No more obamacare

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by srfisher17
http:///forum/post/3213417
We do have term limits; elections. But the "Ins' have got so much juice, they're almost impossible to unseat.
Re Hannity: I agree completely. I used to like this guy when he was new on the scene. He has become an arrogant, humorless, condescending, and totally predictable bore. As soon as he says "let me teach you something", I'm gone. I still agree with almost everything he says, but its the same cliche' filled drivel all the time. Replace him with Mark Stein, the English guy who subs for Rush (

)quite often.
The reason you don't like him is because he argues like a democrat. It is salacious, very emotional, designed to illicit a knee jerk reaction.

 

[veni vidi vici]

Originally Posted by SCSInet
http:///forum/post/3213409
It's a sad state of affairs that in this country, the average voter seems to only be able to understand "republican or democrat." They are unwilling to research candidates, so instead it has to be reduced down to democrat or republican.
I think that in this election the Tea Party Movement had a huge effect on the out come by virtue of (a) the Candidate ran on a Tea Party Platform as basically a Independent Conservative more than anything (b) The majority of the independent voters,surely all the republican voters and even i think i saw 20% of dems dont like what congress is doing and voted for Brown or against Martha.They are ignoring the demands of the American people .Its the arrogance of congress that irks me personally almost as much,maybe even more than the agenda itself.
I agree on term limits 10000%. I'm also of the school of thought that state elections for congress should be spread throughout the year, to eliminate the problem where just after an election, everyone sits high on the hog because they think they are safe for a while.
Tear limits sounds like a great idea to me although that is a state issue and not a federal one.It would solve a
lot of the problem though
In regards to your second paragraph... no self respecting conservative pays any attention to Hannity anyway. He's nothing but talking points and whining.
I watch Hannity myself for pure entertainment value.Turbo Tax Tim Geitner

.

 

[bionicarm]

One of the reasons Brown was so successful was because he actually went out and talked to the people about the issues and problems. Coakley (or whatever her name is), sat on her duff, and thought the seat would be handed to her because Mass has been a Democratic state for so long, it was inevitable she would win. She also didn't have the 'Palin Factor'. Also, Mass is well versed in universal healthcare, and apparently they didn't want to go down that same road at the Federal level. Not to mention, they're unemployment rates are some of the highest in the nation, and by all appearances, Kennedy did nothing to solve that problem.
Veni - So you think there shouldn't be term limits at the federal level? Are you serious? I think it's ridiculous we have Congressmen that have been in office for 40 or 50 years. I used to laugh when they showed pictures of wheeling Strom Thurmond into the chambers, and it looked like he was sleeping half the time. I wouldn't be surprised if they didn't have someone standing next to him to lift his hand up to push the voting button.

Senators should only be allowed to serve two 6 year terms, and House Reps only six 2 year terms. Twelve years is more than enough for any Congressman to get their agendas and political promises completed. I also think they should increase the number of Senators per state from two to three, where one has to be an Independent. Also give 1 seat to Puerto Rico. This would result in an odd number of senators, with the Independents having the ability to lean whichever direction they feel is the best interests of their constituents. No more of this 50-50 voting crap, where all you see is backdoor politics whereby one of the two Parties is trying to 'persuade' someone on the other 'team' to change sides.

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/3213463
I also think they should increase the number of Senators per state from two to three, where one has to be an Independent. This would result in an odd number of senators, with the Independents having the ability to lean whichever direction they feel is the best interests of their constituents. No more of this 50-50 voting crap, where all you see is backdoor politics whereby one of the two Parties is trying to 'persuade' someone on the other 'team' to change sides.
Typical liberal thinks he can just declare it, and it will be.

 

[darthtang aw]

Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/3213463
I also think they should increase the number of Senators per state from two to three, where one has to be an Independent.
so you are saying one seat is automatically for an independent and the other two are up for grabs for any other party? Can we add a drinking fountain in the congress building that states "independents only"?

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
http:///forum/post/3213479
so you are saying one seat is automatically for an independent and the other two are up for grabs for any other party? Can we add a drinking fountain in the congress building that states "independents only"?
Most "Independents" are liberals anyway, this is his evil plan to create a super majority...

