First time visitor? Learn more.

The G.O.P. deserved to lose

by Speranza ( 161 Comments › )
Filed under Barack Obama, Democratic Party, Elections 2012, History, Mitt Romney, Republican Party, The Political Right at January 2nd, 2013 - 3:00 pm

Maybe the GOP deserved to lose, but not the nation. I did not know the Robert Bork story that Sowell mentions, however I am not surprised. George W. Bush would do over 20 years later  the exact same thing that the GOP Establishment urged Robert Bork in the face of withering, libelous attack,  i.e. do nothing.

by Thomas Sowell

The beginning of a new year is often a time to look forward and look back. The way the future looks, I prefer to look back — and depend on my advanced age to spare me from having to deal with too much of the future.

If there are any awards to be given to anyone for what they did in 2012, one of those rewards should be for prophecy, if only because prophecies that turn out to be right are so rare.

With that in mind, my choice for the prediction of the year award goes to Bret Stephens of the Wall Street Journal for his column of January 24, 2012 titled: “The GOP Deserves to Lose.”

Despite reciting a litany of reasons why President Obama deserved to be booted out of the White House, Stephens said, “Let’s just say right now what voters will be saying in November, once Barack Obama has been re-elected: Republicans deserve to lose.”

To me, the Republican establishment is the 8th wonder of the world. [........]

Bret Stephens said, back at the beginning of 2012, that Mitt Romney was one of the “hollow men,” and that voters “usually prefer the man who stands for something.”

[.......]He is only the latest in a long series of presidential candidates backed by a Republican establishment that seems convinced that ad hoc “moderation” is where it’s at — no matter how many of their ad hoc moderates get beaten by even vulnerable, unknown or discredited Democrats.

Back in 1948, when the Democratic Party splintered into three parties, each one with its own competing presidential candidate, Republican candidate Thomas E. Dewey was considered a shoo-in.

Best-selling author David Halberstam described what happened: “Dewey’s chief campaign tactic was to make no mistakes, to offend no one. His major speeches, wrote the Louisville Courier Journal, could be boiled down ‘to these historic four sentences: Agriculture is important. Our rivers are full of fish. You cannot have freedom without liberty. The future lies ahead…’”

Does this sound like a more recent Republican presidential candidate?

Meanwhile, President Harry Truman was on the attack in 1948, with speeches that had many people saying, “Give ‘em hell, Harry.” He won, even with the Democrats’ vote split three ways.

But, to this day, the Republican establishment still goes for pragmatic moderates who feed pablum to the public, instead of treating them like adults.

It is not just Republican presidential candidates who cannot be bothered to articulate a coherent argument, instead of ad hoc talking points.

Have you yet heard House Speaker John Boehner take the time to spell out why Barack Obama’s argument for taxing “millionaires and billionaires” is wrong?

[.......]

What we all should be worried about are high tax rates driving American investments overseas, when there are millions of Americans who could use the jobs that those investments would create at home.

Yet Obama has been allowed to get away with the emotional argument that the rich can easily afford to pay more, as if that is the issue. But it will be the issue if no one says otherwise.

One of the recent sad reminders of the Republicans’ tendency to leave even lies and smears unanswered was a television replay of an old interview with the late Judge Robert Bork, whose nomination to the Supreme Court was destroyed by character assassination.

Judge Bork said that he was advised not to answer Ted Kennedy’s wild accusations because those false accusations would discredit themselves. That supposedly sophisticated advice cost the country one of the great legal minds of our time — and left us with a wavering Anthony Kennedy in his place on the Supreme Court.

Some people may take solace from the fact that there are some articulate Republicans like Marco Rubio who may come forward in 2016. But with Iran going nuclear and North Korea developing missiles that can hit California, it may be too late by then.

Read the rest -  Happy New Year?

 

Tags: , ,

Comments

Comments and respectful debate are both welcome and encouraged.

Comments are the sole opinion of the comment writer, just as each thread posted is the sole opinion or post idea of the administrator that posted it or of the readers that have written guest posts for the Blogmocracy.

Obscene, abusive, or annoying remarks may be deleted or moved to spam for admin review, but the fact that particular comments remain on the site in no way constitutes an endorsement of their content by any other commenter or the admins of this Blogmocracy.

We're not easily offended and don't want people to think they have to walk on eggshells around here (like at another place that shall remain nameless) but of course, there is a limit to everything.

Play nice!

161 Responses to “The G.O.P. deserved to lose”
( jump to bottom )

  1. 1 | January 2, 2013 3:06 pm

    It is likely to be a very dark four years. Is it any wonder Obama is persuing gun control? He feels he is immortal, above the mere voters who were, after all, stupid enough to entrust the country to him not once but twice. He feels he can do anything. We’ll see if the Democrats in the Senate feel likewise empowered, or whether he has a tough time with coming upwith 50 Senators who are willing to bet their careers on gun control being more popular than guns at a time when gun sales are setting records.


  2. 2 | January 2, 2013 3:11 pm

    The GOP is toast until 2020. It may not even exist by that time. We will probably have a Center-Right Government again, but it will not be the GOP or the GOP in a new form.


  3. heysoos
    3 | January 2, 2013 3:12 pm

    I honestly don’t think Beohner understands why taxing millionaires is wrong…I’m not sure anyone in the GOP does, except that most of congress are probably millionaires or will be by the time they leave office…they all such equally but for only micro slightly different reasons


  4. 4 | January 2, 2013 3:13 pm

    Some people may take solace from the fact that there are some articulate Republicans like Marco Rubio who may come forward in 2016.

    Rubio’s problem is he’s a Islamic loving Nation Builder. Unless he drops that stupid foreign policy view, I can’t support him in the primaries.


  5. heysoos
    5 | January 2, 2013 3:13 pm

    @ Iron Fist:
    and being pissed is setting a record…at least for me


  6. 6 | January 2, 2013 3:16 pm

    @ Iron Fist:

    It is likely to be a very dark four years.

    I think longer.


  7. 7 | January 2, 2013 3:18 pm

    I wonder what the Democrats and the Nation Builders in the GOP has to say about their Muslim Brotherhood buddies.

