to figure out how to keep those lunatics from rocking the apple cart. In particular, they've got to figure out how to keep Palin at bay, because right now that's Obama's dream opponent; a complete moron. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted November 3, 2010 Author Report Share Posted November 3, 2010 Same political cycle it ever was Only a complete moron would suggest last night was the same political cycle. No party has won more seats in a mid-term election since 1948. except this time a bunch of lunatics gained seats Again, complete nonsense. There are no so-called lunatics gaining seats. That's just the usual political hyperbole. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted November 3, 2010 Report Share Posted November 3, 2010 Only a complete moron would suggest last night was the same political cycle. No party has won more seats in a mid-term election since 1948. Only a complete moron would be happy the likes of Rand Paul now have a say. Again, complete nonsense. There are no so-called lunatics gaining seats. That's just the usual political hyperbole. Rand Paul is a lunatic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted November 3, 2010 Author Report Share Posted November 3, 2010 Rand Paul is a lunatic. Complete nonsense. All of his policy suggestions are very resonable, and necessary. Raising the retirement age, banning earmarks, freezing spending, extending the current tax rates, etc. It's perfectly acceptable to disagree with those positions. But to call him a lunatic only makes you the real one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted November 3, 2010 Report Share Posted November 3, 2010 Complete nonsense. All of his policy suggestions are very resonable, and necessary. Raising the retirement age, banning earmarks, freezing spending, extending the current tax rates, etc. It's perfectly acceptable to disagree with those positions. But to call him a lunatic only makes you the real one. Getting rid of civil rights legislation... Yes all terribly reasonable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sharkman Posted November 3, 2010 Report Share Posted November 3, 2010 (edited) What they wanted was a miracle. When Obama didn't turn out to be the Messiah, they turned to the Republicans. Same political cycle it ever was, except this time a bunch of lunatics gained seats, and the GOP is going to have to figure out how to keep those lunatics from rocking the apple cart. In particular, they've got to figure out how to keep Palin at bay, because right now that's Obama's dream opponent; a complete moron. They didn't want a miracle. They wanted an economy headed in the right direction. Obama has spent most of the stimulus and still hasn't improved the economy or the job situation. What a dolt. He got what he deserved, him and his lunatic allies. Edited November 3, 2010 by sharkman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted November 3, 2010 Report Share Posted November 3, 2010 No, what they're saying is that they don't trust massive federal bureaucracies to fix problems. Which is absolutely true. By definition, massive bureaucracies are inefficient. The problem is, that Democrats always wanna make the already massive federal bureaucracy bigger. Just making it more and more wasteful and inefficient. Wait for it Shady. With the Reps back in power in the House and Senate, you are going to find that status quo continuing. It's also the reason why the trend for big government has been happening for decades regardless of what is said. Expanding the bureaucracy to keep up with the demands of an expanding bureaucracy. There has not been a reduction in government in decades. So don't expect it anytime soon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted November 3, 2010 Author Report Share Posted November 3, 2010 Getting rid of civil rights legislation... If you're going to make things up, perhaps posting in this thread isn't a good idea for you. That's complete nonsense, and you probably know it. With the Reps back in power in the House and Senate, you are going to find that status quo continuing. Nope. It's actually the complete opposite. The speaker-elect is already talking about changing the rules of the house. Making it mandatory to read legislation before voted on. Banning the practice of earmarks. Freezing the budget at 2008 levels. All not the status quo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sharkman Posted November 3, 2010 Report Share Posted November 3, 2010 (edited) Wait for it Shady. With the Reps back in power in the House and Senate, you are going to find that status quo continuing. It's also the reason why the trend for big government has been happening for decades regardless of what is said. Expanding the bureaucracy to keep up with the demands of an expanding bureaucracy. There has not been a reduction in government in decades. So don't expect it anytime soon. But the Tea Party's obsession, which was the driving force behind the huge gains, is to downsize government. Word is that Tea Party members in Congress/Senate will be holding their own meetings. Whether they are successful or not, they are not the same old status quo you are talking about. Edited November 3, 2010 by sharkman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scribblet Posted November 3, 2010 Report Share Posted November 3, 2010 Getting rid of civil rights legislation... Yes all terribly reasonable. Where did he say that, has he said he wants to introduce such legislation ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.