 

[srfisher17]

Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/3213422
The reason you don't like him is because he argues like a democrat. It is salacious, very emotional, designed to illicit a knee jerk reaction.
Thats true, but a small part of it. I just don't think Hannity shows a very deep understanding of conservative principles, nor does he "think on his feet" very well. He waits for a talking point or buzz word, then uses his position as host to lecture. Rush will at least give a caller with an opposing view the courtesy of listening; then, as no one else can, Rush will use the opponents own words to make the conservative point. Hannity just sounds like a bully; which is easy to do when arguing with liberals, but he just doesn't seem to get deep enough to make points with any fence-sitters the way Rush (and others ) can.
I can read and think for myself; I listen to talk radio because it is entertaining. IMO, Hannity no longer is and he is a great example of someone whose success has gone to his head. Not as bad as Castro's pal, Michael Moore in that regard; but no one is.

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by srfisher17
http:///forum/post/3213486
Thats true, but a small part of it. I just don't think Hannity shows a very deep understanding of conservative principles, nor does he "think on his feet" very well. He waits for a talking point or buzz word, then uses his position as host to lecture. Rush will at least give a caller with an opposing view the courtesy of listening; then, as no one else can, Rush will use the opponents own words to make the conservative point. Hannity just sounds like a bully; which is easy to do when arguing with liberals, but he just doesn't seem to get deep enough to make points with any fence-sitters the way Rush (and others ) can.
I can read and think for myself; I listen to talk radio because it is entertaining. IMO, Hannity no longer is and he is a great example of someone whose success has gone to his head. Not as bad as Castro's pal, Michael Moore in that regard; but no one is.
I don't know if success has gone to his head as much as he's just not a great conservative mind. We're spoiled when it comes to that. And when we see someone who deals on a more emotional level less intellectual level, it just doesn't work.

 

[srfisher17]

Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/3213483
Most "Independents" are liberals anyway, this is his evil plan to create a super majority...
Not in last nights Mass election. To me; an independent is someone who bases his vote on the superficial (Which explains Obama's brief encounter with popularity) or wait to see whats in it for them. Given todays incredible distance between Democrats and Republicans, its hard to give any credibility to Independents. Don't they have ANY core beliefs?

 

[srfisher17]

Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/3213491
I don't know if success has gone to his head as much as he's just not a great conservative mind.
.
We're spoiled when it comes to that. And when we see someone who deals on a more emotional level less intellectual level, it just doesn't work.
Both comments about Hannity are true.
When someone deals primarily on the emotional level; they are a classic liberal.

 

[veni vidi vici]

Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/3213463
One of the reasons Brown was so successful was because he actually went out and talked to the people about the issues and problems. Coakley (or whatever her name is), sat on her duff, and thought the seat would be handed to her because Mass has been a Democratic state for so long, it was inevitable she would win. She also didn't have the 'Palin Factor'. Also, Mass is well versed in universal healthcare, and apparently they didn't want to go down that same road at the Federal level. Not to mention, they're unemployment rates are some of the highest in the nation, and by all appearances, Kennedy did nothing to solve that problem.
Actually Mass. has done health care correctly.Its a state Issue and not a federal one.
The people give the state limited authority/powers and the states give the feds limited authority/powers,not the other way around. Also im pretty sure that the states unemployment rate is below the national average.I know for sure the percentage has dropped from 8.9% to 8.3% and may even be lower now.
Veni - So you think there shouldn't be term limits at the federal level? Are you serious? I think it's ridiculous we have Congressmen that have been in office for 40 or 50 years. I used to laugh when they showed pictures of wheeling Strom Thurmond into the chambers, and it looked like he was sleeping half the time. I wouldn't be surprised if they didn't have someone standing next to him to lift his hand up to push the voting button.

Term limits are set by the states not the federal government. I would like to see term limits but not if it means that the federal government oversteps it authority and mandates term limits.
see above: People/State/Fed not the other way around
Senators should only be allowed to serve two 6 year terms, and House Reps only six 2 year terms. Twelve years is more than enough for any Congressman to get their agendas and political promises completed. I also think they should increase the number of Senators per state from two to three, where one has to be an Independent. Also give 1 seat to Puerto Rico. This would result in an odd number of senators, with the Independents having the ability to lean whichever direction they feel is the best interests of their constituents. No more of this 50-50 voting crap, where all you see is backdoor politics whereby one of the two Parties is trying to 'persuade' someone on the other 'team' to change sides.
.

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by srfisher17
http:///forum/post/3213492
Not in last nights Mass election. To me; an independent is someone who bases his vote on the superficial (Which explains Obama's brief encounter with popularity) or wait to see whats in it for them. Given todays incredible distance between Democrats and Republicans, its hard to give any credibility to Independents. Don't they have ANY core beliefs?
It is an outlier.