    Israel will cease to exist within a decade, says Muslim Brotherhood officia


  8. waldensianspirit
    8 | January 2, 2013 3:20 pm

    heysoos wrote:

    most of congress are probably millionaires or will be by the time they leave office…

    Yep, and they know they have gained power to twist arms to make sure they recoup back any taxes through their ‘legislation’ that might happen to affect them


  9. heysoos
    9 | January 2, 2013 3:20 pm

    Rodan wrote:

    @ Iron Fist:
    It is likely to be a very dark four years.
    I think longer.

    keep in mind that shit happens at lightning speed sometimes…it’s easier to appeal to your feelings at the moment, but no one can say for sure…I’d just like to get back to my general contempt rather than this hyper bad attitude I have right now…I have to express my citizenship elsewhere than behind federal skirts, so I do…look out for our brothers and sisters, stay calm and see what shakes out…that’s what I do


  10. heysoos
    10 | January 2, 2013 3:24 pm

    it’s a conflict between us, the typical person, and the oligarchy of elites…it’s just now more brazen…Walter used to really go off about it


  11. 11 | January 2, 2013 3:28 pm

    @ Rodan:

    We’ll see. The problem with Rubio is that he is on the pulse of the nation on this issue. No, most people don’t want more wars, but most people do believe the “Islam is a Religion of Peace” bullshit. They may not have believed another word that came out of Bush’s mouth, but they so badly want to believe that that they ignore the bloody evidence in front of them. The whole world is like that because they don’t really want to believe that they have to functionally destroy Islam the same way they functionally destroyed Nazism. Now, if we want relative peace in the world, that is exactly what we have to do, but that isn’t a recipe for no war. That is a recipe for expanded war. The American people don’t want to hear that. It is like when Rick Perry called Social Security a Ponzi Scheme. Yes, he was 100% correct, but that cost him the nomination right there. Too many people want to believe in Social Security. Now, the truth is that Social Security is going bankrupt along with the rest of the Entitlement State, but people won’t believe that until it all comes crashing down like the Soviet Union did.


  12. 12 | January 2, 2013 3:30 pm

    @ heysoos:

    The way the GOP is currently composed, they will not win the Presidency for a long time.

    1) They have no strategy to deal with the Media-Entertainment Industrial complex.
    2) The GOP is torn between RINO Socialists and has a Purity Inquisition that loves the martyrdom of defeat.
    3)The GOP loves Nation Building

    Until these 3 issues are resolved, the GOP will not win another Presidential election.


  13. 13 | January 2, 2013 3:32 pm

    @ Iron Fist:

    We’ll see. The problem with Rubio is that he is on the pulse of the nation on this issue.

    Actually most polls show Americans are against nation building. It’s Republican voters who love nation building.

    The whole world is like that because they don’t really want to believe that they have to functionally destroy Islam the same way they functionally destroyed Nazism. Now, if we want relative peace in the world, that is exactly what we have to do, but that isn’t a recipe for no war. That is a recipe for expanded war.

    That is the only answer.


  14. heysoos
    14 | January 2, 2013 3:34 pm

    Rodan wrote:

    @ heysoos:
    The way the GOP is currently composed, they will not win the Presidency for a long time.
    1) They have no strategy to deal with the Media-Entertainment Industrial complex.
    2) The GOP is torn between RINO Socialists and has a Purity Inquisition that loves the martyrdom of defeat.
    3)The GOP loves Nation Building
    Until these 3 issues are resolved, the GOP will not win another Presidential election.

    agreed, but the GOP will probably have opportunities handed to them by BO himself…like in football, you gotta convert turnovers into points…not much I admit….I say let BO be as rash as he wants, and when he is, knock the shit out of him, every little skirmish


  15. Guggi
    15 | January 2, 2013 3:38 pm

    Boehner is a dedicated follwer of fashion :-)


  16. heysoos
    16 | January 2, 2013 3:41 pm

    if I were CinC, I’d pull every troop out of the ME…every country, shut down every base and embassy…I’d go on national tv and name every country and tell them don’t call don’t write…then I’d warn all of them, if I have to come back and pay you a visit, it will be with horrendous violence and it will be a fight to the finish this time….then I’d unleash a black ops slaughter like you’ve never seen


  17. 17 | January 2, 2013 3:46 pm

    heysoos wrote:

    if I were CinC, I’d pull every troop out of the ME…every country, shut down every base and embassy…I’d go on national tv and name every country and tell them don’t call don’t write…then I’d warn all of them, if I have to come back and pay you a visit, it will be with horrendous violence and it will be a fight to the finish this time….then I’d unleash a black ops slaughter like you’ve never seen

    Can I vote for you?


  18. heysoos
    18 | January 2, 2013 3:48 pm

    I’d use the difference in funds to seize our borders and effectively seal them…sorry, can’t get in…then I’d start hunting down the AQ cells that are working here…find them, delete them, no arrest, no Gitmo, no jurisprudence…shut down every mosque, every Islamic center and every Muslim charity…you want results? I’ll get you results


  19. 19 | January 2, 2013 3:49 pm

    heysoos wrote:

    I’d use the difference in funds to seize our borders and effectively seal them…sorry, can’t get in…then I’d start hunting down the AQ cells that are working here…find them, delete them, no arrest, no Gitmo, no jurisprudence…shut down every mosque, every Islamic center and every Muslim charity…you want results? I’ll get you results

    Heysos 2016!!!!!!!!!!!!!


  20. heysoos
    20 | January 2, 2013 3:53 pm

    we need to immediately form some sort of energy cartel between the US, Mexico and Canada…if Venezuela wants in then they have to kill Chavez first to express their loyalty…you want energy, let’s talk


  21. heysoos
    21 | January 2, 2013 3:54 pm

    Rodan wrote:

    heysoos wrote:
    I’d use the difference in funds to seize our borders and effectively seal them…sorry, can’t get in…then I’d start hunting down the AQ cells that are working here…find them, delete them, no arrest, no Gitmo, no jurisprudence…shut down every mosque, every Islamic center and every Muslim charity…you want results? I’ll get you results

    Heysos 2016!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    easy bro…you’re thinking the same thing


  22. Guggi
    22 | January 2, 2013 3:54 pm

    @ heysoos:
    @ heysoos:

    We don’t need no stinky constitution, do we ? Who needs a legal system, seriously ?


  23. 23 | January 2, 2013 3:55 pm

    @ Guggi:

    Things are so much easier in a dictatorship. Just ask Obama. He’ll tell you… :roll:


  24. eaglesoars
    24 | January 2, 2013 3:56 pm

    I don’t think Obama’s next move is going to be guns. It’s going to be the debt ceiling. Didn’t he just say “I’ll negotiate on a lot of things but not on that”?

    So what does that mean? I think it means he’s going to try to get rid of it completely or raise it so high it might as well be gone -- by executive order -- which is completely unconstitutional

    If he tries to subvert the constitution and the GOP stands there with its thumb up its ass -- ……………


  25. heysoos
    25 | January 2, 2013 3:57 pm

    withdraw from the UN but give them their cool pad on the river, then ignore them completely, but collect rent…they’d fold in a NY second….redesign NATO with our interests at the top of priorities…no agreement? then close up shop


  26. eaglesoars
    26 | January 2, 2013 3:58 pm

    Has anyone else heard something about Iran evacuating Isfahan?


  27. eaglesoars
    27 | January 2, 2013 3:59 pm

    heysoos wrote:

    but collect rent…they’d fold in a NY second

    They don’t even pay their parking tickets. What makes you think they’d pay rent?


  28. heysoos
    28 | January 2, 2013 3:59 pm

    Guggi wrote:

    @ heysoos:
    @ heysoos:
    We don’t need no stinky constitution, do we ? Who needs a legal system, seriously ?

    join the reality that the world goes round by different rules for different people


  29. lobo91
    29 | January 2, 2013 4:01 pm

    @ eaglesoars:

    He was still talking about Congress “paying the bills for what it’s already spent,” though. To me, that implies that he just expects Congress to give him what he wants, not that he’s going to attempt some end run that even libs know is unconstitutional.

