jump to last post 1-46 of 46 discussions (186 posts)

"GOP's Brown wins Mass. Senate seat in EPIC upset": Yahoo!

  1. fishskinfreak2008 profile image31
    fishskinfreak2008posted 7 years ago

    FUCK. This year will be DISASTROUS for Dems, especially when we consider that Connecticut Sen. Chris Dodd, a senior Democrat who is chairman of the Senate Banking Committee is not running for a sixth term.

    Web-site/URL: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_massachusetts_senate

    1. Marquis profile image61
      Marquisposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Fishskinfreak needs to calm himself. Evidently he was unaware that the people in Massachusetts were all brain dead liberals who march lock - step to the sounds of the socialist drummer.

      This is only the beginning. People around America within every state will cast their votes against the soft fascist regime known as the Obama Administration put into office based on lies from their leader, the most non - accomplished socialist/defacto Muslim of all time-

      Barack
      Hussein
      Obama
      II

      Name sounds like that of a despot from the ancient days of Persia.

      1. Ralph Deeds profile image69
        Ralph Deedsposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        The "brain dead liberals" voted for Brown. The others for Coakley.

        1. profile image0
          A Texanposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Do you mean the actual dead? That wouldn't surprise me.

          1. Ralph Deeds profile image69
            Ralph Deedsposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            Not bad, Tex!

            1. profile image0
              A Texanposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              So glad you approve.

    2. profile image59
      patspnnposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Not only Dodd but there are several other dems and rep. bowing out of their careers.  What happened last night with the Brown election is some serious business for dems.  However there is still time before the midterm elections for the dems to recover if they know how

  2. Ralph Deeds profile image69
    Ralph Deedsposted 7 years ago

    The pundits will be analyzing this election for a month. I don't believe there is a simple explanation. There are a lot of Hannity and O'Reilly fans in Boston. And the "usual suspects" played an important role, even right wing California doctors--

    Spending Supporting Brown or Attacking Coakley:

    * The Tea Party Express PAC: $285,000 on e-mail and Internet newsletters and media buys.

    * The Chamber of Commerce: $1,001,400 for media buys.

    * Americans for Job Security, an organization created by the American Insurance Association: $479,268 for media buys.

    * American Future Fund, a conservative anti-tax group (John Kerry says created the "Swift Boat" attacks on him): $409,000

    * Cooperative of American Physicians, an association of California-based doctors: $35,400 for robo-calls.

    * National Organization for Marriage, a group against gay marriage: $50,000 on calls.

    * National Republican Trust PAC, a PAC dedicated to "protecting the legacy of Ronald Reagan" and supported by Dick Morris: $96,000 on media buys.

    * National Rifle Association PAC: $19,000 for postcards.

    1. profile image0
      A Texanposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Whats to analyze? Another vote against Obama is all it is, he's a one termer, I have told you that.Hey Ron Montgomery, people sure hate them Republicans don't they! lol

      1. Ron Montgomery profile image62
        Ron Montgomeryposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Yes they do.  Apparently even Brown does.  He went pretty far out of his way to distance himself from the party during this campaign.

        People don't hate ALL Republicans.  I'm sure you are universally adored by all who have met you.

        1. profile image0
          A Texanposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          That big (R) next to his name on the ballot let people know who they were voting for, your claims of no more Republicans being elected doesn't seem to be going the way you predicted, and yes I am universally loved.

          1. Ron Montgomery profile image62
            Ron Montgomeryposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              No more Republican P R E S I D E N T S.  Seriously, all you do is mis-read posts and confuse yourself. Seriously.

            1. profile image0
              A Texanposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              Thats not what you have said, but I will give it to you now, 2012 will see another Republican elected President and a return of Power to NORMALCY!

              1. rhamson profile image74
                rhamsonposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                Do you think the Republicans have the answer to normalcy?  The politicians truly hope you do.  It does not matter which party is in power.  They all feed off of us and give us nothing in return.  Why do you think the lobbyists pay both candidates campaign money?  They already know what the outcome is.  They will deal with either party because they have bought them.  The republicans under "W" raped the treasury through wars and goverment contracts to support them, gave tax breaks to the very rich which resulted in a collosal reccession,  bailed out their buddies on Wall Street and swelled a goverment mealticket the likes of which we have never seen before.  Obama is headed the same way except he has done it on our childrens' children future.