 

[darthtang aw]

Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/3213491
I don't know if success has gone to his head as much as he's just not a great conservative mind. We're spoiled when it comes to that. And when we see someone who deals on a more emotional level less intellectual level, it just doesn't work.
What is funny is my wife is a democrat and actually can tolerate listening to Hannity. She says it is because he is cordial and polite. I think this is why he rubs some of us the wrong way. In the interest of politeness he doesn't get into heated debates and just sticks to typical talking points to ensure there is a back and forth dialogue......
Honestly I tend to enjoy the local political talk show guys over the national ones. The national ones tend to start rehashing the same stuff in the same manner. The local guys can bring up more stories and issues that are directly within my control.
Rush, while intelligent and solid usually, will same some off the cuff comments that I can't stand. Hannity..politeness as I said. Savage....harsh...funny...but very harsh. Glenn Beck I like till he starts using religion as a shield.
I have been listening to air america a lot lately as well....they are no better. They almost come across as vindictive and spiteful. Plus he air america personalities spend more time talking about and putting down rush, hannity, o'reilly and other conservative talk hosts rather than discussng the political side of issues and congressman.
Of all of the national ones, O'Reilly has to be the one I will sit and listen to without wanting to Van Gogh myself.

 

[bionicarm]

Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/3213465
Typical liberal thinks he can just declare it, and it will be.
Is the word 'liberal' the only political word you know? What is it with you when anyone disagrees with your opinion, they are automatically labeled as a 'liberal' in your immature mind. You think the current political system is sufficient based on the corruption and backdoor dealings that happen in Washington on a daily basis? You even trash Independents, who I would define as someone that tries to stay in the middle. But in your case, unless then lean all the way to the right, they are 'liberals' and 'nut cases' that want to destroy this country. Hate to break it to you, but I'm not what you define as a classic liberal. I disagree with many of Obama's policies, and some of the things he wants to enact. You on the otherhand just sit there with blinders on, only looking at the negatives. Try looking at the world with an open mind every once in a while. Stop letting people tell you how bad it is, and believing that's the case.

 

[darthtang aw]

Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/3213501
Is the word 'liberal' the only political word you know? What is it with you when anyone disagrees with your opinion, they are automatically labeled as a 'liberal' in your immature mind. You think the current political system is sufficient based on the corruption and backdoor dealings that happen in Washington on a daily basis? You even trash Independents, who I would define as someone that tries to stay in the middle. But in your case, unless then lean all the way to the right, they are 'liberals' and 'nut cases' that want to destroy this country. Hate to break it to you, but I'm not what you define as a classic liberal. I disagree with many of Obama's policies, and some of the things he wants to enact. You on the otherhand just sit there with blinders on, only looking at the negatives. Try looking at the world with an open mind every once in a while. Stop letting people tell you how bad it is, and believing that's the case.
Yet you voted for the guy instead of the guy the fits your definition of an independent. McCain crossed more party lines and conducted more dealings across the aisle than any other senator. He sat in the middle his entire career.
And we have yet to see you disagree on this forum about anything Obama wants to do or has done.

 

[bionicarm]

Originally Posted by Veni Vidi Vici
http:///forum/post/3213495
.
Veni - I don't get where you think State Govt. is any better than the Federal Govt. The political hacks at the state level are just as bad, if not worse, than the one's sitting up in Washington. It just another corrupt bunch that's one step lower on the ladder. The people should have the same voice whether it's at the State level, or the Federal level. Look at Massachusetts. They have some form of universal healthcare, and the people there are sick of it. Here in Texas, the state has pushed this stupid mandatory TAKS testing for school kids, whereby a kid can't advance to the next grade without passing them. The school systems in the state do nothing but 'teach the test'. My oldest daughter was making pancakes the other day, and she couldn't even tell me what one half of 1 1/2 cups of milk was. A frickin senior in high school, with a 92 overall average, doesn't even know basic math. And look how well the state government runs California. Now there's a model for all the states to go by.

So instead of getting crap fed to me at the Federal level, you think it's OK to do it at the State level. Crap is crap, doesn't matter where it comes from.