    Nobody seriously believes that 14th Amendment nonsense.


  30. heysoos
    30 | January 2, 2013 4:01 pm

    eaglesoars wrote:

    heysoos wrote:
    but collect rent…they’d fold in a NY second
    They don’t even pay their parking tickets. What makes you think they’d pay rent?

    not saying they would, demand it anyway and when they don’t cough it up throw their asses in the river…this foreign policy PC shit has got to end


  31. lobo91
    31 | January 2, 2013 4:02 pm

    @ heysoos:

    then I’d start hunting down the AQ cells that are working here…find them, delete them, no arrest, no Gitmo, no jurisprudence…

    Put a bounty on them.


  32. 32 | January 2, 2013 4:03 pm

    @ eaglesoars:

    I think the Gun debate is a ruse.


  33. Guggi
    33 | January 2, 2013 4:05 pm

    Iron Fist wrote:

    @ Guggi:
    Things are so much easier in a dictatorship. Just ask Obama. He’ll tell you…

    One
    Big
    Awful
    Mistake
    America


  34. heysoos
    34 | January 2, 2013 4:05 pm

    lobo91 wrote:

    @ heysoos:
    then I’d start hunting down the AQ cells that are working here…find them, delete them, no arrest, no Gitmo, no jurisprudence…
    Put a bounty on them.

    or certainly reward people that turn…federal agencies kill hundreds of people every year, world wide, that need it…it’s been that way forever….counter terrorism is a dirty, wet business….there is no room for Miranda and that stuff


  35. heysoos
    35 | January 2, 2013 4:12 pm

    Rodan wrote:

    @ eaglesoars:
    I think the Gun debate is a ruse.

    it’s not even a debate…it’s a bitch fest fronted by a bunch of diaper shitting whimps…if they want to re-engineer our society for the betterment of all they’d all go down to Dickless’ and pack


  36. lobo91
    36 | January 2, 2013 4:15 pm

    @ heysoos:

    When was the last time we had any actual debate about any political issues?

    I certainly can’t remember one.


  37. heysoos
    37 | January 2, 2013 4:16 pm

    lobo91 wrote:

    @ heysoos:
    When was the last time we had any actual debate about any political issues?
    I certainly can’t remember one.

    debate is dead…it’s now a test of AmIdol style…American politics is nothing more than a circus high wire act


  38. heysoos
    38 | January 2, 2013 4:18 pm

    when I run this country, I’m gonna put every congressional session up on live tv…you wanna see how bright your elected whores are, I’ll show you


  39. 39 | January 2, 2013 4:20 pm

    Rodan wrote:

    @ eaglesoars:
    I think the Gun debate is a ruse.

    Approximately 2.8 million people with money in their hands disagreed with you in December alone.


  40. heysoos
    40 | January 2, 2013 4:20 pm

    as your Enlightened Leader, I won’t just talk about transparency, I’ll impose it, like torture


  41. heysoos
    41 | January 2, 2013 4:22 pm

    Mike C. wrote:

    Rodan wrote:
    @ eaglesoars:
    I think the Gun debate is a ruse.
    Approximately 2.8 million people with money in their hands disagreed with you in December alone.

    the debate is a ruse, the grab might be real tho


  42. 42 | January 2, 2013 4:23 pm

    @ heysoos:

    That’s not what he meant.


  43. heysoos
    43 | January 2, 2013 4:24 pm

    Mike C. wrote:

    @ heysoos:
    That’s not what he meant.

    I just read the words, not minds


  44. Speranza
    44 | January 2, 2013 4:25 pm

    Rodan wrote:

    @ Iron Fist:
    It is likely to be a very dark four years.

    I think longer.

    Eventually hubris meets nemesis. The Democrats will fall.


  45. Speranza
    45 | January 2, 2013 4:25 pm

    Don’t worry Jeb Bush will save the day. He’s the real conservative.


  46. lobo91
    46 | January 2, 2013 4:26 pm

    heysoos wrote:

    when I run this country, I’m gonna put every congressional session up on live tv…you wanna see how bright your elected whores are, I’ll show you

    I’d start by taking control of the cameras CSpan uses to show the House and Senate chambers.

    There’s a reason they’re fixed and zoomed in tight on the podium. They don’t want anyone to see that there’s nobody there most of the time. They’re just speaking to an empty room.


  47. heysoos
    47 | January 2, 2013 4:27 pm

    Speranza wrote:

    Rodan wrote:
    @ Iron Fist:
    It is likely to be a very dark four years.
    I think longer.

    Eventually hubris meets nemesis. The Democrats will fall.

    my thinking as well…liberals will eventually run out of gas, out of their failure alone….probably not in my lifetime tho


  48. Speranza
    48 | January 2, 2013 4:28 pm

    eaglesoars wrote:

    I don’t think Obama’s next move is going to be guns. It’s going to be the debt ceiling. Didn’t he just say “I’ll negotiate on a lot of things but not on that”?
    So what does that mean? I think it means he’s going to try to get rid of it completely or raise it so high it might as well be gone — by executive order — which is completely unconstitutional
    If he tries to subvert the constitution and the GOP stands there with its thumb up its ass — ……………

    He really has dictatorial tendencies.


  49. heysoos
    49 | January 2, 2013 4:28 pm

    lobo91 wrote:

    heysoos wrote:

    when I run this country, I’m gonna put every congressional session up on live tv…you wanna see how bright your elected whores are, I’ll show you

    I’d start by taking control of the cameras CSpan uses to show the House and Senate chambers.
    There’s a reason they’re fixed and zoomed in tight on the podium. They don’t want anyone to see that there’s nobody there most of the time. They’re just speaking to an empty room.

    the very best job in America, by FAR, is a House rep


  50. 50 | January 2, 2013 4:28 pm

    @ Mike C.:

    They prepared just in case.


  51. 51 | January 2, 2013 4:29 pm

    @ Speranza:

    I hope you are right but seeing how dysfunctional Republicans I don’t have much hope.


  52. Speranza
    52 | January 2, 2013 4:30 pm

    heysoos wrote:

    my thinking as well…liberals will eventually run out of gas, out of their failure alone….probably not in my lifetime tho

    Charles Krauthammer thinks their fall is inevitable because their policies are fiscally unsustainable.


  53. 53 | January 2, 2013 4:31 pm

    Speranza wrote:

    Don’t worry Jeb Bush will save the day. He’s the real conservative.

    Watch many people who claim they oppose Jeb start to support him once he uses some red meat rhetoric.


  54. Speranza
    54 | January 2, 2013 4:31 pm

    Rodan wrote:

    @ Speranza:
    I hope you are right but seeing how dysfunctional Republicans I don’t have much hope.

    The Stupid Party eventually needs to wake up.


  55. lobo91
    55 | January 2, 2013 4:32 pm

    @ Mike C.:

    If I had to guess, I’d suspect that they’re going to use Feinstein’s bill as a starting point, and then “compromise” by reinstating what we had from ’94-2004.

    It’s not like we actually have an opposition party anymore.