                Define normalcy for me so it has some meaning that can be explained.

                1. profile image0
                  A Texanposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                  Rhamson, you say this as if you haven't said it 10 times this week already! Let me help you out,WE GET IT!!! The next two years will not bring about an independent candidate that will sweep into power fixing all that is wrong, it just ain't gonna happen. The voters have had a taste of hope and change or rather bait and switch and they don't like it, a Republican will win and the normalcy I talk about will be business as usual!

                  1. rhamson profile image74
                    rhamsonposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                    I am sorry I did not pick up on your sarcasm when you referred to "normalcy" as a return to the same old crap and instead to something new and refreshing. 

                    I too agree that the electorate will still want to fool around with the slime on the hill and their false promises rather than taking more of an independent route.

                    I also appologize for the constant reference to the broken two party system and how wrong people are for having any confidence it will create any good change.  I only do this as it has to be repeated enough to get it through some peoples heads.

              2. readytoescape profile image59
                readytoescapeposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                I may have to disagree with you, at least for now, I think an independent candidate for the very first time stands a very strong and legitimate change to win the Presidency. More than likely it will be a Constitutional Conservative that takes hold of this position but the numbers of unaffiliated voters is growing and that will be the difference. Most have seen to many years and administrations built on party politics and I do not think the party lines will carry much longer.

  3. Petra Vlah profile image60
    Petra Vlahposted 7 years ago

    Can anybody tell us how much the Democrats have spend? Rumor has it that Obama's campaign alone cost 2 million dollars

  4. profile image0
    Ghost32posted 7 years ago

    Hey, I'M happy!  Brown's election gave me plenty of material for my latest hub predicting Massachusetts will vote for Sarah Palin (and of course for Scott Brown at the same time, for a full Senatorial term) in 2012.  big_smile

    1. easyspeak profile image79
      easyspeakposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Do you really think Mass will vote for Sarah Palin...really?  This was a vote on healthcare, not on a person or party.  But I doubt they would go as far as voting for palin.

  5. profile image0
    cosetteposted 7 years ago

    oh the HUMANITY yikeswink

  6. rebekahELLE profile image91
    rebekahELLEposted 7 years ago

    oh, gee, now an ex cosmo pin up takes senator ted kennedy's seat.

    1. profile image0
      A Texanposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Oh "dead Ted" doesn't mind.

  7. tony0724 profile image60
    tony0724posted 7 years ago

    This was a statement against Big Government ! This was about the American people reclaiming their voice. The first cannon shot just went over the bow !

  8. kingis profile image80
    kingisposted 7 years ago

    I am very surprised a heavily Democratic and liberal state like Massachusetts elected a Republican like Scott Brown.  I watched his acceptance speech and he sounds like the real deal.  The only other Republican I know from the Commonwealth is Mitt Romney.  This election is clearly a referendum on the policies of the President.  Now, we will see what shapes up in the healthcare debate and other policies.

    1. rhamson profile image74
      rhamsonposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      I really think this is a vote against the awful health bill congress is trying to shove down our throats.  The democrats are plowing ahead to win the battle and lose the war.  The independents are not happy with this crap bill and this is the quickest response they can give to stop it.

      The health bill has been bungled from the beginning by the notion that Obama left it up to congress to write it as a shot at bi partisan harmony. These slimebags couldn't write a fair bill if their life depended on it.  Just look at the bribery and sweetheart deals that are included in it.

      The vote turned out as it should have but let's see how long Brown will keep his promise of representing the "people's" seat and not get drawn into the slimebags clutches.

  9. girly_girl09 profile image75
    girly_girl09posted 7 years ago

    The fact of the matter is that no seat is safe. That being the case, I was a bit surprised from the get-go that the Dems weren't putting in as many resources as usual. Not sure what happened there... I have seen this happen on the GOP end (too many times!!), but not from the Dems.   

    Either way, today's results are extremely significant. I'm not sure how anyone could believe otherwise. Much like '06 was for the GOP.

    Lastly, money simply did not win this seat -- just as though money did not win Obama the presidency.

