snuffy
Cave Dweller
Member since May 2009
Posts: 4,319
|
Post by snuffy on Sept 9, 2010 20:47:21 GMT -5
Something odd is going on as the campaign ads and signs are cranking up full steam. The democrat guy running for governor of Texas shows an ad to vote for him and there is no democrat word on the ad. The Republicans running for offices have Republican listed boldly on their signs and ads. The democrats,nothing but their name and what they are running for. Seems like they are ashamed to put democrat on the signs and ads. I was just wondering if anyone noticed this in your area.
snuffy
|
|
|
Post by Toad on Sept 9, 2010 22:37:11 GMT -5
They are also distancing themselves from Obama.
|
|
|
Post by jakesrocks on Sept 9, 2010 22:42:21 GMT -5
O who ?
|
|
|
Post by sandsman1 on Sept 10, 2010 0:29:23 GMT -5
there just tryin to hide after they f-d up everything, your just supposed to forget the last year and remember the last month befor election when they change there tune and say they had nothing to do with whats been goin on like harry reid just did --- haha NOT WORKIN
|
|
|
Post by texaswoodie on Sept 10, 2010 5:59:07 GMT -5
Yup, Bill White has never put Democrat on one of his ads. When he first started running I went to his website to find out who he was and had to look over the entire website to determine that he was indeed a Democrat. I think it made one reference.
Democrat is a toxic word right now.
Curt
|
|
|
Post by tkrueger3 on Sept 10, 2010 11:49:14 GMT -5
For me, personally, I'd just as soon none of them put party affiliation on any ads. I prefer to vote for the most qualified person, the one who espouses the ideas and principles that I believe in, the one whose plans and programs are those with which I can agree. I don't care if that person is Democrat, Republican, Independent, Libertarian, black, white, green, purple, or whatever. I do not pull the partyline lever. And I don't care to vote AGAINST anyone; rather, I vote FOR the one I think will do the best job. I despise mud-slinging campaigns. I want to know what the candidate stands for, not what he/she thinks of the opposition.
That's just me, of course, YMMV. ;D
Tom
|
|
|
Post by susand24224 on Sept 10, 2010 14:07:26 GMT -5
Thank you, Tom,
Susan
|
|
|
Post by texaswoodie on Sept 10, 2010 17:35:20 GMT -5
That's a noble idea and one I subscribed to for many years. The last 12 years and particularly the last 2 have changed my mind. Now I would vote for a Republican, an Independent, a Libertarian, or a mongrel dog, but not a Democrat.
Curt
|
|
|
Post by jakesrocks on Sept 10, 2010 18:18:08 GMT -5
The mongrel dog would probably be the best bet. At least they're loyal to their masters.
Don
|
|
jerryde
starting to spend too much on rocks
Member since November 2005
Posts: 246
|
Post by jerryde on Sept 10, 2010 20:30:03 GMT -5
Years ago I made the mistake voting for Ken Salazar for senator from Colorado...He was a fair attorney general...but when he arrived in D.C. as all new people do...you get in line and drop your drawers...as the party tell you... This last election is a prime example...people voted for a great guy ready for change...result in 18 mo. you and your kids have a tax bill of over 1.5 trillion dollars...more than "ALL" previous presidents budgets combined...and that does not include "Obama's Health Care Bill" and that is already over 1 trillion in debt and only a small part has been put in place... and, the debt goes on and on...guess what another bail out bill...
A person is just so misinformed if you think your one guy will make a difference in a sea of 535 big spenders in the house...or 120 over rated policy makers in the senate... It only works in your own home town...when you can look at them face to face in your own coffee shop...
|
|
jerryde
starting to spend too much on rocks
Member since November 2005
Posts: 246
|
Post by jerryde on Sept 11, 2010 0:18:11 GMT -5
You know I must got the Obama bug...stimulus...inflation the numbers...must be the all the wild fire smoke west of Boulder, Co...or all the illegal weeds they found and burned.. 435 in the house...100 in the senate...
