# Nebraska stuns GOP establishment



## Listening (May 17, 2012)

Nebraska state Sen. Deb Fischer wrested the Republican nomination for U.S. Senate from Attorney General Jon Bruning Tuesday night, riding a burst of late momentum to pull off an unexpected victory.

Her stunning come-from-behind performance amounts to a warning flare about the volatility of the primary season and the unintended impact of outside groups. (snip)

Outside groups like the Club for Growth and Jim DeMint's Senate Conservative Fund began chipping away at Bruning's favorability through a string of hard-hitting attack ads, with the goal of boosting Stenberg.

But the unintended effect was lifting Fischer, a poorly funded candidate who managed to stay out of the mud.

Read more: Blog: Nebraska stuns GOP establishment

*****************************************

Don't know much about her.  I hear she is pretty conservative and will have an advantage over Kerry (recycled....love it).

Dems can kiss the senate good-bye.


----------



## Oddball (May 17, 2012)

TEA Party is dead.


----------



## Salt Jones (May 17, 2012)

Wow. Another Sharon Angle.


----------



## theDoctorisIn (May 17, 2012)

Running a no-name against a former Senator and Medal of Honor winner?

Don't know how well that's going to work out.


----------



## Oddball (May 17, 2012)

It's Nebraska....Peckerwood hick country.

Just g'head and go back to sleep.


----------



## eflatminor (May 17, 2012)

The Libertarians and fiscally responsible Republicans (non-RINO's) have begun the takeover of the big spending, big government Rs of late.  Clearly not for the White House, but absolutely where it counts, in Congress.  It's going to take several voting cycles, but we will get this country on a path to fiscal sustainability.  The alternative is unthinkable.


----------



## JoeB131 (May 17, 2012)

eflatminor said:


> The Libertarians and fiscally responsible Republicans (non-RINO's) have begun the takeover of the big spending, big government Rs of late.  Clearly not for the White House, but absolutely where it counts, in Congress.  It's going to take several voting cycles, but we will get this country on a path to fiscal sustainability.  The alternative is unthinkable.



You mean actually taxing people at an appropriate rate?  

Here's the real problem- When you idiot supply siders cut taxes and started borrowing, you made government more attractive.   

You get all these goodies and no one has to pay for it.  

If you really want to shrink government, raise taxes across the board.  Then people might want to take care of their own grandmothers than letting government do it.


----------



## JoeB131 (May 17, 2012)

On the point, we don't know much about this woman, which means that there's probably a lot to dig up on her along with crazy statements.  

And Bob Kerrey is a Medal of Honor winner.  

What will be interesting is whether an incident in Vietnam where civilians were killed will come into play or not .


----------



## Truthseeker420 (May 17, 2012)

Oddball said:


> TEA Party is dead.



she was a tea party candidate?


----------



## Listening (May 17, 2012)

Truthseeker420 said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > TEA Party is dead.
> ...



I'm not sure.

But the article did say that she stayed out of the muckraking which means she might be solid in more ways that one.


----------



## Listening (May 17, 2012)

theDoctorisIn said:


> Running a no-name against a former Senator and Medal of Honor winner?
> 
> Don't know how well that's going to work out.



Running a current state senator against a carpet-bagging plug-in should tell you a bit more.


----------



## Liability (May 17, 2012)

Oddball said:


> TEA Party is dead.



Yes.  _They_ keep telling us that.



Nobody seems to have told the Tea Partiers, though.


----------



## Listening (May 17, 2012)

Salt Jones said:


> Wow. Another Sharon Angle.



Hey Salt,

Why don't you STFU unless you can produce something in your posts that proves that linkage ?

I am not saying she isn't.

But you're a freeloading hypocrite that throws bombs with no basis in reason and then makes a comment like this.

Sharron Angle would look reasonable compared to you.


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 17, 2012)

The Rabbi looks reasonable compared to Sharron Angle.


----------



## Listening (May 17, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> The Rabbi looks reasonable compared to Sharron Angle.



Which tells you just what a sorry-assed usless waste of skin Salt Jones is.


----------



## eflatminor (May 17, 2012)

JoeB131 said:


> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> > The Libertarians and fiscally responsible Republicans (non-RINO's) have begun the takeover of the big spending, big government Rs of late.  Clearly not for the White House, but absolutely where it counts, in Congress.  It's going to take several voting cycles, but we will get this country on a path to fiscal sustainability.  The alternative is unthinkable.
> ...



While one could argue an 'appropriate rate' would include taxing the nearly half of Americans paying zero percent, the answer to your question is "No", fiscal sustainability is about a path to stop spending what we don't have and reversing the growth of government.  You can't fix this with tax rate increases, not even close.


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 17, 2012)

eflatminor said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > eflatminor said:
> ...



Well, you should have told RR who signed off on increased taxes three times during his administration.

Some revenue increase at about 1:8 or 9 with budget reduction, cutting in Defense, leaving SS tax money in SS coffers where it belongs along with retirement age increase and an increase to $250,000 taxable income, would do the job.

Shoot.  Obama should put Bowles-Simpson tax plan on the table in front of  Congress and say "act or shit."


----------



## eflatminor (May 17, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



I'll just point out that RR may have signed tax increases but they were more than offset by decreases...but that's not the point.  If I could find just one central planner today willing to make the cuts you mentioned NOW, I'd consider a reasonable tax rate increase.  However, all we're seeing are plans to raise taxes now in return for a "promise" of future spending cuts, which never happen.  Case in point:  How's that PAYGO working out for us?  

Obama should put forth B-S plan, but there's no way he's going to cut spending or hell, even agree to a slight reduction in the planned rate of INCREASED spending.


----------



## uscitizen (May 17, 2012)

Nebraska?  Jack Kemp country?


----------



## Listening (May 17, 2012)

This thread was about how a no-name has been propelled into a federal senate race because Nebraska folks chose to do something unexpected.


----------



## starcraftzzz (May 17, 2012)

eflatminor said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > eflatminor said:
> ...



Half of Americans pay no federal income taxes Since that is only equal to ¼ of total taxes all you are doing is cherry picking and being dishonest


----------



## starcraftzzz (May 17, 2012)

eflatminor said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > eflatminor said:
> ...



ope actually Reagans tax increases where equal to his tax cuts. The difference was he slashed taxes for the rich and skyrocketed them for the poor

Reagan actually reduced taxes on the rich top 10% and added taxes for the rest of us.
eRiposte Economy - Democrats v. Republicans on the U.S. economy
How the Bush Tax Cut Compares in Size To the Reagan Tax Cuts -- 2/20/01
1981 tax cut was around 2.1% of GDP-- accounts inflation and 1982 TERFRA
**1982 
TERFRA raised taxes by $37.5 billion.**
1982
Highway revenue act increased taxes by $3.3 billion
1983
Increase in Social security tax rate increase taxes by about 1% of GDP
http://www.newrules.org/drdave/11-socsec.html
http://www.newrules.org/drdave/11-socsec.html#_ftn5
1984
Deficit reduction act, raised taxes by $18 billion.

Obama is currently implementing 50billion in yearly cuts for the military. Thats not the future thats now


----------



## eflatminor (May 17, 2012)

starcraftzzz said:


> Obama is currently implementing 50billion in yearly cuts for the military. Thats not the future thats now





$50 billion in "cuts" (actually just a slightly reduced rate of increased spending) while spending TRILLIONS more elsewhere.  Wonderful logic you've got there.  That's like a father telling his family, "Look, I cut our food budget by 1% to be fiscally responsible...just don't ask me about spending more than ever on hookers and coke!"


----------



## eflatminor (May 17, 2012)

starcraftzzz said:


> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



You're rambling again.

I am not being dishonest about this being a spending problem and not something that can be fixed by raising rates on anyone, including those that pay no federal income tax.


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 17, 2012)

Put Bowles-Simpson on the table, Mr. President, and tell Congress to "act or shit."


----------



## starcraftzzz (May 17, 2012)

eflatminor said:


> starcraftzzz said:
> 
> 
> > Obama is currently implementing 50billion in yearly cuts for the military. Thats not the future thats now
> ...


Yes you failing to realize that spending is being cut is totally a LOL LOL LOL


----------



## starcraftzzz (May 17, 2012)

eflatminor said:


> starcraftzzz said:
> 
> 
> > eflatminor said:
> ...



Yes you lying is totally not dishonest. Learn English plz
Govt spending is increasing less than it did in the 70s 80s and 2000s. However taxes are at their lowest levels in 50 years. So as always reality says the opposite of what you say


----------



## eflatminor (May 17, 2012)

starcraftzzz said:


> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> > starcraftzzz said:
> ...



Yes, let's watch those 'cuts' kick in here:

U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time

Wait a minute, if we're cutting, why are the numbers getting bigger?


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 17, 2012)

starcraftzzz said:


> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> > starcraftzzz said:
> ...


----------



## eflatminor (May 17, 2012)

starcraftzzz said:


> Govt spending is increasing less than it did in the 70s 80s and 2000s.



