Massachusetts Senate Race

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
61

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
Again…thanks for saying this, V:

“…He (Obama) is following the exact same path that Republicans AND Democrats (emphasis added) before him have tread. Not doing what he promised. Doing things that the people of this country do not want…”

My feeling is that the problem with the way our Government runs is a SYSTEMIC problem…and who sits (or sleeps) in a Congressional Seat (or dare I say occupies the White House?)…may make one feel better…but does not fundamentally change things.

Mufasa[/quote]

I think the SYSTEMIC problem lies in the fact that WE the VOTERS do not hold our representatives accountable. We vote for a D or an R and then we go to sleep for 2 or 4 or 6 years. Well I think what is happening is that the crunch is being felt more and more and the people who are in government who are saying, “If we have more of your money, we will make things better” well thats just not believable because what I need is more money, so how is giving the governemnt more of my money going to result in a net gain of money for me? Do they have a magic machine that when I give them money, they put it through the machine and it doubles it then they give me back 1.5 times the money and keep .5 of it for themselves? Of course not.

In reality if I gave them 100 dollars, they would keep 50 and they would give 50 back to “the people” and out of that 50, maybe I see $30 in benefit, maybe less. What I need them to do is to stop being such a huge SPENDER of my money. Find ways to spend less of my money, #1, my taxes will go down, therefore maybe I have an extra couple thousand dollars per year, and also, the businesses who I do business with to buy food, shelter, trasnportation, etc… These places will have less taxes and therefore the goods and services I purshase will also be less expensive, and that will save me another couple thousand per year.

Then They could go one step further and REFORM, areas where there is a symbiotic relationship between government and private sector. One we have already mentioned is Tort reform. The government makes the rules and a private sector, The Lawers, is getting FILTHY rich because of it. Again, how many poor lawers do you know? How many lawers end up in politics? This marriage needs to have the rules changed. The concept isn’t one that is all that hard to understand, but the one area where there is a disconnect is the people who want to save everyone.

Under my ideal system, people who do not help themselves, could wind up being very poor, and probably end up dead somewhere because of it. BUT good people die every day now, so why do we need to ruin our country so that some people who are a burden on society can live comfortably?

V

62

[quote]K2000 wrote:

[quote]John S. wrote:
The fact that you try and downplay the major victory this is shows just how far your head is shoved up your own ass.

[/quote]

OMFG, you’re right… everything just changed.

LOL
[/quote]

Puhleeeze, You are missing something very big here. MA is the most democrat based state in the nation. Talking about voting nepotism this state has got it…These people vote democrat because that what good Massachutians do, it’s what their parents did, it’s what their grandparents did. Second, the seat was held by the most liberal democrat in history and yet, in a huge swing the voters went to the right…If your a big fan of democratic power, this should scare the shit out of you…The one place this should not have happened was in Massachusetts. It is the most liberal state in the nation…
A tree stump with a (D) in front of it should have won.

63

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
I’ll bite…

What did Bush have to do with Coakley’s loss?

C’mon…

Mufasa[/quote]

I heard Howard Den say this too. “It’s really Bush’s fault…what happend here”. He was explaining to Maddow (watched MSNBC last night) that because of the last 8 years unemployment is so high from the bush era that people are still mad about it and voted for the Republican.

Wow.

The ironic thing is that this election was in a state where they already have universal health, and they hate it and want the free market insurance back.

64

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]K2000 wrote:

[quote]John S. wrote:
The fact that you try and downplay the major victory this is shows just how far your head is shoved up your own ass.

[/quote]

OMFG, you’re right… everything just changed.

LOL
[/quote]

Puhleeeze, You are missing something very big here. MA is the most democrat based state in the nation. Talking about voting nepotism this state has got it…These people vote democrat because that what good Massachutians do, it’s what their parents did, it’s what their grandparents did. Second, the seat was held by the most liberal democrat in history and yet, in a huge swing the voters went to the right…If your a big fan of democratic power, this should scare the shit out of you…The one place this should not have happened was in Massachusetts. It is the most liberal state in the nation…
A tree stump with a (D) in front of it should have won.[/quote]

Exactly - few people outside of mass seem to nderstand how powerful the Dem machine is here. What has happened is a bit like the US hockey team beating Russia back in the day.

65

People were chanting 41 and YES WE CAN at his victory speech. Friendly crowd to be sure, but at least that most visible group made it clear that they were rejecting Obama and his destructive healthcare abomination.

This guy is every bit the America hating disaster I knew he would be. I should revive my “Who is unpleasantly surprised?” thread. I think I will.

66

[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:
Word to the uninformed:

Mass. has had four Republican governors in the past decade alone:

How many of you knew that?

In light of the above, what is so “epic” about the election of a single senator?

I’ll tell you: Absolutely nothing.

You better hope that Brown loses so that you’ll all have something to bitch about for the next few years.[/quote]

The last GOP senator in my state left office in 1979…
If you dont understand how epic last night victory is, then you’re doomed to the same fate Bush bestowed on the GOP.

67

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
People were chanting 41 and YES WE CAN at his victory speech. Friendly crowd to be sure, but at least that most visible group made it clear that they were rejecting Obama and his destructive healthcare abomination.

This guy is every bit the America hating disaster I knew he would be. I should revive my “Who is unpleasantly surprised?” thread. I think I will.[/quote]

I spent many days knocking on doors and making calls - there is NO DOUBT IN MY MIND that independents were not voting against Coakley, or even for Brown, as much as they were for someone - anyone - to be the 41st vote.

68

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
I’ll bite…

What did Bush have to do with Coakley’s loss?

C’mon…

Mufasa[/quote]

Well…Coakley TRIED to run against Bush.