|
|
|
Post by parfive on Sept 11, 2010 1:29:10 GMT -5
Don’t stop there, Jerry - straighten this one out for me too. ;D
“ . . . result in 18 mo. you and your kids have a tax bill of over 1.5 trillion dollars...more than "ALL" previous presidents budgets combined”
|
|
grayfingers
Cave Dweller
Member since November 2007
Posts: 4,575
|
Post by grayfingers on Sept 11, 2010 15:21:15 GMT -5
|
|
Sabre52
Cave Dweller
Me and my gal, Rosie
Member since August 2005
Posts: 20,466
|
Post by Sabre52 on Sept 11, 2010 18:01:43 GMT -5
Since I believe in a meritocracy, I like Tom's idea about voting for the most qualified candidate but unfortunately, politicians on both sides sell their souls to their party right after we elect them and the guy who seems to be a good common sense moderate, turns out to be just another corrupt party line voting drone. I've liked a lot of Dems at first look and some of their lies sound good but when it comes time to their votes, they sell out and become just another friggin progressive, tax-and- spend, wealth redistributing, lefty hack. I don't really like any career politicians much but Republicans seem to be more in line with my ideals and with them, you pretty much know what you're getting. And look at the lefty judges Obama appointed. They flat lie their way into office and then they show their true colors.....Mel
|
|
|
Post by parfive on Sept 11, 2010 19:39:13 GMT -5
What’s all that, Gray . . . teabag accounting 101?
The day Obama walked in the door, the debt was about $10.7 trillion, and about 80% of that was Reagan and a couple of Bushes.
Before he even took a dump that first day, the CBO had projected a $1.2 trillion deficit, so he didn’t triple it to $1.4T as fauxnews has raved. He’s due as much blame for that as any other congressman.
As for the stimulus bill costing more than the Iraq war . . . more teabag math. Try again. So far, they’ve only spent $515B of the $787B stimulus, so the Iraq war at (supposedly) $709B (and counting) wins.
And just for ha has, a third of the stimulus doesn’t even count – tax cuts!!! There’s hardly a republikan alive that says tax cuts should count towards the debt or the deficit. And even if they did, my pal Cheney says deficits don’t matter.
He was right, too, until the guy in the White House had a better tan than Boehner.
|
|
jerryde
starting to spend too much on rocks
Member since November 2005
Posts: 246
|
Post by jerryde on Sept 11, 2010 21:35:20 GMT -5
Man, I wonder who had all the House and Senate control during Bush's last term...that approved all that spending...?
|
|
jerryde
starting to spend too much on rocks
Member since November 2005
Posts: 246
|
Post by jerryde on Sept 11, 2010 21:44:30 GMT -5
You got it..the same people running the show today...
|
|
grayfingers
Cave Dweller
Member since November 2007
Posts: 4,575
|
Post by grayfingers on Sept 12, 2010 20:02:45 GMT -5
Parfive, One could ask you the same question concerning accounting, I guess you consider the Bureau of the Public Debt and the Washington examiner to be teabaggers. It seems there are two differing opinions on what the debt was when Obama took office. CBS claims "The National Debt stood at $10.6-trillon on the day Barack Obama took office." The Bureau of the Public Debt seems to see it differently. This graphic is from Heritage.org If you read the articles I linked you will see the following. "When President Barack Obama took the oath of office on Jan. 20, 2009, the total federal debt held by the public stood at 6.3073 trillion, according to the Bureau of the Public Debt, a division of the U.S. Treasury Department. As of Aug. 20, 2010, after the first nineteen months of President Obama’s 48-month term, the total federal debt held by the public had grown to a total of $8.8333 trillion, an increase of $2.5260 trillion." "* Obama's stimulus, passed in his first month in office, will cost more than the entire Iraq War -- more than $100 billion (15%) more. * Just the first two years of Obama's stimulus cost more than the entire cost of the Iraq War under President Bush, or six years of that war. * Iraq War spending accounted for just 3.2% of all federal spending while it lasted. * Iraq War spending was not even one quarter of what we spent on Medicare in the same time frame. * Iraq War spending was not even 15% of the total deficit spending in that time frame. The cumulative deficit, 2003-2010, would have been four-point-something trillion dollars with or without the Iraq War. * The Iraq War accounts for less than 8% of the federal debt held by the public at the end of 2010 ($9.031 trillion). * During Bush's Iraq years, 2003-2008, the federal government spent more on education that it did on the Iraq War. (State and local governments spent about ten times more.)" For the record, I am not here to defend Bush. He spent like the liberal congress he was dealing with. He started us down this road, but Obama has taken the spending to levels that we can not recover from. What matters now is what is happening now.
|
|
jerryde
starting to spend too much on rocks
Member since November 2005
Posts: 246
|
Post by jerryde on Sept 12, 2010 21:18:13 GMT -5
and this is from a guy that had a better idea and your future at heart...
remember his speech after throwing Rev. Wright under the bus...he said you would have to change...he did not say that he would...you had to...
|
|
|
Post by jakesrocks on Sept 12, 2010 21:47:15 GMT -5
Change you can believe in. Yeh right ! That would be the change left in your pocket, after Obama takes all of the green folding stuff from you.
|
|