  56. Speranza
    56 | January 2, 2013 4:32 pm

    Rodan wrote:

    Speranza wrote:
    Don’t worry Jeb Bush will save the day. He’s the real conservative.

    Watch many people who claim they oppose Jeb start to support him once he uses some red meat rhetoric.

    He’s for God, baseball, hot dogs, apple pie and Chevrolet.


  57. heysoos
    57 | January 2, 2013 4:32 pm

    Speranza wrote:

    heysoos wrote:
    my thinking as well…liberals will eventually run out of gas, out of their failure alone….probably not in my lifetime tho
    Charles Krauthammer thinks their fall is inevitable because their policies are fiscally unsustainable.

    yup…who gets the last flatscreen?…and when the welfare mobs are cut off is when the fun begins


  58. 58 | January 2, 2013 4:32 pm

    Rodan wrote:

    @ Mike C.:
    They prepared just in case.

    No, I rather think they’re going for the gold this time. The pretenses have been shed, and many of them (like the president) just don’t give a crap what anybody else thinks anymore.


  59. 59 | January 2, 2013 4:32 pm

    @ Speranza:

    But you need a real opposition. Currently, the Republicans are disorganized mess. You have the Establishment and then you have the Purists. The Dems will continue to win by default.


  60. lobo91
    60 | January 2, 2013 4:33 pm

    @ Speranza:

    Charles Krauthammer thinks their fall is inevitable because their policies are fiscally unsustainable.

    Of course that’s true, but the problem is that they’ll take the whole country down with them.


  61. 61 | January 2, 2013 4:33 pm

    lobo91 wrote:

    @ Mike C.:
    If I had to guess, I’d suspect that they’re going to use Feinstein’s bill as a starting point, and then “compromise” by reinstating what we had from ’94-2004.
    It’s not like we actually have an opposition party anymore.

    You’re quite the optimist.


  62. lobo91
    62 | January 2, 2013 4:34 pm

    @ Speranza:

    He’s for God, baseball, hot dogs, apple pie and Chevrolet.

    Sounds like more pandering to the UAW to me…
    //


  63. Speranza
    63 | January 2, 2013 4:35 pm

    heysoos wrote:

    yup…who gets the last flatscreen?…and when the welfare mobs are cut off is when the fun begins

    Also the effects of Obamanomics were not felt by enough people. Wait until by 2016 and we have millions of 28 year olds unemployed (or under employed) living at home with mommy and daddy with tens of thousands of dollars in student loans not paid off.


  64. heysoos
    64 | January 2, 2013 4:35 pm

    Mike C. wrote:

    lobo91 wrote:
    @ Mike C.:
    If I had to guess, I’d suspect that they’re going to use Feinstein’s bill as a starting point, and then “compromise” by reinstating what we had from ’94-2004.
    It’s not like we actually have an opposition party anymore.
    You’re quite the optimist.

    optimism can save your life at some point….gung ho!


  65. 65 | January 2, 2013 4:36 pm

    @ Mike C.:

    Obama may use executive order as an end run around Congress.


  66. Speranza
    66 | January 2, 2013 4:36 pm

    lobo91 wrote:

    @ Speranza:
    He’s for God, baseball, hot dogs, apple pie and Chevrolet.
    Sounds like more pandering to the UAW to me…
    //

    Gods don’t need to pander. Obama walks on water and raises up the dead.


  67. 67 | January 2, 2013 4:36 pm

    lobo91 wrote:

    @ Speranza:
    He’s for God, baseball, hot dogs, apple pie and Chevrolet.
    Sounds like more pandering to the UAW to me…
    //

    :lol:


  68. 68 | January 2, 2013 4:37 pm

    @ Speranza:

    He’s Chris Matthew’s perfect man!


  69. 69 | January 2, 2013 4:37 pm

    John Boehner calls it quits.


  70. heysoos
    70 | January 2, 2013 4:38 pm

    Rodan wrote:

    @ Mike C.:
    Obama may use executive order as an end run around Congress.

    then ignore it…play the game to win


  71. Speranza
    71 | January 2, 2013 4:38 pm

    Rodan wrote:

    @ Speranza:
    But you need a real opposition. Currently, the Republicans are disorganized mess. You have the Establishment and then you have the Purists. The Dems will continue to win by default.

    Quite the conumdrum, but I essentially agree.
    Why Mitt Romney never brought up BP or Fast & Furious -- well you tell me.


  72. 72 | January 2, 2013 4:39 pm

    @ Speranza:

    Jeb will say he’s for Family values. That will win him support.


  73. Speranza
    73 | January 2, 2013 4:39 pm

    Rodan wrote:

    @ Speranza:
    He’s Chris Matthew’s perfect man!

    Chris Matthews wants to have his child.


  74. 74 | January 2, 2013 4:40 pm

    @ Speranza:

    Then again, Romney did not really want to run anyway according to his son.


  75. Speranza
    75 | January 2, 2013 4:40 pm

    Rodan wrote:

    @ Speranza:
    Jeb will say he’s for Family values. That will win him support.

    A lot good it did the last two elections.


  76. Speranza
    76 | January 2, 2013 4:41 pm

    Rodan wrote:

    @ Speranza:
    Then again, Romney did not really want to run anyway according to his son.

    His son is full of shit. His son is trying to rationalize the defeat. His should STFU and STFD.


  77. lobo91
    77 | January 2, 2013 4:42 pm

    @ Speranza:

    His son is full of shit. His son is trying to rationalize the defeat. His should STFU and STFD.

    Someone give him Megan McCain’s phone number.


  78. 78 | January 2, 2013 4:43 pm

    @ Speranza:

    One good example of Republicans not fighting back was Romney playing the role of a punching bag to Obama for 3 months. They really ran some brutal ads and he never effectively responded.


  79. heysoos
    79 | January 2, 2013 4:43 pm

    Rodan wrote:

    @ Speranza:
    Jeb will say he’s for Family values. That will win him support.

    family values is just a catch phrase…you want to win over voters, stay the hell away from the family values bullshit…family values is of no concern for the feds…that’s my personal turf


  80. 80 | January 2, 2013 4:43 pm

    lobo91 wrote:

    @ Speranza:
    His son is full of shit. His son is trying to rationalize the defeat. His should STFU and STFD.
    Someone give him Megan McCain’s phone number.

    :lol:

    She’s another one who needs to STFU and STFD!


  81. 81 | January 2, 2013 4:44 pm

    @ heysoos:

    Tell that to the GOP. It’s been their MO the last 20 years. They don’t seem to get that yet. One of these years they will get it.


  82. 82 | January 2, 2013 4:46 pm

    @ doriangrey:

    We were talking about hemp the last thread!


  83. heysoos
    83 | January 2, 2013 4:46 pm

    people have to take their bodies, hearts, and souls somewhere else…the GOP needs to go in only two directions…the economy and national security and both are in the tank right now…anything else is a burden, and none of their business…the GOP was not defeated, it committed suicide with these obtuse issues


  84. lobo91
    84 | January 2, 2013 4:48 pm

    Good news for bears and bobcats in CA: It’s illegal for dogs to chase them, as of yesterday.