Link please.


----------



## Avatar4321 (May 17, 2012)

A three way race where two candidates are conservative and one still beats the establishment candidate. Definitely an interesting race.


----------



## Missourian (May 17, 2012)

JoeB131 said:


> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> > The Libertarians and fiscally responsible Republicans (non-RINO's) have begun the takeover of the big spending, big government Rs of late.  Clearly not for the White House, but absolutely where it counts, in Congress.  It's going to take several voting cycles, but we will get this country on a path to fiscal sustainability.  The alternative is unthinkable.
> ...




Totally agree with you Joe...every American should pay some Federal Income taxes.


Half the country with no skin in the game consistantly vote to "get all these goodies" then DEMAND that the OTHER 50% pay *MORE* to keep those free goodies coming.

That is the problem.

Everyone should pay a fair share.


----------



## starcraftzzz (May 17, 2012)

Missourian said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > eflatminor said:
> ...



Everybody should pay their fair share
Report: 25 Percent Of Millionaires Pay Lower Taxes Than 10.4 Million Middle-Class Americans | ThinkProgress
^25% of millionaires have lower tax rates then around 11 million middle class Americas.

One Chart Shows Obama Is Right About "Buffett Rule" - BlueOregon
^The average millionaire with 2/3rd income from investments pays 30% less taxes then someone making 50,000 a year

Top 25 Hedge Fund Managers Make As Much As 440,000 Middle-Class Americans, But Still Get Tax Loophole | ThinkProgress
^Hedge fund managers make over 500 million dollars a year yet pay an effective tax rate that is 10% lower than the average working American due to tax loopholes, and republicans refuse to close that loophole.

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/07intop400.pdf
^Richest 400 Americans have an effective tax rate of 15%, compared to a rate of 30% for the poorest 50% of Americans

Billionaires Use Tax Loophole To Lower Their Tax Rates To 1 Percent | ThinkProgress
^Some billionaires pay a tax rate of less then 1%

http://wweek.com/portland/article-17350-9_things_the_rich_dont_want_you_to_know_about_taxes.html
^The bottom 50% of American have a 35% higher effective tax rate compared to wages then the richest 400 Americans.

Odd how to republcinas paying your fair share means rich people paying less in taxes then poor people


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 17, 2012)

I agree the poor should pay a nominal tax, even if it is $10 or $20.


----------



## Listening (May 17, 2012)

Listening said:


> This thread was about how a no-name has been propelled into a federal senate race because Nebraska folks chose to do something unexpected.



Back on topic people.

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/224163-nebraska-battle-complicates-gop-effort-to-retake-senate-

The Senate Republican primary in Nebraska has turned into a proxy war between conservatives and establishment Republicans that could complicate efforts to wrest control of the Senate from Democrats. 

Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), a leading voice for Tea Party conservatives in Washington, has made an aggressive bid to defeat Jon Bruning, the front-runner in the primary, because of lingering doubts about his commitment to conservative principles. 


DeMint has stuck fast to his claim that he would prefer to serve with 30 Republicans in the mold of Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), a rising conservative star, than with 60 Republicans like former Sen. Arlen Specter (Pa.), who joined Democrats in 2009 before losing reelection. 

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R), DeMint&#8217;s home-state colleague, Sen. John Thune (S.D.), the third-ranking Senate Republican leader, and other GOP senators have supported Bruning. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has also backed him. 

Sen. Charles Schumer (N.Y.), the Senate Democrats&#8217; chief political strategist, said GOP discord in Nebraska has helped his party&#8217;s chances of clinging to Senate control. 

&#8220;In Nebraska we&#8217;re 50-50 and I think in Nebraska, once the primary is over and people get to focus on who the Republican actually is, Kerrey&#8217;s going to do even better,&#8221; he said of Democratic candidate Bob Kerrey, who represented the Cornhusker State in the Senate from 1989 to 2001. 

&#8220;There&#8217;s only one state where the strong likelihood is there&#8217;s a pick-up. That&#8217;s Maine and that&#8217;s ours. You go to the next group, it includes North Dakota and Nebraska, and they&#8217;re 50-50 states, which is great for us,&#8221; Schumer said. 

The Senate seat is currently held by a Democrat, Sen. Ben Nelson, who has announced he will retire.

Some Republicans question whether DeMint&#8217;s strenuous intervention will do anything more than alienate a likely future colleague. 

&#8220;There&#8217;s no question he&#8217;s the front-runner,&#8221; said David Kramer, a former Nebraska Republican Party chairman who ran for Senate in 2006.

&#8220;There would have to be a monumental effort for someone other than Jon to be the nominee,&#8221; he said, predicting Republicans would win in November because &#8220;Nebraska is a lot more conservative than it was 18 years ago,&#8221; when Kerrey last won election. 

Yet conservatives remain concerned about Bruning&#8217;s record, and the candidate has been dogged by questions over how he amassed personal wealth while serving in public office. 

***********************************

If the GOP pulls this one off....you know Obama's gonna sink.  This looks like it could be quite a bellweather race.


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (May 17, 2012)

Listening said:


> Sen. Charles Schumer (N.Y.), the Senate Democrats chief political strategist, said GOP discord in Nebraska has helped his partys chances of clinging to Senate control.
> 
> In Nebraska were 50-50 and I think in Nebraska, once the primary is over and people get to focus on who the Republican actually is, Kerreys going to do even better, he said of Democratic candidate Bob Kerrey, who represented the Cornhusker State in the Senate from 1989 to 2001.



Schumer's an idiot.  50-50 my ass.  The Democrats have no hope of retaining that seat.


----------



## theDoctorisIn (May 17, 2012)

Listening said:


> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> > Running a no-name against a former Senator and Medal of Honor winner?
> ...


You know that Bob Kerrey was born and raised in Nebraska, and served as Governor of Nebraska '83-'87, then Senator from '89-2001, right?

You might want to look up "carpetbagger".


----------



## theDoctorisIn (May 17, 2012)

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> > Sen. Charles Schumer (N.Y.), the Senate Democrats chief political strategist, said GOP discord in Nebraska has helped his partys chances of clinging to Senate control.
> ...



What makes you say that?


----------



## Truthmatters (May 17, 2012)

Friends and foes call Deb Fischer formidable - David Catanese - POLITICO.com



She&#8217;s a Sarah Palin endorsee who supported higher gas taxes and benefits from a federal farm subsidy. The campaign team that labeled her &#8220;the true conservative&#8221; has deep ties to moderate former Sen. Chuck Hagel. And while she doggedly logs more than 30,000 miles a year on the road visiting constituents, she hasn&#8217;t mustered even a half-million dollars for her campaign.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0512/76419.html#ixzz1v9jH0Wma


----------



## Truthmatters (May 17, 2012)

I hope she is as honest as she seems


----------



## starcraftzzz (May 17, 2012)

theDoctorisIn said:


> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> > Listening said:
> ...


Because that witch GOPer in Delware got her ass kicked along with Sharon Angle and that goon in Colorodo


----------



## Listening (May 17, 2012)

theDoctorisIn said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> > theDoctorisIn said:
> ...



I don't need to look up anything.

What is going on there is pretty obvious.

We'll now observe whether or not the people of Nebraska see it too.


----------



## whitehall (May 17, 2012)

The word "stun" is only accurate when an established incumbent is defeated by a Tea Party candidate as in Lugar's case. Anything else is business as usual.


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (May 18, 2012)

theDoctorisIn said:


> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> > Listening said:
> ...



Common sense.  Nebraska is a heavily conservative state.  The first poll also has Fischer up 18 points right out of the gate.


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (May 18, 2012)

starcraftzzz said:


> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> > Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> ...



And what exactly does Nebraska have in common with Delaware?


----------



## Listening (May 18, 2012)

I really wonder how much Bob Kerry will have his heart in this thing too.

He's from a somewhat different time and knows that Washington is a mess.


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 18, 2012)

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> > Sen. Charles Schumer (N.Y.), the Senate Democrats chief political strategist, said GOP discord in Nebraska has helped his partys chances of clinging to Senate control.
> ...



A medal of honor winner?  Taz, tazup and confront your inner idiot.


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (May 18, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> > Listening said:
> ...



I don't have an inner idiot, I'm simply far more grounded in reality than you.  Why don't you tell us again how badly the Republicans will get pummeled in the 2010 elections.


----------



## Zander (May 18, 2012)

The message is clear- we won't accept half measures. We want true fiscal conservatives that refuse to overspend.  This is a scenario that will be repeated across the country. 

Thanks Obama!! Your incompetence created the Tea Party!


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 18, 2012)

Taz and Zander, I want a Romney victory.  Kerry ain't going to be one of the victims with the TP drone they have confronting him; he is in far better situation that Reid in 2010, and this guy is worse than Angle.

So spittle all you want far righties, but he don't compute.

We were stupid in selecting the idiot to run against Kerry, and gave another opportunity for the Dems to keep the Senate.