    1. Jeffrey Neal profile image88
      Jeffrey Nealposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Oh the Dems pulled out all the stops. Did you hear that the President even showed up in Mass. after previously saying there were no plans to? You are right that money didn't win the race.  Ralph is only telling one part of the story.

      http://www.opensecrets.org/races/summar … cycle=2010

      Coakley's campaign spent five times what Brown's did.

  10. ledefensetech profile image79
    ledefensetechposted 7 years ago

    Is that what you're reduced to Ralph?  There are a lot of Hannity and O'Reilly fans in Boston?  Um, Brown may have gotten money from around the country, but only citizens of MA voted.  Oh wait, you're a liberal, you don't think that people can make their own decisions and live their own lives without guidance from above.

    1. SweetiePie profile image86
      SweetiePieposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Ralph Deeds happens to be one of the most independent thinkers here.  Why do you always insult people?

      1. ledefensetech profile image79
        ledefensetechposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        No he's not Sweetie.  You only think that because you agree with him. 

        You're not privy to some conversations which we had a while back.  Ralph is of the firm belief that more regulation is a good thing.  So I asked him how you keep industries that are regulated from dominating the regulatory agencies.  He has yet to provide a reasonable, rational answer to that question.  Until he does, I will continue to call him out on his inconsistencies.

        You may consider that to be insulting, but I find it insulting to have someone make unsubstantiated comments and act like an authority with absolutely nothing to back it up.

        1. SweetiePie profile image86
          SweetiePieposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          To be honest several people have said the same thing about you.  Also, liberals vary and have widely different opinions as you would know.  I actually am probably happier with many of Obama's policies than Ralph is.  Seriously, you really love to judge people, and that is about it.

          1. ledefensetech profile image79
            ledefensetechposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            What's wrong with judging people by what they do and say?  I've never denied that I have criteria by which I define things.  Tha'ts how rational people act.

            1. SweetiePie profile image86
              SweetiePieposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              That is merely your interpretation of the facts.  By the way, when you consider yourself to be overly rational I believe you miss out on some of the finer points in life, such as being cordial, diplomatic, and open minded.  You may be upfront about what you are, but your strong belief that your opinions are more rational than others is just, well your opinion.  Blue Dog even mentioned the other day that he asked you a few questions you could never sufficiently answer.  Pgrundy has pointed out the same thing.  I noticed girly_girl seems to make her points without putting others down. 

              Being judgemental, not good because everyone has a different idea of what is best.  I guess this is why politics gets boring after awhile because who really cares who thinks they know the most all the time.

              1. ledefensetech profile image79
                ledefensetechposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                That is where we disagree.  You seem to believe that all things are relative.  I do not.  There are certain natural laws that govern the universe and we can best live in peace when we live in harmony with those laws. 

                And no, being rational is not just an opinion, in order to be rational you have to use logic.  As an example, let me ask you this:  How can you help the poor and downtrodden by taking from the rich and giving to the poor?  Won't that, over time, make everyone poor?  That is the one of the many fallacies of the liberal left in the United States today.  That is why many of them are irrational, they make false assumptions about many things and can't or won't question those assumptions.

                Another example.  If I'm what most liberals would term a conservative, why am I against foreign interventions?

                1. SweetiePie profile image86
                  SweetiePieposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                  I know you have these grandiose ideas about how things should be, but I seriously think you should run for office if you want to implement some of that.

                  1. profile image0
                    Kenrick Chatmanposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                    The Democrats will probably win the seat back in 2012. Hopefully this is a wake up call for them to unite and get things done.

                  2. ledefensetech profile image79
                    ledefensetechposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                    I have more respect for myself than to associate with those criminals in DC.  I'd rather make an honest living than living off the backs of people who work for a living.

          2. profile image0
            A Texanposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            Seriously, all you do is judge people, seriously!

            1. Ron Montgomery profile image62
              Ron Montgomeryposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              Seriously?

              1. profile image0
                A Texanposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                Seriously! But all you do is misjudge the electorate, at least you're consistently wrong.

      2. profile image0
        A Texanposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        roll Wheres the insult?

  11. ledefensetech profile image79
    ledefensetechposted 7 years ago

    It's a vote against Big Brother is what it is.  Should Palin align herself with smaller government advocates and she shows that she's committed, not just "change" and "hope", yes even people in Massachusetts will vote for her.  They voted for Bush I instead of their hometown boy in '88 didn't they?