    Glad they’re working on important stuff…


  85. 85 | January 2, 2013 4:48 pm

    heysoos wrote:

    people have to take their bodies, hearts, and souls somewhere else…the GOP needs to go in only two directions…the economy and national security and both are in the tank right now…anything else is a burden, and none of their business…the GOP was not defeated, it committed suicide with these obtuse issues

    Well said!


  86. Lily
    86 | January 2, 2013 4:48 pm

    Rodan wrote:

    @ Speranza:
    One good example of Republicans not fighting back was Romney playing the role of a punching bag to Obama for 3 months. They really ran some brutal ads and he never effectively responded.

    Let’s just say if after 4 years of obama didn’t make you want to vote the man out of office and you totally ignored all his screw ups and everything he did…some ads on TV were not going to change your mind. Really. Obama seems to be above it all for some reason. Can’t blame low information voters either..because even with low information you would know a few of the things obama has done. No the American people didn’t care. How do you make them care? Some ads on TV aren’t going to do it.


  87. 87 | January 2, 2013 4:50 pm

    lobo91 wrote:

    Good news for bears and bobcats in CA: It’s illegal for dogs to chase them, as of yesterday.
    Glad they’re working on important stuff…

    Wow, That was such a big crisis. The bobcats and bears do not have to worry about dogs chasing them no more.


  88. lobo91
    88 | January 2, 2013 4:51 pm

    @ Lily:

    No the American people didn’t care. How do you make them care? Some ads on TV aren’t going to do it.

    They get their information from Honey Boo Boo, Scarlett Johanson, and Sandra Fluke.

    No amount of ads will counter that.


  89. unclassifiable
    89 | January 2, 2013 4:51 pm

    Late Near Dead Thread Post:

    I wish Thomas Sowell was not so hung up on his age. He would make a good president.

    He would be one of the first people I would clone (if that were possible). VDH would be a close second.

    Yeah I know -- dreaming again.


  90. Lily
    90 | January 2, 2013 4:51 pm

    lobo91 wrote:

    Good news for bears and bobcats in CA: It’s illegal for dogs to chase them, as of yesterday.
    Glad they’re working on important stuff…

    Excatly how do you do that? They actually passed a law concerning that yesterday? Really? This is an issue that is important? I swear stupidity is at a all time high right now in our country.


  91. Lily
    91 | January 2, 2013 4:52 pm

    lobo91 wrote:

    @ Lily:
    No the American people didn’t care. How do you make them care? Some ads on TV aren’t going to do it.
    They get their information from Honey Boo Boo, Scarlett Johanson, and Sandra Fluke.
    No amount of ads will counter that.

    Excatly. You just can’t fix stupid of this sort.


  92. Speranza
    92 | January 2, 2013 4:52 pm

    @ Lily:

    I partially agree with you however there are millions of low information voters who needed to be reminded and targeted.


  93. 93 | January 2, 2013 4:52 pm

    @ Lily:

    You have to fight and Romney did not expose all of Obama’s failings. Romney could have nailed Obama on his intervention in Libya and support Islamists in Syria. But Romney also supported Libya and the terrorists ion Syria. That is one example.

    Romney had a chance to damage Obama and he blew it.


  94. lobo91
    94 | January 2, 2013 4:53 pm

    @ Lily:

    Excatly how do you do that? They actually passed a law concerning that yesterday? Really? This is an issue that is important? I swear stupidity is at a all time high right now in our country.

    They passed it in September. It went into effect yesterday.

    I guess they needed the 3 months to teach the dogs about it.


  95. heysoos
    95 | January 2, 2013 4:54 pm

    Lily wrote:

    lobo91 wrote:
    Good news for bears and bobcats in CA: It’s illegal for dogs to chase them, as of yesterday.
    Glad they’re working on important stuff…
    Excatly how do you do that? They actually passed a law concerning that yesterday? Really? This is an issue that is important? I swear stupidity is at a all time high right now in our country.

    traditionally dogs are used to hunt and run down bears…I oppose that, so this is a good law for me…seeing a truck load of Redbone hounds out to find a bear is terrifying


  96. lobo91
    96 | January 2, 2013 4:55 pm

    @ Lily:

    Excatly. You just can’t fix stupid of this sort.

    Pretty much everyone who actually gets a paycheck just got a 2% tax increase as of yesterday, because of FICA taxes going back up.

    But the MSM will blame it on Republicans, and 90% of them will believe it.

    After all, Obama told them that he wouldn’t raise their taxes, and he wouldn’t lie to them.


  97. 97 | January 2, 2013 4:55 pm

    @ lobo91:

    It was a Hate crime!
    ///


  98. heysoos
    98 | January 2, 2013 4:57 pm

    lobo91 wrote:

    @ Lily:
    Excatly how do you do that? They actually passed a law concerning that yesterday? Really? This is an issue that is important? I swear stupidity is at a all time high right now in our country.
    They passed it in September. It went into effect yesterday.
    I guess they needed the 3 months to teach the dogs about it.

    I assume it’s a hunting law, but I have no knowledge of CA rules and regs etc…but hunting bears with dogs is really disgusting…it’s a Tenn thing


  99. lobo91
    99 | January 2, 2013 4:57 pm

    @ heysoos:

    traditionally dogs are used to hunt and run down bears…I oppose that, so this is a good law for me…seeing a truck load of Redbone hounds out to find a bear is terrifying

    I oppose having bears chase me (or my dog).

    let’s make that illegal, too.


  100. lobo91
    100 | January 2, 2013 4:59 pm

    @ heysoos:

    I assume it’s a hunting law, but I have no knowledge of CA rules and regs etc…but hunting bears with dogs is really disgusting…it’s a Tenn thing

    Sounds like when NM made it illegal to hunt jaguars in the state.

    Since the only jaguars I’m aware of in NM reside in the Albuquerque Zoo, I suppose that makes sense…


  101. Lily
    101 | January 2, 2013 5:00 pm

    heysoos wrote:

    Lily wrote:
    lobo91 wrote:
    Good news for bears and bobcats in CA: It’s illegal for dogs to chase them, as of yesterday.
    Glad they’re working on important stuff…
    Excatly how do you do that? They actually passed a law concerning that yesterday? Really? This is an issue that is important? I swear stupidity is at a all time high right now in our country.
    traditionally dogs are used to hunt and run down bears…I oppose that, so this is a good law for me…seeing a truck load of Redbone hounds out to find a bear is terrifying

    Really? Why not make it against the law to hunt bears? Instead of dogs chasing bears? Doesn’t make sense. You and I have a different sense of *terrifying* to be honest.


  102. Lily
    102 | January 2, 2013 5:00 pm

    heysoos wrote:

    lobo91 wrote:
    @ Lily:
    Excatly how do you do that? They actually passed a law concerning that yesterday? Really? This is an issue that is important? I swear stupidity is at a all time high right now in our country.
    They passed it in September. It went into effect yesterday.
    I guess they needed the 3 months to teach the dogs about it.
    I assume it’s a hunting law, but I have no knowledge of CA rules and regs etc…but hunting bears with dogs is really disgusting…it’s a Tenn thing

    A Tennessee thing? Never heard of it to be honest.