----------



## Dr.House (May 18, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> Taz and Zander, I want a Romney victory.  Kerry ain't going to be one of the victims with the TP drone they have confronting him; he is in far better situation that Reid in 2010, and this guy is worse than Angle.
> 
> So spittle all you want far righties, but he don't compute.
> 
> We were stupid in selecting the idiot to run against Kerry, and gave another opportunity for the Dems to keep the Senate.



Election 2012: Nebraska Senate - Rasmussen Reports




Another FakeJake prediction to bookmark...


----------



## Zander (May 18, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> Taz and Zander, I want a Romney victory.  Kerry ain't going to be one of the victims with the TP drone they have confronting him; he is in far better situation that Reid in 2010, and this guy is worse than Angle.
> 
> So spittle all you want far righties, but he don't compute.
> 
> We were stupid in selecting the idiot to run against Kerry, and gave another opportunity for the Dems to keep the Senate.



You're an ill informed moron. First of all  this "guy" is a woman and she's no lay down. Go sell crazy somewhere else....


----------



## Listening (May 18, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> Taz and Zander, I want a Romney victory.  Kerry ain't going to be one of the victims with the TP drone they have confronting him; he is in far better situation that Reid in 2010, and this guy is worse than Angle.
> 
> So spittle all you want far righties, but he don't compute.
> 
> We were stupid in selecting the idiot to run against Kerry, and gave another opportunity for the Dems to keep the Senate.



Please make your case about how this "guy" (who is really a woman) is worse than Angle ?

I am really hoping to see some info as all I have seen says she's pretty grassroots (but there ain't a whole lot out there on her).


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (May 18, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> Taz and Zander, I want a Romney victory.  Kerry ain't going to be one of the victims with the TP drone they have confronting him; he is in far better situation that Reid in 2010, and this guy is worse than Angle.
> 
> So spittle all you want far righties, but he don't compute.
> 
> We were stupid in selecting the idiot to run against Kerry, and gave another opportunity for the Dems to keep the Senate.



What ever you say, Jake.  I'll be more than happy to resurface this post and mock and make fun of you over it after the election just like I did with your 30 posts claiming how the GOP was going to be ass raped in 2010.  You have such a stellar track record with these things.


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 18, 2012)

Those thirty posts, which I had changed tune by early September, those posts?

Yes, I have saved this post to point out to the entire Board how silly you will look the day after election on Medal of Honor winner.

Really, you need to think more.


----------



## elvis (May 18, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> Those thirty posts, which I had changed tune by early September, those posts?
> 
> Yes, I have saved this post to point out to the entire Board how silly you will look the day after election on Medal of Honor winner.
> 
> Really, you need to think more.



After the week I've had, I need to drink more.


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 18, 2012)

Tough week, Elvis?


----------



## Dr.House (May 18, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> Those thirty posts, which I had changed tune by early September, those posts?
> 
> Yes, I have saved this post to point out to the entire Board how silly you will look the day after election on Medal of Honor winner.
> 
> Really, you need to think more.



Ahhh...  Like your Hero Zero, your position "evolved"....

You're such a nuanced flaming lib, FakeJake.....lol


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 18, 2012)

Dr.House said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Those thirty posts, which I had changed tune by early September, those posts?
> ...



Do I follow polls when they are obvious and overwhelming, you bet.  On the other hand, you are a neanderthal conservative, who because you can't evolve with the times and changes, housiemousie, are doomed to extinction.  We are not going to whatever alternate universe from which you emerged.


----------



## Dr.House (May 18, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> Dr.House said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



Apparently not, since my post above (#51) went unnoticed by you...


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 18, 2012)

You missed "obvious and overwhelming" but are content with Rasmussen as far as Nebraska goes?  OK.


----------



## Dr.House (May 18, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> You missed "obvious and overwhelming" but are content with Rasmussen as far as Nebraska goes?  OK.



I posted an obvious and overwhelming poll, Fakey...

You can ignore it...

We've bookmarked your prediction anyway, although you'll change it about a week before the election, won't you?

:lol


----------



## Listening (May 18, 2012)

I'd just like to point out that instead of worrying about the November election, this thread was started because the GOP frontrunner (termed establishment) got beat by someone who is more conservative.

I don't know much about her (and Jakey is going to tell us more I hope), except that she was endorsed by Sarah Palin.

The article I posted says she stayed out of the muck.....

Anyway, just sayin'.


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 18, 2012)

Dr.House said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > You missed "obvious and overwhelming" but are content with Rasmussen as far as Nebraska goes?  OK.
> ...


 
I had already bookmarked you guys' mistake here but go ahead.

We will see if you are changing your opinion long before a weak out.

You pretend mainstream Republicans crack me up.


----------



## JoeB131 (May 18, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> Taz and Zander, I want a Romney victory.  Kerry ain't going to be one of the victims with the TP drone they have confronting him; he is in far better situation that Reid in 2010, and this guy is worse than Angle.
> 
> So spittle all you want far righties, but he don't compute.
> 
> We were stupid in selecting the idiot to run against Kerry, and gave another opportunity for the Dems to keep the Senate.



Ooooh, Jakie, you realize that Kerrey is running against a woman, right?  

I don't think he's going to be that strong a candidate.  First, he has to get past the point he killed women and children in Vietnam... and took a Bronze Star for it.  

Then he has to get around the fact that he hasn't lived in the state for a decade.


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 19, 2012)

The Medal of Honor winner is running against a TP drone is the case.  Many of my generation served in Vietnam and many can be considered as killing women and children.  That's war.  As horrible as it is, collateral damage (awful term) happens.  Cornhuuskers understand the terribleness of war.

Joe Doosh, Kerry is a good bet to win, and you, as always, are the leading bet to lose.


----------



## JoeB131 (May 19, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> The Medal of Honor winner is running against a TP drone is the case.  Many of my generation served in Vietnam and many can be considered as killing women and children.  That's war.  As horrible as it is, collateral damage (awful term) happens.  Cornhuuskers understand the terribleness of war.
> 
> Joe Doosh, Kerry is a good bet to win, and you, as always, are the leading bet to lose.



Actually, polls have Kerrey trailing by 16 points right now.  

And, no, "Stuff happens" in war isn't going to get Kerrey off the hook.  They went into a village of unarmed people, killed a bunch of them, and then lied about what they did.  Kerrey even took a bronze star for his actions.  

One Awful Night in Thanh Phong - NYTimes.com

In fact, Kerrey's actions were considered so disturbing when they were revealed in 2001, that it immediately put an an end to any talk of him running for president in 2004.  Or ever.


----------



## JoeB131 (May 19, 2012)

By the way, I don't have a dog in this fight.  I would prefer the TEAbagger lose so that the GOP actually gets snapped back to sanity.  But Kerrey was a bad pick.   Not that there were any good ones.


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 19, 2012)

JoeB131 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > The Medal of Honor winner is running against a TP drone is the case.  Many of my generation served in Vietnam and many can be considered as killing women and children.  That's war.  As horrible as it is, collateral damage (awful term) happens.  Cornhuuskers understand the terribleness of war.
> ...



Actually . . . that will change.  His competitor is a losable, forgettable TP drone.

And, yes, the Medal of Honor will outweight the 'baby killer' mantra.  Has not worked before,and it won't work now.


----------



## rdean (May 19, 2012)

It was actually Nebraska that petitioned the president to stop the pipeline until it could be further evauated.  Eventually, they proposed a new route and have petittioned the Government for approval.

Great Plains Laborers' District Council

CALGARY, Alberta-TransCanada Corp. TRP +1.11%submitted a reroute of its Keystone XL oil pipeline to the Nebraska state government Wednesday, moving a step closer to reviving the project after it was rejected by the U.S. government earlier this year.

The reroute will avoid an environmentally sensitive area in the U.S. Midwest state, and comes a day after Nebraska Gov. Dave Heineman signed a bill allowing the state's review of the pipeline to continue.

 Nebraska was a hot spot for protest against Keystone XL last year because of its path across the Sand Hills and the Ogallala aquifer. Getting the reroute approved by Nebraska will help ensure that TransCanada can move ahead with reapplication to the U.S. federal government.

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







The ExxonMobil pipeline that runs under the Yellowstone River near Billings in south-central Montana ruptured and dumped an unknown amount of oil into the waterway, prompting temporary evacuations along the river. (The Billings Gazette | Larry Mayer) 

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

Investigating Environmental Impacts: Oil on the Kalamazoo River | Response and Restoration






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

http://www.usmessageboard.com/envir...st-kalamazoo-two-years-later-what-a-mess.html

That's the problem with ignorant Republicans.  They don't know anything.  They don't understand difficulties.  They only know what they imagine.  Look at the loonies here and not a one even bothered to find out what is actually going on.  Could they be more pathetic?


----------



## JoeB131 (May 19, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



The guy has never stood for election since this story came out.  So it's never been tried.


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 19, 2012)

Time well tell.