  12. easyspeak profile image79
    easyspeakposted 7 years ago

    Hmmm, that's true.  I'm really starting to like Mass.  They have a mind of their own.  It's kinda refreshing.

  13. ledefensetech profile image79
    ledefensetechposted 7 years ago

    It's a strange place, that's for sure.  I lived there for several years while my dad was stationed on a military base on Cape Cod.  The year we left, the high school I went to lost its accreditation because the voters refused a tax increase because they already paid too much in taxes.  I guess the Dems never figured out that you can't tax people forever before they decide that they don't want Dems in office any more.

  14. easyspeak profile image79
    easyspeakposted 7 years ago

    hahaha, that's funny.  it's so fitting that mass would fight back against taxes!

    I love MA.  Went there on a business trip in 2003, went through boston, salem, worchester..never figured out why it's pronounced that way. 

    Loved the people there.  They were nice but direct.  It was refreshing as I came from the south where no one ever says what they think.

  15. profile image0
    Poppa Bluesposted 7 years ago

    It`s appropriate that in the place where freedom began the people once again affirmed their desire for freedom! Obama ran on a platform of change but he has demonstrated that change was not as he said rejecting lobbyist run government, reaching across the isle and governing from the middle, or legislating in the open. No, Obama`s change is to transform America into a socialist republic and even the liberals in MA rejected that notion! In a state where only 12% of the voters are reoublican, the people have spoken loudly and clesrly that we intend to keep our freedom!

    1. Ron Montgomery profile image62
      Ron Montgomeryposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Actually no, they haven't done that at all.  Some people will try to make more out of this than it is.  All that happened is that a lousy candidate ran a terrible campaign and lost.  This isn't Lexington / Concord and Obama is not King George.

      1. profile image0
        Poppa Bluesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Yeah sure, the socialist democrats will try to downplay this and spin it blaming Coakley alone, but the trend is clear and if the democrats don`t shift back to the middle and scrap healthcare there won`t be a single one standing after 2012! America doesn`t want to become France we don`t want to be a socialist republic!

        1. kerryg profile image88
          kerrygposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          But the thing is, Massachusetts has the most socialized health care in the nation, and is one of the only states that actually has something to LOSE by adopting Obamacare.

          I don't think this was a referendum on health care so much as the people of Massachusetts spitting in the Dems' faces for taking them for granted and running such a godawful candidate, but if it was, you could argue just as easily that the people of Massachusetts want Obamacare to die so they can KEEP their socialized medicine.

    2. SweetiePie profile image86
      SweetiePieposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      A vote for a new senator is hardly a vote against Obama.  In 1994 the Democrats were largely voted out of the Senate, but Clinton was re-elected in 1996.  The funny thing is I have noticed that everyone is declaring this a vote against Obama, but that is hardly the case.  Many true progressives want a more liberal government, and Obama is assuredly quite moderate. With a Democratic Congress we have simply had a further push for health care, and our country is so behind the rest of the world really on this.  People are so funny, a vote for a governor or president is not a vote against Obama.  Of course all the hype leads to a fun drama filled discussion.

      1. profile image0
        A Texanposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        What drama? This is a clear vote against Obama, hide and watch.

      2. ledefensetech profile image79
        ledefensetechposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        You ignore the fact that a majority of Americans don't seem to want any part of a progressive agenda.  After reading up on things like the Great Depression, I can hardly blame them.  Things like universal healthcare and welfare are blinds.  They conceal a form of economic slavery.  You won't, after all, vote against the people who give you "free" stuff will you.  Especially when you become dependent on it.  Government intervention takes your choices away, it doesn't expand your choices.  Only the free market does that.

        1. SweetiePie profile image86
          SweetiePieposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          It works well in the UK and many progressive European countries that have universal health care models.  It is only a manner of time before people in the US shift their way of thinking.  Actually from state to state many people are in favor of health care.  In California health care reform is quite popular, and we happen to be the most populace state in the country.  As I said I just do not trust large businesses, or even small ones to run unchecked.  This is hardly socialistic, just realistic.  Just because businesses cannot put you in prison does not mean I feel happy.  What if someone running a business is conducting himself like Madoff?  In cases like that I am glad there are laws that keep everyone in check.