  103. heysoos
    103 | January 2, 2013 5:02 pm

    in the mid South, Redbone and Bluetick hounds are raised to hunt bears…the dogs are very communal, smart and exceptionally aggressive…they live to run and howl and follow the scent, and they are HUGE…bears hear them coming and eventually have to climb a tree in hopes to stay alive…once treed with 8 baying hounds below, the hunters just walk up, shoot the bear, and watch it crash through the limbs to the ground…it’s ugly, it’s unfair, and it’s a solid tradition in some places…if CA decides this is uncool, I agree


  104. Lily
    104 | January 2, 2013 5:03 pm

    @ heysoos:

    Uhmmmm I know what hounds are for.


  105. unclassifiable
    105 | January 2, 2013 5:04 pm

    It may take an extremely strong individual working totally outside all of the party systems to get this ship righted.

    The real root problem may very well be that the two party evil money cult(h/t TFK — TPEMC for short)or any political party for that matter has indoctrinated thinking of all matters as pitting groups against groups with little regard to the Constitution, which, after all, is a document that is supposed to be concerned with the rights and responsibilities of the individual citizens governing themselves.

    … and I am also in the running for the run on sentence of the year competition.


  106. heysoos
    106 | January 2, 2013 5:04 pm

    Lily wrote:

    heysoos wrote:
    Lily wrote:
    lobo91 wrote:
    Good news for bears and bobcats in CA: It’s illegal for dogs to chase them, as of yesterday.
    Glad they’re working on important stuff…
    Excatly how do you do that? They actually passed a law concerning that yesterday? Really? This is an issue that is important? I swear stupidity is at a all time high right now in our country.
    traditionally dogs are used to hunt and run down bears…I oppose that, so this is a good law for me…seeing a truck load of Redbone hounds out to find a bear is terrifying
    Really? Why not make it against the law to hunt bears? Instead of dogs chasing bears? Doesn’t make sense. You and I have a different sense of *terrifying* to be honest.

    I’m thinking in terms of the bear…they are innocent


  107. lobo91
    107 | January 2, 2013 5:04 pm

    @ heysoos:

    My guess is that it’s a solution without a problem, at least in CA.

    But it sounds good to the animal rights crowd.


  108. Lily
    108 | January 2, 2013 5:06 pm

    @ heysoos:

    Bears are dangerous. Just make it illegal to hunt them if you are for the innocent bears instead of this stupidly worded law.


  109. lobo91
    109 | January 2, 2013 5:08 pm

    Lily wrote:

    @ heysoos:

    Bears are dangerous. Just make it illegal to hunt them if you are for the innocent bears instead of this stupidly worded law.

    I’m surprised they didn’t pass a law recognizing a right to arm bears.
    //


  110. heysoos
    110 | January 2, 2013 5:08 pm

    lobo91 wrote:

    @ heysoos:
    My guess is that it’s a solution without a problem, at least in CA.
    But it sounds good to the animal rights crowd.

    bears need to be culled depending on habitat, intrusiveness etc, but using hounds is pure sport and I don’t like it…I’ve killed plenty of animals and yet, to me this baiting and dog thing is ugly to me


  111. unclassifiable
    111 | January 2, 2013 5:09 pm

    @ heysoos:

    All well and good heysoos but if I am a big a-hole with my own land and I want to act like an a-hole, why should we spend government time and resources to prosecute me when my neighbors could just get together and put up big signs saying I’m an a-hole for hunting like that?

    This big government thing has a way of growing with little laws that make us feel good about ourselves.


  112. heysoos
    112 | January 2, 2013 5:09 pm

    Lily wrote:

    @ heysoos:
    Bears are dangerous. Just make it illegal to hunt them if you are for the innocent bears instead of this stupidly worded law.

    you’ve missed the point completely…the dogs are for sport, not bear self defense


  113. heysoos
    113 | January 2, 2013 5:11 pm

    unclassifiable wrote:

    @ heysoos:
    All well and good heysoos but if I am a big a-hole with my own land and I want to act like an a-hole, why should we spend government time and resources to prosecute me when my neighbors could just get together and put up big signs saying I’m an a-hole for hunting like that?
    This big government thing has a way of growing with little laws that make us feel good about ourselves.

    it’s part of resource management….hunting game is big dollars, I’m not against hunting


  114. Lily
    114 | January 2, 2013 5:12 pm

    @ heysoos:

    No I did not miss the damn point completely. So please do not say that to me again.
    And with that I’m off …evening everyone.


  115. heysoos
    115 | January 2, 2013 5:13 pm

    Lily wrote:

    @ heysoos:
    No I did not miss the damn point completely. So please do not say that to me again.
    And with that I’m off …evening everyone.

    it’s not about bears being dangerous, it’s about the ethics of hunting for sport, so yeah you missed the point


  116. unclassifiable
    116 | January 2, 2013 5:14 pm

    @ heysoos:

    Whose resource?

    There’s the rub.


  117. Lily
    117 | January 2, 2013 5:16 pm

    @ heysoos:

    Again I never said the dogs were there to protect you. I said bears are dangerous you MISSED THE DAMN POINT.


  118. heysoos
    118 | January 2, 2013 5:17 pm

    unclassifiable wrote:

    @ heysoos:
    Whose resource?
    There’s the rub.

    hunting game is a resource for the state…it costs big buck to kill a bear, and I oppose luring them into a certain area then sic dogs on them


  119. unclassifiable
    119 | January 2, 2013 5:18 pm

    @ Lily:

    Darnit. You left it to me to kill the thread?

    Well OK.

    Shoot;)


  120. heysoos
    120 | January 2, 2013 5:20 pm

    Lily wrote:

    @ heysoos:
    Again I never said the dogs were there to protect you. I said bears are dangerous you MISSED THE DAMN POINT.

    do you support dogs hunting bears or not?…that’s the only issue here…I don’t, regardless of the wording of the law


  121. Lily
    121 | January 2, 2013 5:22 pm

    @ heysoos:

    I really don’t care …just outlaw hunting bears if that is what you want.


  122. Lily
    122 | January 2, 2013 5:23 pm

    @ unclassifiable:

    Naw…hey will never let me have the last word. 8-)


  123. heysoos
    123 | January 2, 2013 5:25 pm

    Lily wrote:

    @ heysoos:
    I really don’t care …just outlaw hunting bears if that is what you want.

    outlawing bear hunting has nothing to do with it…they have to hunted to ensure healthy, sustainable numbers…it’s the method I disagree with…you don’t care, that’s fine, I do…I’m not into animal cruelty


  124. Lily
    124 | January 2, 2013 5:28 pm

    @ heysoos:

    Oh for heavens sake. I’m not into animal cruelty..you have blown this up into something it isn’t. But out of the things that matter in the world using hunting dogs is not on my oh I’m really concerned list. I think people are more important. I don’t dislike or hate animals or like them being treated cruelly. But there are issues out there that are more pressing in my opinion.


  125. Lily
    125 | January 2, 2013 5:29 pm

    @ heysoos:

    So killing them is okay. Just don’t use dogs.