----------



## Listening (May 20, 2012)

rdean said:


> It was actually Nebraska that petitioned the president to stop the pipeline until it could be further evauated.  Eventually, they proposed a new route and have petittioned the Government for approval.
> 
> Great Plains Laborers' District Council
> 
> ...



Making stuff up to argue against....moron ?

What's thihs got to do with the fact that a conservative defeated the establishment GOPer ?


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 20, 2012)

Nothing, because Kerry is going to kick the wannabee conservative who is really a doosh reactionary through the goal posts for three points,


----------



## Listening (May 20, 2012)

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> starcraftzzz said:
> 
> 
> > theDoctorisIn said:
> ...



It elects two senators....

That is about it.


----------



## Liability (May 20, 2012)

Listening said:


> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> > starcraftzzz said:
> ...



And it has a lot of Americans in it, too.


----------



## uscitizen (May 20, 2012)

Nebraska....  Arent they the ones that requested Obama stop the pipeline?

And just about one month ago approved researching an alternate route.
Republican controlled state govt of course.


----------



## Listening (May 20, 2012)

uscitizen said:


> Nebraska....  Arent they the ones that requested Obama stop the pipeline?
> 
> And just about one month ago approved researching an alternate route.
> Republican controlled state govt of course.



Yes....and they put a conservative candidate in over the establishment GOPer.

Wow...I'll bet it kills you to see your sterotypes shot all to hell.


----------



## zzzz (May 20, 2012)

Listening said:


> Truthseeker420 said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...



No she was not T party. 




> Democrats depict Ms. Fischer, 61 years old, as an untested candidate, while Republicans stress her role as a mother and rancher from the small town of Valentine
> 
> Ms. Fischer was defined during the primary in part by what she wasn't&#8212;neither an establishment candidate like state Attorney General Jon Bruning nor the tea-party candidate like state Treasurer Don Stenberg. That ultimately worked in her favor.


Deb Fischer, Bob Kerrey Set to Face Off in Nebraska - WSJ.com

Kerry may be in trouble because he is not living in Neb. just look at Lugar in Indiana. The people are looking at career politicians and turning them out to pasture.


----------



## percysunshine (May 20, 2012)

*Nebraska stuns GOP establishment *

The GOP establishment needs to be tasered now and then, if only to keep them awake.


----------



## Listening (May 20, 2012)

zzzz said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> > Truthseeker420 said:
> ...



She did get an endorsement from Sarah Palin from what I recall.


----------



## MuadDib (May 20, 2012)

Pfeh! Nebraska is the only state with a unicameral legislature. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





What do they know?


----------



## Listening (May 24, 2012)

RealClear is calling this a "safe" seat for the GOP ?

Wow.  I hope that holds !


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 25, 2012)

Deb Fischer will implode, I am thinking.  Kerry is a Medal of Honor winner.  If Reid survived Angle in NV in that horrible year recession-wise, Kerry should beat Fischer.


----------



## Listening (May 25, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> Deb Fischer will implode, I am thinking.  Kerry is a Medal of Honor winner.  If Reid survived Angle in NV in that horrible year recession-wise, Kerry should beat Fischer.



I usually respect your posts.  But, not this one.

You know something RealClear does not ?

Your logic (the medal of honor) means nothing.

He's been out of Nebraska and politics for quite some time.  She is a current state senator.

How would she implode ?  Please share what we should know from facts.  Keep the opinions out of it please.


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 25, 2012)

My logic on the Medal of Honor means everything to those over 40.

I am not disputing the poll today, but that it will be accurate in terms of the election.

Opinions are what we work from _a priori_, Listening.  TP candidates generally carry a lot of baggage that will be revealed during the campaign.  Angle and O'Donnell (Doofette and the Witch) are examples.

You may be right, but I don't think so,.


----------



## Liability (May 25, 2012)

MuadDib said:


> Pfeh! Nebraska is the only state with a unicameral legislature.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Why does ANY state need anything BUT a unicameral legislature?

The Federal Government's original reason for a bicameral legislature made sense.  

But an individual State?


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 25, 2012)

Liability said:


> MuadDib said:
> 
> 
> > Pfeh! Nebraska is the only state with a unicameral legislature.
> ...



That comment was stranger than even some of yours, L.


----------



## JoeB131 (May 25, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> My logic on the Medal of Honor means everything to those over 40.
> 
> I am not disputing the poll today, but that it will be accurate in terms of the election.
> 
> ...



There was a very good article on the Nebraska race in RCP.  

First, it dispells the notion by you and other that Fischer is another TP nutter like the one who used to be a witch.  She's a state wide elected official with a good record.  

The other reason Kerrey might be in trouble is that the Democratic base nationally and in the state aren't all that thrilled with him.  The compare him with Leiberman, and amusingly, the Democrats use their former VP candidates name as a word of derision shows how they've become just as radicalized as the GOP has. 

GOd, we need a third party.


----------



## Liability (May 26, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > MuadDib said:
> ...



Yet, not nearly as fucking dopey as most of yours, Fakey.


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 26, 2012)

JoeB131 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > My logic on the Medal of Honor means everything to those over 40.
> ...



Perhaps so, but TP nutters like Fischer and Liarbility need to go back into the closet.


----------



## Liability (May 26, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



Poseur Republicans like FakeyJokey should avoid giving advice on political matters to anybody -- given their complete lack of credibility, that is.

And while I endorse much of what the Tea Party stands for, I haven't joined them actively.  I'm just a plain old fashioned conservative.

Fakey can't decide which dishonest label to try to put on me next, though.


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 26, 2012)

TP nutter.


----------



## Liability (May 26, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> TP nutter.



Fake Republican.


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 26, 2012)

You can't win, Liarbility, but go ahead and have the last word.


----------



## Liability (May 26, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> You can't win, Liarbility, but go ahead and have the last word.



I have won.  I have exposed you innumerable times.   And you know it.  But, since you are at root fully dishonest, you'll never admit it.

To show how dishonest you are, tell us all how many times you have given me the last word.



Nevermind, Fakey.  Don't fret.

Nothing you say has any value except as fodder for the next bit of fluff directed at your dishonest commentary.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 26, 2012)

Listening said:


> Salt Jones said:
> 
> 
> > Wow. Another Sharon Angle.
> ...



Salt wants to be a Community Organizer when he grows up


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 26, 2012)

Jake has memorized most of Mao's Little Red Book, it nourishes him


----------



## ShackledNation (May 26, 2012)

JoeB131 said:


> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> > The Libertarians and fiscally responsible Republicans (non-RINO's) have begun the takeover of the big spending, big government Rs of late.  Clearly not for the White House, but absolutely where it counts, in Congress.  It's going to take several voting cycles, but we will get this country on a path to fiscal sustainability.  The alternative is unthinkable.
> ...


Yes, increasing the amount of money the government can use to spend and influence will decrease the size of government.


----------



## JoeB131 (May 27, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



Romney seems a lot more interested in maintaining the good favor of the folks like Liability than yours, man.  

And why not. you'll twist yourself into a pretzel trying to rationalize his every betrayal of his moderate past.  

As for Fischer, I have yet to see where you've proven she's a "nutter".  Probably more conservative than I am, but clearly not a Christine McDonnel or a Sharon Angle.  

She's a responsible person who has gotten elected to state office.


----------



## JoeB131 (May 27, 2012)

ShackledNation said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > eflatminor said:
> ...



Ooookay, I realize you are a litle slow... but try this on. 

Why has government grown at a faster rate since the Reagan tax cuts?  

You really have to think hard about this one, I know, because you don't seem very bright.  

If you get all these goodies from the government, and your tax bill for them is low, because instead of taxing people for them, we went off and borrowed money from China, what incentive would you possibly have for wanting less goodies?  

You're not paying for them.  It's like they gave you a credit card with no limit, and you can pay it off with another credit card with no limit.  

Absolutely no incentive at all to demand government live within its means.  

Which is why the Federal budget has gone from 590 Billion in 1980 to 2,982 Billion in 2008.  

Government Spending Details: Federal State Local for 1980 - Charts

Government Spending Details: Federal State Local for 2008 - Charts

In short, long before Obama ever got there, in less than 30 years, we increased federal spending by 600 %.  

Debt increased from less than a trillion to nearly 10 trillion in that time. 

Hmmmmm.... Now how could that be?  Could it be that it's easier to run up a bill if it isn't clear who is paying for it?  Hmmmmm... 

Let you think about it for a while... but I'm sure your answer will be a bunch of curse words about the president making it worse and so on.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 27, 2012)

Liability said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



Jake is a card carrying Communist. He thinks he's infiltrated the Republican Party.  He taps out Morse code to his handler every night telling them how hes subverting the will of USMB Conservatives because we find him "reasonable" and "thought provoking"


----------



## Two Thumbs (May 27, 2012)

Oddball said:


> It's Nebraska....Peckerwood hick country.
> 
> Just g'head and go back to sleep.



dont you mean;

It's Nebraska, home of my fellow Americans?



asshole


----------



## JoeB131 (May 27, 2012)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Jake is a card carrying Communist. He thinks he's infiltrated the Republican Party.  He taps out Morse code to his handler every night telling them how hes subverting the will of USMB Conservatives because we find him "reasonable" and "thought provoking"



Umm, wow.