          1. ledefensetech profile image79
            ledefensetechposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            I'd argue it doesn't work well.  Ever hear about Gamon's Theory of Bureaucratic Displacement?

            http://hadm.sph.sc.edu/Courses/Econ/CLA … edman.html

            That's one of the few articles Milton Friedman wrote that I remotely agree with.  That explains why you can increase spending on things like schools, roads, etc. and see them decline over time.  We spend more now per student than at any time in the history of the US, yet our schools routinely graduate kids who can't read, write or do something as simple as make change.

            Caveat emptor is as true today as it was in the days of Rome.  If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is.  People will always do stupid things because they think they can get a "steal".  You can't keep people from making mistakes.  "Saving" people for the consequences of their mistakes only ensure that they will continue to make them.  Besides Madoff ripped off a bunch of rich people who should have known better.  They acted stupidly and got exactly what they deserved.  Um, laws didn't seem to keep him in check did they?  He still tried to rip off a bunch of people.

            I hate to tell you Sweetie, but just because CA is the most populous state, that doesn't mean that what CA thinks is the right way to do things is the best thing for the country as a whole.  If you're so concerned about universal health care and think CA can find a way to make it work, then by all means pass it for Californians and prove the opposition wrong. 

            Of course CA is bankrupt due to their support of unions and the gigantic welfare system they have, so it might be that those schemes concocted by politicians don't work as advertised.  Hasn't CA been losing population for years because of high taxes and over-regulation of business?

      3. Sab Oh profile image59
        Sab Ohposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        In this case it was, in large part, a vote against Obama and what his administration has come to represent in the minds of voters. In '94 Clinton at least had the sense to get the message and run for his life to the center. The State of the Union Address doesn't suggest Obama has gotten the message yet. I imagine a lot of democrats in the Congress have gotten it though.

  16. readytoescape profile image59
    readytoescapeposted 7 years ago

    This election was neither Democrat nor Republican. It was about telling both parties and those in power to shove it. The midterms are going to be even more of a shock to the status quos and party politics as usual. The People are flat tired of the BS and backroom deals and are realizing the Vote has real power and they are going to wield it.

    Incumbents better make plans for new careers come Christmas and the to Major parties better revamp or close up shop.

    1. Petra Vlah profile image60
      Petra Vlahposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      I agree 100%. That's what this election was about.

      1. profile image0
        A Texanposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        And you are 100% wrong!

        1. readytoescape profile image59
          readytoescapeposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          As one Republican to another, perhaps you should peek out of the Republican cloister and smell the winds of dissention. Not the stench of the Liberal Progressive dream, but the fact that the electorate is feed up. A strong Constitutional Conservative Candidate is going to rise, and will carry the independent vote as well as gleaning considerable power from both Republicans and Democrats.

          Scott Brown won on this very strategy, he disavowed the Republican platform and politics as usual, spoke of Constitutional duties and his responsibility to the electorate. And like Brown, this Candidate may have an “R” in front of his name but this candidate will more than likely be a staunch Constitutionalist.

          And for the record, I have never been 100% wrong.

          1. profile image0
            A Texanposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            You are 100% wrong if you think I'm a Republican! I guess you think that the R on the ballot somehow doesn't mean anything?

    2. thejcrevelator2 profile image60
      thejcrevelator2posted 7 years ago in reply to this

      You are so right about the process.  The Democrats made this process of REFORM require REFORM.  The secret deals, pay-offs and just plain dishonesty was what killed any hope for something better for the over 40 million without healthcare and that includes 8 million children.

      We need to flush the entire congress, but it will not happen.

      The real problem is the system is now so corrupt nothing good can come from it.

      1. profile image0
        A Texanposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Is there a thejcrevelator1?

  17. profile image0
    Poppa Bluesposted 7 years ago

    Apparently the government thinks so as well since many are opting to lease toll roads and even paking meters to private industry for up front cash!

  18. ledefensetech profile image79
    ledefensetechposted 7 years ago

    Look at companies like Blackwater and other civilian security companies.  They routinely do stuff that had been the province of the military.  The funny thing is that private companies can do the so-called "public good" services at much less cost to government than the government can to the people.  So why not just take out the middleman?  I can assure you that if I owned a network of roads and were charging a toll, that I'd have any potholes filled in and smoothed over pretty quick.