 

[fishtaco]

Originally Posted by srfisher17
http:///forum/post/3213492
Not in last nights Mass election. To me; an independent is someone who bases his vote on the superficial (Which explains Obama's brief encounter with popularity) or wait to see whats in it for them. Given todays incredible distance between Democrats and Republicans, its hard to give any credibility to Independents. Don't they have ANY core beliefs?
Whatever, as an Independent I am extremely unhappy with both parties and my core belief is that both parties are corrupt. If the impossible ever happens and either parties starts doing instead of talking about term limits, real accountability and getting rid of special interest and lobbies I would support them. I think a lot of people around here focus on the red and blue, when they should be focusing on the red, white and blue instead, remember we are all in the same boat. I don't think Independants are liberals any more than they are conservatives, rather once again some conservatives are being very exclusive by automatically labeling anyone who does not hold their beliefs both political or religious as a liberal. That is one of the key factors that drove me from the party in the first place, seems the big tent of politics that Reagan built has been replaced with a small umbrella.
Fishtaco
Fishtaco

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/3213376
Two words - term limits.
Someone should've replaced Kennedy decades ago. I could care less whether it was a Democrat or a Republican. That's what sad about this election. I doubt a majority of the people that voted for Brown even knew what his platform was, or what issues he was running on. All they were looking at was a Republican against a Democrat. The big question now will be when Brown hits the Senate, will he sit down and research and read all the bills that are currently being voted on, and make a decision on how to vote based on what is the best interest for his constituents, or will he just sit down and press the 'yea' or 'ney' button based on what his Republican bretheren tell him to do? If he does the latter, then he's no better than any of the other trolls that work in that city.
I flipped on Fox last night and I saw Hannity just beaming with pride about the Brown win. Then he gets into an argument with this guy about how Harry Reid made a statement that Brown would be allowed to enter the Senate and have his seat as soon as the proper paperwork was filed. Hannity was going off that Brown should be able to catch a flight from Logan today, and be in his seat this afternoon so he can put his 'ney' vote in on any of the current healthcare bills being voted on. If I'm not mistaken, isn't the procedure that the Attorney General, or someone from the state, has to file the proper paperwork that states all votes have been counted, and whoever was declared the winner, actually won, and that it takes 10 to 15 days for this to go through? If I recall, Hannity didn't have an issue with that guy from Illinois that got elected having to wait until the dawn of time to get certified. Of course, that was one of Obama's cronies.

Ted Kennedy was first elected in a special election under the same laws that are in effect today, he was seated the next say. In 2007 in a special election a Democrat won and was seated 2 days later. There is certainly precedent for seating him now. It really depends on if there are enough absentee ballots out to change the outcome of the election and I doubt that is the case.
Hannity is fun in a debate format which is the reason for his initial success on fox. I watched H & C about every night. I bet I haven't watched his solo program half a dozen times. BORRRRING

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/3213506
Veni - I don't get where you think State Govt. is any better than the Federal Govt. The political hacks at the state level are just as bad, if not worse, than the one's sitting up in Washington. It just another corrupt bunch that's one step lower on the ladder. The people should have the same voice whether it's at the State level, or the Federal level. Look at Massachusetts. They have some form of universal healthcare, and the people there are sick of it. Here in Texas, the state has pushed this stupid mandatory TAKS testing for school kids, whereby a kid can't advance to the next grade without passing them. The school systems in the state do nothing but 'teach the test'. My oldest daughter was making pancakes the other day, and she couldn't even tell me what one half of 1 1/2 cups of milk was. A frickin senior in high school, with a 92 overall average, doesn't even know basic math. And look how well the state government runs California. Now there's a model for all the states to go by.

So instead of getting crap fed to me at the Federal level, you think it's OK to do it at the State level. Crap is crap, doesn't matter where it comes from.
Sounds me to like a failure in the house hold... Basic math isn't the schools job it's the parents job...

I have alot of teacher friends, they all hate TAKS. Complaining that they are teaching for a test the whole year, then after they finish they goof off for the next 2 or 3 weeks.
Now I don't really care one way or the other. But I guess I just don't understand that argument, but I don't see a problem with teaching for a test. Isn't that the very definition of test, to see if you've learned what you've covered over that period of time? As long as the test is well written, what is wrong with that?
Speaking in a political science point of view, the reason why decentralized power such as a state is preferable to centralized federal power is preferable, is access. I've met a lot of state senators (and Texas is a big state). I've never met, well I take that back I met tom delay once, but I've only shook hands with one of my federal representatives. But you are right, state governments can be screwed up too.

 

[srfisher17]

Its really hard to grasp what may have happened last night. I'm listening to Rush (like me, an eternal optimist) and this guy is in the middle of a 3 hour political orgasm...great stuff.