Just wow.  

YOu know, I get into with Jake a lot, but I think he really is a moderate Republican who doesn't like the way the crazies have hijacked the GOP, which they have.  

I think he's deluded himself into thinking Mitt Romney is going to take the party back from the nutters when there's really nothing to support that.


----------



## Liability (May 27, 2012)

JoeB131 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Jake is a card carrying Communist. He thinks he's infiltrated the Republican Party.  He taps out Morse code to his handler every night telling them how hes subverting the will of USMB Conservatives because we find him "reasonable" and "thought provoking"
> ...



The fact that YOU *either* DO "believe" an obvious fraud like Fakey *or* just claim to believe that punk ass bitch tells a huge story about you, JoeB.

It's simple.  When all of his expressed political views are warmed-over versions of the modern American liberal political position on whatever the topics might be, there comes a point where it is ridiculous to accept his obviously dishonest claims anymore that he is a Republican.  He's not.  He's a liberal Democrat.

He is a fraud.  A poseur.  There is no question about it.  That makes you either a liar or a dolt.


----------



## Liability (May 27, 2012)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> > Salt Jones said:
> ...



Salt Peter wants to shoot him some white people when (if) he ever grows up, too.


----------



## JoeB131 (May 27, 2012)

Liability said:


> The fact that YOU *either* DO "believe" an obvious fraud like Fakey *or* just claim to believe that punk ass bitch tells a huge story about you, JoeB.
> 
> It's simple.  When all of his expressed political views are warmed-over versions of the modern American liberal political position on whatever the topics might be, there comes a point where it is ridiculous to accept his obviously dishonest claims anymore that he is a Republican.  He's not.  He's a liberal Democrat.
> 
> He is a fraud.  A poseur.  There is no question about it.  That makes you either a liar or a dolt.



I think that a lot of us who are more moderate, who don't come from states where they fly the Confederate Flag like that was something to be proud of, who actually are horrified that there are people who think the dinosaurs are extinct because Noah couldn't fit them on the Ark, really are concerned that the center of gravity in the GOP has switched to folks who think this stuff is all perfectly normal.   

The fact is, Dwight Eisenhower, Richard Nixon, Jerry Ford and perhaps even Ronald Reagan could not find a home in the current GOP with its level of religious crazy, anti-government hostility and general bat-shittery.  When you drive out people like Orrin Hatch and Dick Lugar like some kind of Soviet Purge due to a lack of fealty to extreme positions, yeah, then I guess anyone who says, "Hey, wait a minute" might seem like a liberal.  

Fact is, the only way Mitt Romney could get nominated was by pretending to be one of these Zombies, which is not how he acted as a governor or for most of his life.  

It's a very dishonest transaction.  He pretends to believe what you believe, and you pretend to believe him because you all hate Obama so much.  

Did I miss anything?


----------



## Liability (May 27, 2012)

JoeB131 said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > The fact that YOU *either* DO "believe" an obvious fraud like Fakey *or* just claim to believe that punk ass bitch tells a huge story about you, JoeB.
> ...



There are a lot of moderates.

All the terms, "liberal,"  "moderate," and "conservative" lose their meaning over time by overuse or misuse or overlap and confusion.  Sometimes it's accidental and sometimes it's deliberate.

I have no qualms about the fact that one can be a liberal and a Republican.  It's rather illogical; but RINOs do exist.

Mitt is not now and has never been a "conservative" in any world where the term has genuine meaning.  

On the other hand, compared to the clearly socialist-leaning (damn near Marxist-inclined) incumbent, Mitt is certainly far more conservative than his detractors would care to admit.

SO your faux-analysis is baseless and of no value.  LOTS of people readily acknowledge that Mitt is not a conservative.  He need not be a conservative to be a vastly superior candidate to the incumbent.  

Your digression and faux-analysis aside, let's get back to the topic:

I am not a Republican.  Neither is Fakey.  The difference is, I don't claim to be a Republican.


----------



## JoeB131 (May 27, 2012)

Liability said:


> There are a lot of moderates.
> 
> *All the terms, "liberal,"  "moderate," and "conservative" lose their meaning over time by overuse or misuse or overlap and confusion.  Sometimes it's accidental and sometimes it's deliberate.*
> 
> ...



Well, no, actually those terms lose their meaning because when you're whole life view is based on hatred for a centrist (not a "Marxist") president because you don't like his skin color to the point where you oppose things you were totally for 5 years ago. 

My problem with Mitt is not that he's too conservative or too liberal, because honestly, there are some issues he's to the right of me on and some he's too the left of me on.  

My problem with him is that he's a self-entitled rich douchebag who thinks the rest of us should grovel at his feet.


----------



## Liability (May 27, 2012)

JoeB131 said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > There are a lot of moderates.
> ...



Well, no, actually, when YOU have to couch your "argument" on a pretend state of affairs, your "argument" becomes kind of pointless.

And your asshole concluding opinion has no basis in fact.  I don't know that he is a douche bag.  I know you are, though.

I don't know that he has EVER subscribed to any notion that anyone should grovel at his feet or anyone else's either.  YOU saying it and it being true are often mutually exclusive.

Since you have nothing of value to say, you might want to consider not bothering to post at all.  The net effect is the same, either way.


----------



## JoeB131 (May 27, 2012)

Actually, I have plenty of proof Romney is a douchebag. 

There was the time when some supporters brought cookies to an event, and he derisively asked if they came from teh 7-11.  

There was the time he talked about how he likes to be able to fire people. 

Or how Corporations are People, too.  

Or when he bet Rick Perry $10,000.  

But hey, at least he's "White and Delightsome"...


----------



## Liability (May 27, 2012)

JoeB131 said:


> Actually, I have plenty of proof Romney is a douchebag.
> 
> There was the time when some supporters brought cookies to an event, and he derisively asked if they came from teh 7-11.
> 
> ...



Anecdotal trite tripe, much deliberately out of context.

You remain a douche.

And if that's your level of "debate," you need to do a study on President Obama's foot-in-mouth disease.

Start with 57 -- or 58 -- states.  Then proceed slowly.  Bumpy ride.  Just ask his sons.


----------



## JoeB131 (May 27, 2012)

Liability said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Actually, I have plenty of proof Romney is a douchebag.
> ...



Um, nope, not really out of context at all.

More like the classic definition of a Gaffe.  When a politician accidently tells the truth.


----------



## Liability (May 27, 2012)

JoeB131 said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



So there ARE 57 or 58 states?

Cool.


----------



## Listening (May 27, 2012)

Liability said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...



You are wasting you time with Joe.

While I find most of his posts to be reasonable, when it comes to Romney.....Romney just represents the Mormon Church which Joe openly despises.

The irrational connections he is listing above are a reflection of that hatred.

What can you do ?


----------



## Listening (May 27, 2012)

It feels like we have finally reached the point where we are a multi party system.  However, instead of those multi-party mechanics producing coalitions within a government, our system has them producing coalitions within the two major parties.

The big break will come when the moderates from both parties turn their backs on the hard core in each of their respective groups and unite. 

The only problem with making this happen is that the term moderate can apply to to two or three different areas.  You can be fiscally conservative like I am, but more socially moderate like I am (or consider myself)...but I think I am generally seen as conservative.


----------



## JoeB131 (May 27, 2012)

Listening said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



Has it occurs to you that if you are otherwise "reasonable", if one despises something, there's probably a good reason.  

I think Romney is a bad person who belongs to an evil religion.  It's really that simple.  And frankly, looking at his life, which has mostly been about bullying other people with less money or power, I'm not sure I want to give him more of it.


----------



## Liability (May 27, 2012)

JoeB131 said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...



I think you are total ass clown.

Your posts prove it time and again.


----------



## The T (May 27, 2012)

Listening said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...


 
Vote against OBAMA.

Plain, simple, to the point.


----------



## JoeB131 (May 27, 2012)

Liability said:


> I think you are total ass clown.
> 
> Your posts prove it time and again.



Have you ever had a thoughtful response in your life, or do they all boil down to 

"Me hate Obama"


----------



## ShackledNation (May 27, 2012)

Double post.


----------



## ShackledNation (May 27, 2012)

JoeB131 said:


> ShackledNation said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...


The Reagan tax cuts were accompanied by an increase in government fees. Government revenue remained largely stable under Reagan (but his spending increased). Reagan also increased spending, hence the deficits. Cutting taxes without cutting spending will obviously not decrease the size of government, as I am making the point that a government that spends more money is larger and more influential than one that spends less.



> If you get all these goodies from the government, and your tax bill for them is low, because instead of taxing people for them, we went off and borrowed money from China, what incentive would you possibly have for wanting less goodies?