  126. heysoos
    126 | January 2, 2013 5:30 pm

    Lily wrote:

    @ heysoos:
    Oh for heavens sake. I’m not into animal cruelty..you have blown this up into something it isn’t. But out of the things that matter in the world using hunting dogs is not on my oh I’m really concerned list. I think people are more important. I don’t dislike or hate animals or like them being treated cruelly. But there are issues out there that are more pressing in my opinion.

    and here I thought I was enlightening you with regards to something you don’t seem to know much about….I won’t make that mistake again


  127. unclassifiable
    127 | January 2, 2013 5:30 pm

    heysoos wrote:

    unclassifiable wrote:
    @ heysoos:
    Whose resource?
    There’s the rub.
    hunting game is a resource for the state…it costs big buck to kill a bear, and I oppose luring them into a certain area then sic dogs on them

    OK so here is how I think that happens. Person A is an a-hole. Kills bears with dogs and uses Napalm to boot. Person B wants to hunt just one cotton picking bear a year (hell maybe one in his lifetime — I don’t know -- I hunt and I have no understanding why the hell you would want to hunt something that if you had choice between it or beef or chicken you choose beef or chicken — but I digress a bunch)…

    Anyway rather than Person B talking this over with person A (this dog and Napalm thing is really screwing up my bear hunting prospects old boy) or taking him to civil court (your honor, he’s got bears taking buses to Coushatta it’s so damn bad) he goes to his state legiscritter and tries to get a (and here is the road to hell part) LAW to regulate bear hunting on EVERYONE’s land.

    And you know it won’t end there because that legiscritter has got relatives and that LAW is not going to enforce itself so…

    …and that is how government grows.


  128. heysoos
    128 | January 2, 2013 5:30 pm

    Lily wrote:

    @ heysoos:
    So killing them is okay. Just don’t use dogs.

    yes, exactly


  129. 129 | January 2, 2013 5:32 pm

    @ lobo91:

    I’m surprised they didn’t pass a law recognizing a right to arm bears.

    That’s worth a “heh.”


  130. lobo91
    130 | January 2, 2013 5:35 pm

    Mike C. wrote:

    @ lobo91:

    I’m surprised they didn’t pass a law recognizing a right to arm bears.

    That’s worth a “heh.”

    “When guns are outlawed, only outlaws (and bears) will have guns.”


  131. Lily
    131 | January 2, 2013 5:36 pm

    heysoos wrote:

    Lily wrote:
    @ heysoos:
    Oh for heavens sake. I’m not into animal cruelty..you have blown this up into something it isn’t. But out of the things that matter in the world using hunting dogs is not on my oh I’m really concerned list. I think people are more important. I don’t dislike or hate animals or like them being treated cruelly. But there are issues out there that are more pressing in my opinion.
    and here I thought I was enlightening you with regards to something you don’t seem to know much about….I won’t make that mistake again

    You always talk so sweet to me now don’t you? You weren’t trying to enlighten me.


  132. heysoos
    132 | January 2, 2013 5:36 pm

    lobo91 wrote:

    Mike C. wrote:

    @ lobo91:
    I’m surprised they didn’t pass a law recognizing a right to arm bears.
    That’s worth a “heh.”

    “When guns are outlawed, only outlaws (and bears) will have guns.”

    what? no Cows With Guns?
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FQMbXvn2RNI


  133. heysoos
    133 | January 2, 2013 5:39 pm

    Lily wrote:

    heysoos wrote:
    Lily wrote:
    @ heysoos:
    Oh for heavens sake. I’m not into animal cruelty..you have blown this up into something it isn’t. But out of the things that matter in the world using hunting dogs is not on my oh I’m really concerned list. I think people are more important. I don’t dislike or hate animals or like them being treated cruelly. But there are issues out there that are more pressing in my opinion.
    and here I thought I was enlightening you with regards to something you don’t seem to know much about….I won’t make that mistake again
    You always talk so sweet to me now don’t you? You weren’t trying to enlighten me.

    you are wrong…I don’t have any malice, I like a good vibe and try to contribute with what I think I know…my ego is not in doubt


  134. 134 | January 2, 2013 5:40 pm

    I don’t hunt any more, so I’m mostly out of this one, but personally I don’t care much for hunting bear with dogs, or deer over bait, etc. I always had a sort of Issac Walton view of these things. To Issac, the objective was not to catch fish -- that was a bonus. The objective was to go fishing. Now if you’re hunting/fishing because you and your family aren’t going to have any proteine in your diet if you’re not successful, that’s different. But other than that, I don’t see a lot of sport in some common practices these days.


  135. heysoos
    135 | January 2, 2013 5:42 pm

    Mike C. wrote:

    I don’t hunt any more, so I’m mostly out of this one, but personally I don’t care much for hunting bear with dogs, or deer over bait, etc. I always had a sort of Issac Walton view of these things. To Issac, the objective was not to catch fish — that was a bonus. The objective was to go fishing. Now if you’re hunting/fishing because you and your family aren’t going to have any proteine in your diet if you’re not successful, that’s different. But other than that, I don’t see a lot of sport in some common practices these days.

    very astute…it’s not the fish, it’s the fishing…pretty simple


  136. Lily
    136 | January 2, 2013 5:44 pm

    @ heysoos:

    Your ego is not in doubt?
    /You win …I’m leaving the topic alone. I’m not in the mood for it.


  137. heysoos
    137 | January 2, 2013 5:45 pm

    had to google Izaak Walton…I have to catch up with him, he must have been fun to drink with
    thanks


  138. lobo91
    138 | January 2, 2013 5:45 pm

    @ Mike C.:

    If they’re going to outlaw any sort of bear hunting, it should be the kind they do in Russia, where they shoot hibernating bears in their dens.

    Fortunately, nobody does that here.


  139. Moe Katz
    139 | January 2, 2013 5:49 pm

    Wanted to share this as a drive-by: EBay listing for reading glasses from a seller in China, and written in scintillating Chinglish.

    “012 NEW Choice Designer Golden Rimeless Metal Frame Hyperopia Reading glasses Spectacles

    Designer reading glasses of this style enjoy a most exquisite ornamental design in jointers. Super voguish rimless design tallies gorgeously with its shining golden frame colour. Its unique smooth line design enhances its designing intergrity. It’s an item permeated with rational prudence.”

    http://www.ebay.com/itm/Choice-Designer-Golden-Rimeless-Metal-Frame-Hyperopia-Reading-glasses-Spectacles-/230792257291?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&var=&hash=item35bc4a5f0b


  140. heysoos
    140 | January 2, 2013 5:51 pm

    lobo91 wrote:

    @ Mike C.:
    If they’re going to outlaw any sort of bear hunting, it should be the kind they do in Russia, where they shoot hibernating bears in their dens.
    Fortunately, nobody does that here.

    bears are big game, living alone, isolated over large areas, all that…nobody has the patience or the skills to hunt them, actually stalk them for a perfect shot…so lure them to you and kill them…the question is why? and I mostly don’t like the answers….bears are not herd animals so the ethics of hunting them is a bit different in my mind…shooting a hibernating bear is simply barbaric


  141. 141 | January 2, 2013 5:51 pm

    @ lobo91:

    There’s a quite restricted season here and in WV, but I never had any real interest in it anyway. I’ve only seen one in the wild once, and that was at a distance while out on a well. So long as they are properly managed and the season is only to “trim the herd” so to speak, I have nothing particularly against it. I’m just not interested in doing it myself. The only animal I’ve wanted to kill in recent years is the damned cat.