69

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
People were chanting 41 and YES WE CAN at his victory speech. Friendly crowd to be sure, but at least that most visible group made it clear that they were rejecting Obama and his destructive healthcare abomination.

This guy is every bit the America hating disaster I knew he would be. I should revive my “Who is unpleasantly surprised?” thread. I think I will.[/quote]

People also chanted “Kerry’s next! Kerry’s next!”

70

Katz, y’all over there are some mother fucking soldiers to bring it home like you did. I wish we here in Cali had the same motivation that you guys do, as we are suffering from a spending beast (our state govt) the same way the White House is it’s own spending machine.

71

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Katz, y’all over there are some mother fucking soldiers to bring it home like you did. I wish we here in Cali had the same motivation that you guys do, as we are suffering from a spending beast (our state govt) the same way the White House is it’s own spending machine. [/quote]

Hey thanks! Each one of us played such a small part; and yet it added up to a veritable political earthquake…:slight_smile:

What an extraordinary story it is to be part of. Aren’t you filled with gratitude to live in such a country as this? The world has never seen such a beautifully designed, constituted republic in action.

Breathtaking!

Re: Cali - I hate to say this to you, Maximus, but as a last resort I would remind those who were “sitting on the fence” that Cali is our nation’s future if we don’t stop this relentless march towards the proverbial cliff.

Yes, Cali’s in trouble; to me that means there’s all-the-more for Californians to rally around; and all-the-more reason for anger.

“The flames of insurrection are fast catching - and from one end of the continent to the other, we walk on ashes, concealing fire beneath our feet.”

72

Good job Katz. It’s the locals who drive the turn out that win elections. You guys faced the machine and won.

It is the start of a movement against one party rule. I don’t think anybody envisioned how fast Obama and the Democrats could fuck things up. Even the most naive hack doesn’t fall for the the blame Bush slogans anymore.

Obama is falling apart and just being as bad as Carter is probably the best we can hope for. In reality I fear he will be much worse.

73

What I love is that the blame bush crowd doesn’t realize if you want to blame the bad first year obama is having on bush, then bush gets to blame his bad first year, including 9-11 on Clinton, thier hero. Do they really not understand the depths of thier own hypocracy. Bush can’t possibly be responsible for 10 years or policy, he was only president for 8.

V

74

I’d also like to add, if you gave me a choice, I get to pick the president for the next 8 years, and you gave me a choice between Obama, Clinton and Bush, I would take Clinton. He was the most fiscally consrvative of all three.

V

75

Not necessarily for any other reason but no option. Congress must pass the budgets. Clinton couldn’t spend as he may have wished. We can’t know, but certainly can’t really give him the credit.

If you look at the projected budgets the Clinton Administration had for the years 2001 and on – all Administrations prepare budget projections for future years – you’ll see that Clinton’s plans for spending were considerably higher than Bush’s actual spending.

This is how Bush was constantly accused of “cutting social spending” though he in fact increased it hugely in almost every area.

The cuts were relative to what the Clinton budgets for those years had planned.

Now I will agree that this is an imperfect comparison, as it could be argued that Clinton prepared these not out of any real expectation that these amounts were appropriate to spend, but out of nastily wishing to tar his successor with charges of “cuts” when in fact his successor increased spending like a drunken sailor.

And with Obama spending money like an entire carrier group’s worth of drunken sailors.

77

… and of course, Hitler is not happy with the Taxachussetts upset:

78

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Vegita wrote:
I’d also like to add, if you gave me a choice, I get to pick the president for the next 8 years, and you gave me a choice between Obama, Clinton and Bush, I would take Clinton. He was the most fiscally consrvative of all three.

V[/quote]

Veg, Veg, Veg, I see Bill beat me to it but buddy, you have to remember the way the government spending process works.

  1. Spending bills originate in the House
  2. Must be be passed by House and Senate
  3. Signed by Prez.

Clinton was fiscally conservative in large part because he was forced to work with a Republican Congress from '94 to the end of his term.
[/quote]

All one need do is compare those last 6 years to his first 2 when he had the house and senate. Clinton had no core though to speak of. He was perfectly happy signing Republican budgets and carousing with interns. Obama is an authentic fundamentalist lefty.

79

scott brown won because fox news is more powerful than we realize. glenn beck, after the election (of course he couldn’t do it beforehand), skewered brown on both his radio show and on fox; he, in truth, finds brown to be a joke much like olbermann does.

democrats can, right now, pass a bill making it illegal to breathe air. they won’t because they lack the cohesiveness republicans have due to the ability of fox news to tune in to the hearts and minds of idiots.

80

[quote]thefederalist wrote:
scott brown won because fox news is more powerful than we realize. glenn beck, after the election (of course he couldn’t do it beforehand), skewered brown on both his radio show and on fox; he, in truth, finds brown to be a joke much like olbermann does.

democrats can, right now, pass a bill making it illegal to breathe air. they won’t because they lack the cohesiveness republicans have due to the ability of fox news to tune in to the hearts and minds of idiots. [/quote]

It was that Fox news and Glenn beck that took down Massachusetts? Is Scott perfect? No. Is he the best conservative Massachusetts would elect? Yep. If he does well does he set the stage for it to move even further right? Yep.

I wouldn’t have said anything till after the race either. Scott Brown kills health care and cap and trade, why would Glenn say anything till afterwords?

Anyone who took a look at his voting record for more then 5 minutes knew what he was about. So unless you are saying Glenn beck and Fox news are the only people smart enough to look at his voting record; thus calling everyone in Massachusetts retarded, then how can you blame Glenn Beck and Fox news.

In fact what Glenn is saying is he doesn’t trust him. And given recent events who can blame him. I am glad he won, If he keeps to his promises he will do great. Does that mean I am not going to watch him like a hawk? hell no.