If you have a brain, you will realize that debt must be paid off, and that future taxes will have to be raised to pay for the unpaid goodies plus interest. Most big spenders in Washington, however, are too shortsided to see this obvious incentive to stop offering goodies.



> You're not paying for them.  It's like they gave you a credit card with no limit, and you can pay it off with another credit card with no limit.
> 
> Absolutely no incentive at all to demand government live within its means.
> 
> ...


If government takes in more in taxes due to higher rates, it will have more to spend. There is no reason to believe that government will stop borrowing money if it raises taxes. In fact, if people are paying more in taxes, they will expect _more_ in services. How will government pay for these services? Probably borrowing even _more_ money from China.

Even if government due to the raised tax revenue borrows less, it will still not be spending any less money unless for some reason it cuts spending. But then it should be obvious to anyone that what reduced the size of government was the reduction in spending, not the tax increase, for such a reduction could have occurred just as easily without raising taxes.

Giving government more revenue will not shrink it. It is not me who has a problem thinking critically.


----------



## JoeB131 (May 28, 2012)

ShackledNation said:


> [
> The Reagan tax cuts were accompanied by an increase in government fees. Government revenue remained largely stable under Reagan (but his spending increased). Reagan also increased spending, hence the deficits. Cutting taxes without cutting spending will obviously not decrease the size of government, as I am making the point that a government that spends more money is larger and more influential than one that spends less.



Um, no Reagan didn't increase taxes until about 1986 or so through so-called tax reform (that mostly consisted of cutting out middle class loopholes so the rich could keep the huge tax cuts they got between 1981 and 1983.)  This was after he promised no Tax increases when Mondale was kind of honest and admitted taxes would have to go up.  Also, Reagan increased spending.  Defense spending went from 167 Billion in 1980 to 330 Billion by 1988.  So, no, cutting taxes did not "Starve the beast".  The beast got hungrier. 






> If you have a brain, you will realize that debt must be paid off, and that future taxes will have to be raised to pay for the unpaid goodies plus interest. Most big spenders in Washington, however, are too shortsided to see this obvious incentive to stop offering goodies.



which again, if we had a requirement that every dollar in spending had to be countered with a dollar in taxes, we'd get less spending.  Obviously borrowing is the path of least resistance, until no one will loan you anything anymore. 




> If government takes in more in taxes due to higher rates, it will have more to spend. There is no reason to believe that government will stop borrowing money if it raises taxes. In fact, if people are paying more in taxes, they will expect _more_ in services. How will government pay for these services? Probably borrowing even _more_ money from China.
> 
> Even if government due to the raised tax revenue borrows less, it will still not be spending any less money unless for some reason it cuts spending. But then it should be obvious to anyone that what reduced the size of government was the reduction in spending, not the tax increase, for such a reduction could have occurred just as easily without raising taxes.
> 
> Giving government more revenue will not shrink it. It is not me who has a problem thinking critically.



Well, no, if you are a complete retard who is shown that 30 years of supply side spending doesn't work, and you still insist that we are really going to control debt by not taxing people, then I think you aren't being critical at all.  

I gave you the numbers, man.  You just choose to ignore them because they don't fit into your worldview.


----------



## Toro (May 28, 2012)

JoeB131 said:


> Um, no Reagan didn't increase taxes until about 1986 or so through so-called tax reform (that mostly consisted of cutting out middle class loopholes so the rich could keep the huge tax cuts they got between 1981 and 1983.)  This was after he promised no Tax increases when Mondale was kind of honest and admitted taxes would have to go up.  Also, Reagan increased spending.  Defense spending went from 167 Billion in 1980 to 330 Billion by 1988.  So, no, cutting taxes did not "Starve the beast".  The beast got hungrier.



Reagan raised taxes in 1982, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1986, 1987 and 1988.  His big tax increases came in the first three years.  The tax increases thereafter were small.  Net, Reagan cut taxes by $140 billion.

Reagan's Tax Increases | Stan Collender's Capital Gains and Games


----------



## JoeB131 (May 28, 2012)

You got your figures, I have mine.  

Reagan cut taxes on teh wealthy and raised them on the middle class. That was the net effect, anyway.


----------



## midcan5 (May 28, 2012)

Americans have short memories?  

"Percentage of the current U.S. debt that was accumulated during Republican presidential terms: 71 
Portion of debt-ceiling elevations since 1960 that have been signed into law by Republican presidents : 2/3 
Percentage of profits American corporations paid in taxes in 1961 : 40.6 Today: 10.5
Portion of the increase in U.S. corporate profit margins since 2001 that come from depressed wages: 3/4 
Percentage of Americans who say they did not have money to buy food at all times last year: 18.2 
Percentage change in the median household wealth of white families since 2005 : -16 Of Hispanic families: -66 "  Source: October 2011, page 15 (Harper's Magazine Index) 


Politics - James Fallows - Another Chart That Should Accompany All Debt-Ceiling Discussions - The Atlantic

U.S. Federal Deficits, Presidents, and Congress


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 28, 2012)

JoeB131 said:


> ShackledNation said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



Look up "Budget Impoundment Act of 1974"

The Democrats neutered the Presidency and took the ability to control spending from the Executive Branch


----------



## Sallow (May 28, 2012)

eflatminor said:


> starcraftzzz said:
> 
> 
> > Obama is currently implementing 50billion in yearly cuts for the military. Thats not the future thats now
> ...



Funny..that even those cuts are sparking a new battle in Congress. Republicans want them halted..and they want to make the Bush tax cuts, permanent.

So much for "fiscal responsibility".

I'm with Jake on this one..put Simpson Bowles on the table.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 28, 2012)

JoeB131 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Jake is a card carrying Communist. He thinks he's infiltrated the Republican Party.  He taps out Morse code to his handler every night telling them how hes subverting the will of USMB Conservatives because we find him "reasonable" and "thought provoking"
> ...



As a "Republican", Jake is a drag queen with whiskers and hairy legs and just as convincing

No sale.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 28, 2012)

Liability said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



or both


----------



## Liability (May 28, 2012)

Sallow said:


> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> > starcraftzzz said:
> ...



Because, once more with feeling, the deal is clear.

STOP spending.  Stop gouging taxpayers.  It is fiscally IRRESPONSIBLE to do anything other than get taxes as low as possible.

So as for proffered lectures on fiscal responsibility from liberals, try to understand, the only rational response is "no thanks."

As for being with Jake, that comes as no surprise.  All you libs tend to stick together.


----------



## JoeB131 (May 28, 2012)

Liability said:


> Because, once more with feeling, the deal is clear.
> 
> STOP spending.  Stop gouging taxpayers.  It is fiscally IRRESPONSIBLE to do anything other than get taxes as low as possible.
> 
> ...



Again, we have one of the lowest tax rates in the industrialized world.  

And until your side actually puts real cuts on teh table with Defense and Social Security, I just can't take you seriously.


----------



## Truthmatters (May 28, 2012)

Deb Fischer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


During the primary campaign, Fischer was criticized by environmentalists and others because her family's ranch near Valentine grazes cattle on federal land, leasing it for about $110,000 per year less than the market rate on private land. Opponents of federal grazing leases argue that she should relinquish her family's permit if she wants to remain "morally consistent" with her message of less government. Fischer argues that the poor quality of federal lands, plus the restrictions that come with federal leases, make it inappropriate to compare them to private leases.[13



HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH


shes not as honest as she seems


----------



## Darkwind (May 28, 2012)

Liability said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > TEA Party is dead.
> ...


I keep checking for the memo, but it must have been sent to the wrong address.


----------



## Liability (May 28, 2012)

JoeB131 said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > Because, once more with feeling, the deal is clear.
> ...



Nobody gives a crap who *YOU* take seriously, JoeBitch.

SPENDING cuts and tax cuts NOW.

President Obama voted OUT in November.


----------



## ShackledNation (May 28, 2012)

JoeB131 said:


> ShackledNation said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...


The Reagan tax cuts, as I said before, were accompanied by tax increases elsewhere and the raising of fees and closing of loopholes as I said before. During his presidency, government federal government revenue did not really decrease much at all. The revenue is what matters, not the tax rate. As I said before, Reagan increased spending. The spending is what fueled that beast, not these imaginary "massive tax cuts" that propagate the Reagan Myth.




> > If you have a brain, you will realize that debt must be paid off, and that future taxes will have to be raised to pay for the unpaid goodies plus interest. Most big spenders in Washington, however, are too shortsided to see this obvious incentive to stop offering goodies.
> 
> 
> 
> which again, if we had a requirement that every dollar in spending had to be countered with a dollar in taxes, we'd get less spending.  Obviously borrowing is the path of least resistance, until no one will loan you anything anymore.


If you had such a requirement, it would not be necesssary to raise taxes to get less spending. In that case, the requirement would be what results in smaller government, not a raise in taxes. If you want to argue that ending government borrowing and Federal Reserve inflation would result in smaller government, I would agree. But that is entirely different than saying an increase in taxes will.