  142. lobo91
    142 | January 2, 2013 5:55 pm

    @ Mike C.:

    Same here. I have no particular interest in hunting, but I don’t care if anyone else does.


  143. waldensianspirit
    143 | January 2, 2013 5:58 pm

    heysoos wrote:

    we need to immediately form some sort of energy cartel between the US, Mexico and Canada…if Venezuela wants in then they have to kill Chavez first to express their loyalty…you want energy, let’s talk

    At this point all they gotta do is pull the plug


  144. 144 | January 2, 2013 6:02 pm

    lobo91 wrote:

    @ Mike C.:
    Same here. I have no particular interest in hunting, but I don’t care if anyone else does.

    Just so long as they don’t go all Fudd on me and try to hold that the purpose of the second amendment was to allow hunting of little birdies and bunny rabbits. Then I mind.


  145. heysoos
    145 | January 2, 2013 6:02 pm

    I was way up around Lake Nipigon Ontario in small village in the remote boonies…we were having breakfast with a group of bear hunters from TN….rifles….these guys were all gloomy because they’d payed huge money to go up there to kill bears, but the afternoon before one of them took a shot and only wounded the bear…they were used to hunting with dogs…anyway the head guy says they have two days to find that bear and all of them were out to do the right thing…it was cold and wet and miserable but they had 48 hours to find that bear and they were going to put everything into it until time and daylight ran out…bunch of hillbillies and real good sportsmen, taking reponsibility


  146. The Osprey
    146 | January 2, 2013 6:10 pm

    Now this here’s a Texan!

    Ted Cruz vows to lead opposition to Feinstein’s gun ban bill.

    H/T R.S. McCain


  147. heysoos
    147 | January 2, 2013 6:27 pm

    The Osprey wrote:

    Now this here’s a Texan!
    Ted Cruz vows to lead opposition to Feinstein’s gun ban bill.
    H/T R.S. McCain

    good, let the newbie expose Feinstein for the blithering idiot she is…the libs won’t get it but others will


  148. eaglesoars
    148 | January 2, 2013 6:39 pm

    man are people pissed off at Boehner or WHAT. Chris Christie, the entire New York delegation………..sheesh


  149. 149 | January 2, 2013 6:40 pm

    @ heysoos:

    JUst ask her how much her AWB reduced crime (it didn’t) and how much crime increased when that one expired (it didn’t.) IIRC, there was supposed to be blood running in the streets when it expired in 2004. Even over at Daily Kos, there was a group posting stuff like “Day 12 -- no blood in the streets yet.”


  150. Bumr50
    150 | January 2, 2013 6:43 pm

    @ eaglesoars:

    Christie’s a bigger ass than Boehner.

    On at least two levels.


  151. eaglesoars
    151 | January 2, 2013 6:46 pm

    Bumr50 wrote:

    @ eaglesoars:

    Christie’s a bigger ass than Boehner.

    On at least two levels.

    That may be but the fact remains that Boehner may have had good reason(s) for not putting Sandy up for a vote but he should have taken Christie’s phone call and explained his position to the NY delegation.


  152. Bumr50
    152 | January 2, 2013 6:50 pm

    @ eaglesoars:

    GOP leadership!

    *smacks head into coffee table over and over and over….*


  153. huckfunn
    153 | January 2, 2013 6:53 pm

    eaglesoars wrote:

    man are people pissed off at Boehner or WHAT. Chris Christie, the entire New York delegation………..sheesh

    Drudge has a non-scientific yea/nay poll for Boehner to repeat as Speaker. Out of about 600,000 votes, it’s 85%-15% nay


  154. friendlygrizzly
    154 | January 2, 2013 6:55 pm

    @ Rodan:
    He is also Hispanic first and American a distant second. Don’t think for five seconds that Rubio will be any better on Amnesty than Bush, or Renaldus Amnestius.


  155. eaglesoars
    155 | January 2, 2013 6:56 pm

    huckfunn wrote:

    eaglesoars wrote:

    man are people pissed off at Boehner or WHAT. Chris Christie, the entire New York delegation………..sheesh

    Drudge has a non-scientific yea/nay poll for Boehner to repeat as Speaker. Out of about 600,000 votes, it’s 85%-15% nay

    I voted nay in that poll


  156. 156 | January 2, 2013 6:56 pm

    Regardless of what Trigg Romney said about his dad, I think it was obvious that Romney wanted to be president. He put up million and millions of his own money and sacrificed an incredible amount of time energy and serious emotion in the campaign. He went up against a very popular presicent that had the backing of all of Hollywood, all of the media and all of the international co,,umity, as well as all of the welfare crowd and all of the minorities. And he made a pretty good showing. He prepared and studied and sacrificed like none of us here on this board probably ever has. He knew what he was getting in for and he went for it anyway.

    There is no perfect candidate, but if he had won, the fight over the fiscal cliff would’ve been a lot different and our economy would be have an entirely different projection than it has now. The American engine is in real trouble and needs to be totally rebuilt. Romney could’ve accomplished a lot of that and at least dealyed much of the impending doom and averted some of it altogether.

    All of this woulda shoulda coulda about his campaign is bullshit. He went up against an annointed Santa Claus and still made a damn good showing. He did NOT throw the election and he was in it to win. the Democrats cheated, lied and stole. That is how Obama won. Not on merit, ideals or qualifications, but by promising shit that wasn’t his to people that didn’t earn it or deserve it.


  157. lobo91
    157 | January 2, 2013 6:57 pm

    @ eaglesoars:

    There’s no way in hell they should pass a $60 billion “emergency” bill that has $30 billion worth of unrelated pork in it with no debate.

    All the whining by Christie and Schumer is nothing but posturing. Whether that bill is passed today or next week will have absolutely no effect on what people receive. All it does is replace money FEMA is already spending.


  158. unclassifiable
    158 | January 2, 2013 6:57 pm

    @ friendlygrizzly:

    Howdy

    Funny you should show up on this thread (looks upstairs nervously).


  159. eaglesoars
    159 | January 2, 2013 6:57 pm

    Bumr50 wrote:

    @ eaglesoars:

    GOP leadership!

    *smacks head into coffee table over and over and over….*

    I miss Tom DeLay.


  160. unclassifiable
    160 | January 2, 2013 7:01 pm

    @ father_of_10:

    I have no problem even if Romney was reluctant. I think the first president of this country was a little reluctant also.

    Good thing because he actually set a very important precedent for a peaceful transfer of power.


  161. huckfunn
    161 | January 2, 2013 7:17 pm

    New thread


Back to the Top

The Blogmocracy

website design was Built By David