US Congress - Clash of Science and Scripture

[bush_cheney2004]

My point remains that the Republicans seem intent on ignoring the changing demographics and their effect on elections. Despite the blah-blah we heard from some of them after the election about change, it's clear that some of them are intent on stuffing their fingers in their ears and shouting "LALALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU!"

And that is just fine....for years Americans had to suffer "progressive" nutbars like Paul Wellstone, Dennis Kucinich, and many others. The Republicans have a "12th Man" on their team in the way of spending that cannot be sustained to fund growing Democrat social programs. It will be grand fun, and guess what...you get to watch !

Edited January 6, 2013 by bush_cheney2004

[betsy]

bush_cheney2004, on 06 January 2013 - 02:19 PM, said:

God is alive and well in America....and Canada too.

That's the bottom line - and the only point I've been making.

Yep, you're absolutely right. Harper always include God in his speeches!

Harper managed to say his trademark ending line, "God bless Canada," at exactly 8:03 p.m. ET.

http://www.cbc.ca/ne...per-speech.html

Edited January 7, 2013 by betsy

[The_Squid]

Yup! Canada does it too!

She doesn't say "yup". She just says "Canada does it too". If she included the "yup" part I wouldn't need to ask.

[Guest Manny]

I like Kimmy's points that she made about PM Harper. It's true, we have to give him that, he has remained very secular. There are some very non-secular views I think within certain ranks of the party, and Harper seems to be able to keep those people quiet.

I've heard some people raise the concern about what's left for the party, when Stephen Harper finally steps down one day.

[Bonam]

I like Kimmy's points that she made about PM Harper. It's true, we have to give him that, he has remained very secular. There are some very non-secular views I think within certain ranks of the party, and Harper seems to be able to keep those people quiet.

I've heard some people raise the concern about what's left for the party, when Stephen Harper finally steps down one day.

What's left for it? They'll probably find someone similar in temperament to Harper to succeed him. Canada is Canada, and religious nutjobs are a small minority even in the Conservative party.

[Guest Manny]

Yeah you're right I guess. Peter Mackay will probably do fine.

[kimmy]

And that is just fine....for years Americans had to suffer "progressive" nutbars like Paul Wellstone, Dennis Kucinich, and many others.

The Republicans would be better positioned to fight progressive nutbars if they stopped picking regressive nutbars to represent them in elections.

One can only wonder how many voters said to themselves "gee, I don't really want to vote for the Democrats, but there's no way I can support a bunch of imbeciles like the Republicans."

The Republicans have a "12th Man" on their team in the way of spending that cannot be sustained to fund growing Democrat social programs. It will be grand fun, and guess what...you get to watch !

Fiscal responsibility? That sounds like a good campaign strategy! There's still people out there gullible enough to believe that the Republicans stand for fiscal responsibility!

But they had that "12th man" on the field for them this election and it didn't help them any. They had a "13th man" on the field, too-- the crappy economy/sluggish recovery. They still blew it. How could they lose an election where conditions were so favorable to unseating an incumbent? How could they lose? By going out and telling large swaths of the electorate that they don't matter.

But as you mention, I'm just a spectator. I don't have a dog in the fight, except to the extent that American economics impact me. And as a spectator, I have to confess that the Paul Brouns and Todd Akins provide a lot more entertainment value than the Dick Lugars and Kay Bailey Hutchinsons.

I'm sure that Democrats are also hoping the Republicans keep finding guys like Todd Akin to represent them.

-k

[bush_cheney2004]

The Republicans would be better positioned to fight progressive nutbars if they stopped picking regressive nutbars to represent them in elections.

No, they can pretty much fight progressive or atheist nutbars just from where they are. The progressives make it easier than the atheists, who (for some strange reason) do not proudly announce their lives sans God .

But as you mention, I'm just a spectator. I don't have a dog in the fight, except to the extent that American economics impact me. And as a spectator, I have to confess that the Paul Brouns and Todd Akins provide a lot more entertainment value than the Dick Lugars and Kay Bailey Hutchinsons.

If American economics and politics play such an important role in your Canadian life, time to ask why. Most Americans don't know or care who gets elected in Canada. Entertainment for a political junky is one thing, and I understand that Canadian politics is dreadfully boring, but the Americans can elect any "whackjob" they want regardless of political party. For instance, Rep. Michele Bachmann won another term despite a concerted effort to unseat her.

I'm sure that Democrats are also hoping the Republicans keep finding guys like Todd Akin to represent them.

Didn't help them in 2004.....I have TV Guides older than your perspective on American elections.

Edited January 8, 2013 by bush_cheney2004

[kimmy]

No, they can pretty much fight progressive or atheist nutbars just from where they are. The progressives make it easier than the atheists, who (for some strange reason) do not proudly announce their lives sans God .

Throwing away easily winnable races, like the Missouri and Indiana senate races, proves otherwise. Before the election, the claim was that "Claire McCaskill couldn't even get elected Dog Catcher" but now we have the footnote "...unless she was running against Todd Akin." Keep sending crazy-people to run for public office, and I'll make some popcorn and watch.

If American economics and politics play such an important role in your Canadian life, time to ask why. Most Americans don't know or care who gets elected in Canada. Entertainment for a political junky is one thing, and I understand that Canadian politics is dreadfully boring, but the Americans can elect any "whackjob" they want regardless of political party.

Why do people do anything? Why do people follow sports teams? Why do people who have never been to the Middle East get all riled up about Middle East politics? Why do people go on polar bear swims? Why do you spend 15 hours a day patrolling a Canadian forum for references to America? Why do people watch reality TV shows? Why do the birds and the fish do what they do? Life is full of mysteries.

For instance, Rep. Michele Bachmann won another term despite a concerted effort to unseat her.

Yes, it must be heartening for backwoods yokels to know that there are still places in America where they exist in sufficient numbers to elect a crazy-woman to Congress.

Didn't help them in 2004.....I have TV Guides older than your perspective on American elections.

Why? Are you a hoarder?

-k

[bush_cheney2004]

.... Keep sending crazy-people to run for public office, and I'll make some popcorn and watch.

That's why they do it...no need to stomp on dolls to get attention.

Why do people do anything?

In this case, they do it because it irks them that "religious nutjobs" have the temerity to win party nominations and public elections in a foreign country, while any declared atheist doesn't have a Popsicle's® chance in hell.

Yes, it must be heartening for backwoods yokels to know that there are still places in America where they exist in sufficient numbers to elect a crazy-woman to Congress.

Yes..it is very rewarding to show the elitists what democracy looks like, as in "backwoods" Wisconsin last year.

Why? Are you a hoarder?

Yes...I get to live America...you just get to watch.