> > If government takes in more in taxes due to higher rates, it will have more to spend. There is no reason to believe that government will stop borrowing money if it raises taxes. In fact, if people are paying more in taxes, they will expect _more_ in services. How will government pay for these services? Probably borrowing even _more_ money from China.
> >
> > Even if government due to the raised tax revenue borrows less, it will still not be spending any less money unless for some reason it cuts spending. But then it should be obvious to anyone that what reduced the size of government was the reduction in spending, not the tax increase, for such a reduction could have occurred just as easily without raising taxes.
> >
> ...


I am not a supply side economist, so your reference is irrelevant. And the original argument was about the size of government, not the size of debt.

If you increase taxes, all else remaining the same, government will not decrease in size. You seem to be assuming that an increase in taxes will automatically result in less borrowing. But this is simply not true, as I already explained. If you aren't going to respond to my arguments, then I will not waste my time.


----------



## JoeB131 (May 28, 2012)

ShackledNation said:


> I am not a supply side economist, so your reference is irrelevant. And the original argument was about the size of government, not the size of debt.
> 
> If you increase taxes, all else remaining the same, government will not decrease in size. You seem to be assuming that an increase in taxes will automatically result in less borrowing. But this is simply not true, as I already explained. If you aren't going to respond to my arguments, then I will not waste my time.



You're arguments are idiotic...

In fact, the closest we ever got to reducing the size of government was under Clinton, ironically enough. He raised taxes and then there WAS a push to reduce government.  Defense spending went down and welfare spending flattened out.


----------



## Liability (May 28, 2012)

JoeB131 said:


> ShackledNation said:
> 
> 
> > I am not a supply side economist, so your reference is irrelevant. And the original argument was about the size of government, not the size of debt.
> ...



Leave it to a dopey bitch like JoeBitch to think a shrinking military equates with a smaller government.

And he is SUCH a stupid bitch.


----------



## JoeB131 (May 28, 2012)

Liability said:


> Leave it to a dopey bitch like JoeBitch to think a shrinking military equates with a smaller government.
> 
> And he is SUCH a stupid bitch.



And what was your MOS, "bitch"...  Somehow, I suspect the closest you ever got to military service was "Call of Duty III".   

Anyway, yeah, shrinking the size of a bloated, unnecessary military buying weapons we don't need to fight a war that will never happen.  

Do we really need 12 aircraft carriers when the rest of the world couldn't put together than many on a bet?  

The ironic thing, we'd be a lot better off spending that money on roads and schools...


----------



## Liability (May 28, 2012)

JoeB131 said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > Leave it to a dopey bitch like JoeBitch to think a shrinking military equates with a smaller government.
> ...



My service or lack of service is -- of course  -- entirely irrelvant you dipshit.

What IS relevant, stupid, is the shit you said and the rejoinder.

Try to smarten up a little and pay attention.

The size of "the government," you fucking idiot is NOT related to the size of the military.

You are a tool.

And, oh.  As I have noted many times before, I did not serve.  That does not disqualify me from pointing out what a douche you are.


----------



## Toro (May 28, 2012)

Liability said:


> The size of "the government," you fucking idiot is NOT related to the size of the military.



I don't think that's entirely correct, L.  Lawmakers in Washington have long fought closures of bases in their jurisdictions, even if it meant having a less efficient, more cost-effective military.

It is the natural inclination of man to grow and expand.  This is true of almost all institutions.  Conservatives generally understand this about the government _except_ when it comes to the military, rarely ever calling into question the size and expanse of the military.  It's been my observation that Republican lawmakers often use military spending in their districts as back-door Keynesianism, decrying the expansion of government except when it provides jobs in their districts and states.


----------



## JoeB131 (May 28, 2012)

Liability said:


> My service or lack of service is -- of course  -- entirely irrelvant you dipshit.
> 
> What IS relevant, stupid, is the shit you said and the rejoinder.
> 
> ...



Ummm.... wow.  Seriously.   Is the military a private charity?   

Sorry, man, I did serve.  My check always read "US GOvernment, Department of Defense."   So I find it amusing that you think that reduction in the Bloated, wasteful military isn't a reduction in government....


----------



## JoeB131 (May 28, 2012)

Toro said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > The size of "the government," you fucking idiot is NOT related to the size of the military.
> ...



Wow, I never thought I'd say this, but Good Point.  

United States Department of Defense - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Employees

*718,000 civilian*
 1,418,542 Active Duty military, 
1,100,000+ reserve: 
3.23 million total


----------



## Liability (May 28, 2012)

JoeB131 said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > My service or lack of service is -- of course  -- entirely irrelvant you dipshit.
> ...



You are beyond being just a simpleton.

OF COURSE the government pays for the military, you asshole.

But cutting government is not a synonym for simply cutting the size or the cost of (just) the military, you bubbling idiot.


----------



## Liability (May 28, 2012)

Toro said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > The size of "the government," you fucking idiot is NOT related to the size of the military.
> ...



Seriously, no shit.  We can cut SOME of the bloat of government by getting rid of needless military projects and expenses.  Nobody has ever disagreed with that proposition.  

But idiots like that asshole JoeBitch seem to view it as the ONLY way to cut the size and cost of government.  He's a dipshit.   Seriously.  He's a dogmatic, mindless, robotic dipshit.


----------



## JoeB131 (May 28, 2012)

Liability said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...



It's the largest, most wasteful department the government has.   So, yeah, Clinton cut the size of the government and certainly the size of spending when he got the military off it's Reagan-era steroids.


----------



## Liability (May 28, 2012)

JoeB131 said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



I am all for cutting the WASTE part of it.

But this is not what YOU said earlier, you scumbag vacillating bitch.

And there are MANY programs and other items in the budget worthy of serious attention for purposes of CUTTING and gutting, too.

Feel obligated to ignore all of those, you tool.


----------



## JoeB131 (May 28, 2012)

Liability said:


> Seriously, no shit.  We can cut SOME of the bloat of government by getting rid of needless military projects and expenses.  Nobody has ever disagreed with that proposition.
> 
> But idiots like that asshole JoeBitch seem to view it as the ONLY way to cut the size and cost of government.  He's a dipshit.   Seriously.  He's a dogmatic, mindless, robotic dipshit.



Where did I say it was the ONLY place to cut?  

I'm saying it's a good place to cut because there is a shitload of waste there. Saw a lot of it when I was in. 

But clearly, there's no incentive to cut spending at all if you are just going to borrow... which is what we've been doing for the last 30 years.


----------



## Liability (May 28, 2012)

JoeB131 said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > Seriously, no shit.  We can cut SOME of the bloat of government by getting rid of needless military projects and expenses.  Nobody has ever disagreed with that proposition.
> ...



Stop diddling yourself, bitch.

If you had no ability on the planet to affect one penny of the defense budget, are you saying you have other areas where you would do some chopping?

Give it up.

Share it.

Cut away.

Or shut the fuck up.  Because you aint foolin' anybody, bitch.


----------



## JoeB131 (May 28, 2012)

Liability said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...



All I said earlier is that Clinton cut the defense budget... nothing more, nothing less, and reduced the size of government.  

If you want to read other stuff into that, and make claims that the Defense Department isn't part of the government, ummm, yeah, that's just kind of weird.  

But here's the thing, you could make a list of every "wasteful" program your tiny little mind can name, most of them skewering liberal sacred cows like PBS and NEA, and you wouldn't make a dent in the budget.   In fact, you'd probalby make things worse economically, because those programs actually do create jobs, which create consumer activity.  Even your boy Romney has admitted as much.


----------



## Liability (May 28, 2012)

JoeB131 said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



I know what you said earlier, stupid.

I also know it's the ONLY thing you ever point to for cutting the alleged size of "government."

The military is a cost of government, but *it* is not the government, you fucking moron.

YOU remain unwilling and unable to answer the actual question, you mindless drone bitch.


----------



## JoeB131 (May 28, 2012)

Liability, when you are in a hole, stop digging.  

You're just making yourself look sillier.


----------



## Liability (May 28, 2012)

JoeB131 said:


> Liability, when you are in a hole, stop digging.
> 
> You're just making yourself look sillier.



Consider taking the mote of your own eye, dumbass.

You are down to bedrock and have pulled out the drills and the blasting caps.

You aren't just massively wrong, you are a complete fail.


----------



## JoeB131 (May 28, 2012)

Okay, guy, you are the one who tried to claim the military isn't the government... 

I'm really trying to give you a graceful out here...


----------



## Liability (May 28, 2012)

JoeB131 said:


> Okay, guy, you are the one who tried to claim the military isn't the government...
> 
> I'm really trying to give you a graceful out here...



*The military isn't the government you completely stupid fiuckwit asshole. 

 This isn't a junta.*

You are the one who needs a graceful out.  Sadly, douchepie, for you, none exists.

It's sad to witness how incredibly difficult it is for a moron like you to get a handle on even the glaringly obvious.


----------



## Liability (May 28, 2012)

Is the police force in your town/city/village your "government?"*

You are too fucking dopey to grasp even the crystal clear.


















___________________
* the only correct answer is "no."


----------



## JoeB131 (May 29, 2012)

Guy, you are just digging yourself in deeper and making yourself look stupider.


----------



## starcraftzzz (May 29, 2012)

Liability said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Liability, when you are in a hole, stop digging.
> ...


Notice that everyone here says that you are the dumbass. Thats not because you are smart its because you are a dumbass


----------



## Liability (May 29, 2012)

starcraftzzz said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



By "everyone" starrjizz means a dimwit like himself and another dimwit like JoeBitch.



Sorry, but it would be impossible to take you your your idiot pals seriously.


----------



## Listening (May 29, 2012)

starcraftzzz said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



Wrong, as usual.

Why don't you let the adults handle this.

BTW: This is a thread about how the GOP might take Ben Nelson's Nebrask senate seat with a relatively unknown (to federal politics).

In case you were interested in discussing the topic of the thread (for once).

"starjizz"....???? I that your new name ????


----------



## ShackledNation (May 29, 2012)

JoeB131 said:


> ShackledNation said:
> 
> 
> > I am not a supply side economist, so your reference is irrelevant. And the original argument was about the size of government, not the size of debt.
> ...


You said it yourself. If there was a reduction in the size of government, that's what did it. You don't need to raise taxes in order to cut spending. You raise taxes if you need more funding for spending or if you want to spend more. That is not idiotic, that is simply common sense.

You seem to be conflating the size of government with the size of the deficit/debt. It is possible for a very large government to have little or no debt, or a very small government to have enormous amounts of it. Higher taxes increase the amount of money the government can spend, which can not decrease government. Lower taxes decrease revenue, but if spending remains constant then government cannot be decreased simply by lowering taxes either (as you said, the money could just be borrowed). What _does_ decrease the size of government is less spending.


----------



## Listening (Jul 12, 2012)

The last I checked, RealClear had this seat a lock for the GOP.

Better hope something changes......well, liberals should hope.


----------



## Too Tall (Jul 15, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> Put Bowles-Simpson on the table, Mr. President, and tell Congress to "act or shit."



He should have done that at least two years ago.  But Golf and campaigning got in the way.


----------



## Too Tall (Jul 15, 2012)

JoeB131 said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > The fact that YOU *either* DO "believe" an obvious fraud like Fakey *or* just claim to believe that punk ass bitch tells a huge story about you, JoeB.
> ...



Yes, Orrin Hatch has not been 'driven out' since he won the Republican primary in Utah.  And everything else in your inane post is drivel.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jul 15, 2012)

Too Tall said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...



The very fact he had to work so hard to win a Republican Primary in Utah (after another conservative got beaten by a TeaBagger in 2010) because the Tea Baggers had targetted him is kind of telling.  He essentially had to go and kiss Grover Norquist's ring.  

My original post was written before Hatch had to debase himself, so there's that.  

But that's exactly my point, the GOP has become so extreme, and frankly, Romney is losing an election he should be able to win easily.


----------



## Toro (Jul 15, 2012)

Too Tall said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...



Plus, Lugar was 80 years old and hadn't owned a home in Indiana for 36 years.


----------



## Too Tall (Jul 15, 2012)

Toro said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > The size of "the government," you fucking idiot is NOT related to the size of the military.
> ...



Good post, with one question.  Do Democrats  lawmakers use military spending in their districts as well as Republicans?


----------



## Too Tall (Jul 15, 2012)

JoeB131 said:


> Too Tall said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



Your analysis of why Hatch won his primary is as bad as your broken crystal ball.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jul 15, 2012)

Toro said:


> Plus, Lugar was 80 years old and hadn't owned a home in Indiana for 36 years.



Wow, guy, you are going like Full Teabagger.   Congrats.  

The fact that Lugar who was a stalwart of support for President Reagan is now too liberal (or too old) to be part of the Wingnuttery and Batshittery that dominates the GOP these days is telling. 

And it doesn't say anything good.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jul 15, 2012)

Too Tall said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Too Tall said:
> ...



Um, the very fact he had to FIGHT in a primary shows that the GOP has gone nuts... sorry.  

You are only being sustain on the fears and racism of your base...  you have nothing to offer.


----------



## Liability (Jul 15, 2012)

JoeB131 said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> > Plus, Lugar was 80 years old and hadn't owned a home in Indiana for 36 years.
> ...



Your ability to put your alleged thoughts into English is telling.  And laughable.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jul 15, 2012)

Liability said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Toro said:
> ...



But I dance circles around you most days... when I don't have you on "ignore"...


----------



## Too Tall (Jul 15, 2012)

JoeB131 said:


> Too Tall said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



Luger lost because he took his seat for granted and didn't bother to campaign in his home state.  What you call FIGHT, normal people call campaigning. And, that is what Hatch did.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jul 15, 2012)

Too Tall said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Too Tall said:
> ...



Lugar lost and Hatch had to pander because the inmates have taken over the asylum at the GOP. 

Crazy, fringe characters are now setting the tone, whether it's Norquist wanting to drown government in a bathtub or Limbaugh calling a young woman a "slut" because she talked about her friend's ovarian cysts.


----------



## Too Tall (Jul 15, 2012)

JoeB131 said:


> Too Tall said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



Luger lost because he took his seat for granted and didn't bother to campaign in his home state.  What you call FIGHT, normal people call campaigning. And, that is what Hatch did.

What is 'sustain?'  Playing the race card is always the last resort of a moron.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jul 15, 2012)

Too Tall said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Too Tall said:
> ...



Sorry, SUSTAINED. 

If it weren't for the racists and the dumb religious people voting against their own economic interests, the GOP would get about 10% of the vote.  Because it lost the sane, sensible people a long time ago.


----------



## Too Tall (Jul 15, 2012)

JoeB131 said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > Leave it to a dopey bitch like JoeBitch to think a shrinking military equates with a smaller government.
> ...



We need you to replace Sec Leon Panetta.



> LEON PANETTA: Exactly because of what I said earlier on, that this country still confronts major challenges in today's world. We are still fighting the war on terrorism. We have got Iran. We have got North Korea. We have got all of these changes that are taking place in the Middle East.
> 
> We have got the challenges of dealing with rising powers in Asia. We have got the challenge of, you know, dealing with countries like Russia, rising countries that -- like India and others. All of that represents the kind of challenges that we are going to have to deal with in this world of the 21st century.
> 
> For that reason, we've got to be careful how we do this. Now, cutting almost $500 billion is not chump change. The fact is, it's a half-a-trillion dollars coming out of the defense budget. And that's going to impact on a lot of areas in the defense budget


Panetta on Pentagon Budget: 'Cutting Almost $500 Billion Is Not Chump Change' | PBS NewsHour | Jan. 5, 2012 | PBS


----------



## JoeB131 (Jul 15, 2012)

Too Tall said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...



Actually, I blame both parties and teh body politic as a whole.   We have fallen into the trap where we are carrying the weight of establishing world peace, while the rest of the world gets by.  But a lot of us work in industries that get Defense Dollars, so no one wants to see that gravy train derailed.


----------



## Too Tall (Jul 15, 2012)

JoeB131 said:


> Too Tall said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



You don't even know what a racist is, and some of the smartest people I know are religious.  Conversely, some of the dumbest people are atheists.  Case in point!


----------



## JoeB131 (Jul 15, 2012)

Too Tall said:


> You don't even know what a racist is, and some of the smartest people I know are religious.  Conversely, some of the dumbest people are atheists.  Case in point!



Actually, I've never met a religious person I've considered very smart.  I've seen a few who are good at twisting their brains into pretzels trying to rationalize talking snakes or why a beneficent God kills babies and can still be called "Good".   

But the fact is, if Obama were a white Republican, doing the things he's done (finding a free market solution to the Health Care Crisis, killing Bin Laden, saving the Auto Industry), you idiots would be praising him to the high heavens.


----------



## Toro (Jul 15, 2012)

JoeB131 said:


> Wow, guy, you are going like Full Teabagger.   Congrats.
> 
> The fact that Lugar who was a stalwart of support for President Reagan is now too liberal (or too old) to be part of the Wingnuttery and Batshittery that dominates the GOP these days is telling.
> 
> And it doesn't say anything good.



Saying that he was 80 years old and not living in the state he represented for nearly 4 decades does not mean one supports any political 

Though maybe you think so if you live in a Fog of Hate.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jul 16, 2012)

Toro said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Wow, guy, you are going like Full Teabagger.   Congrats.
> ...



Denial ain't a river in Egypt, guy.   

If he was replaced by someone sensible, instead of a crazy Teabagger, you might have a point.  If the "too old" or "not living in the state" were factors, they would have been factors in 2006 the last time he ran and people were ready to drive out Republicans on principle.  

Fact is, the GOP has become too crazy for sane people, which is why it needs to be defeated this year.


----------



## Listening (Oct 14, 2012)

Uh...how's he doing now ?

The last I checked....he's never made any progress in the polls.


----------