    1. SweetiePie profile image86
      SweetiePieposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Maybe you would, but not all businesses have savvy practices.  I simply would not trust big businesses to run alone without oversight.  Things are pretty good here in America now, but I hope for more health care reform down the line.

      1. ledefensetech profile image79
        ledefensetechposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        There is a difference between business and big business.  Look at GE and how much they stand to make if cap-and-trade and other "smart" grid technologies are forced on the American citizenry.  The only problem is that there are plenty of people who would opt out for such a system, for various reasons.  That's why GE and their subsidiary NBC are in bed with the Obama administration.

        It's business ties with the government that allow them to get away with bad business practices.  I trust business more than government.  Can you explain to me why Lasik surgery, which is not covered by any private or public insurance, has dropped in price, when most medical procedures that are covered under insurance, private or public, have gone up in cost.

        Besides, if I didn't smooth over the roads and make people's rides enjoyable, people would stop using my roads and someone else would move in and force me out of business.  That's what's called enlightened self-interest.  I have to care about the needs of my people, otherwise I won't be in charge of meeting that need anymore.  Anyone who can't do that deserves to go bankrupt.

      2. profile image0
        A Texanposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Things are pretty good in States without Democrat control.

    2. Ron Montgomery profile image62
      Ron Montgomeryposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      I don't think bringing up Blackwater does much as far as making the case for privatization.  That's like saying Sarah Palin is a fine example of successful literacy programs in Alaska.

      1. profile image0
        A Texanposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        You gotta crush on Sarah dont you?

        1. Ron Montgomery profile image62
          Ron Montgomeryposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Yup, I likes'em purty and stupid.

      2. ledefensetech profile image79
        ledefensetechposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        It would be nice if you had something more than rhetoric behind your words, Ron.  Really I expect better from you.

        1. Ron Montgomery profile image62
          Ron Montgomeryposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          It would also be nice if you actually did some research before posting ridiculous positions like brandishing blackwater as a model for privitizing government functions.  Sometimes you just make it too easy.

          1. ledefensetech profile image79
            ledefensetechposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            As opposed to things like Abu Gharib or Mai Lai?  Wars produce atrocities.  To be clear, this is not an indictment of our soldiers, it's an incitement of the institution that allows such things to occur.  Blackwater was nearly destroyed for allowing that atrocity to occur.  The Army practices CYA. 

            You also miss the import of companies like Blackwater.  Now only were they used because they could do the job for less money than the national government could, they could also afford to pay their employees much more than the Army could.  So they charged less and paid more.  Hey, how is that possible.  Everyone "knows" how greedy capitalists are.

  19. Arthur Fontes profile image88
    Arthur Fontesposted 7 years ago

    HaHaHaHaHaha  I can only hope Barry O will campaign for every liberal in 2010.

  20. marinealways24 profile image59
    marinealways24posted 7 years ago

    I guess she should have guessed the right team that Curt Schilling pitched for. lol

  21. Ralph Deeds profile image69
    Ralph Deedsposted 7 years ago

    Ldt: "No they wouldn't.  One of the reasons I think you believe the way you do is because there has not been much scholarship done on the late 19th century, especially as concerns the Farmers' Alliance.  Nor has there been much taught in our universities about the differences between the visions of Hamilton and Jefferson in the early days of the Republic.  Those arguments are still germane today."

    In case you hadn't noticed, we are now in the 21st century! There have been a few minor developments since the bucolic days of the 17-19th centuries for which you apparently yearn. (I hesitate to comment lest I become stuck to HubPages' "tar baby!"

    1. Arthur Fontes profile image88
      Arthur Fontesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Jefferson was right!

    2. profile image0
      Poppa Bluesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Not the least of which has been the progressive view that the constitution is a living document the interpretation of which should change with the times and the strengthening of the federal government at the expense of the states and the people which is why something like this health care bill is even being considered and why the feds are being forced to bribe senators for support!

      1. SweetiePie profile image86
        SweetiePieposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Many corporations have also bribed senators to vote against health care reform.  As if any side is more angelic than the other LOL.  At the end of the day it sounds to me as if some people are frustrated with some part of their life, so they take it out on the government.  No government is perfect, but to hear some here you would think we live in Communist China of the 1950's.

        1. profile image0
          A Texanposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          If you don't start listening to some here communism is just what you might get!

        2. Arthur Fontes profile image88
          Arthur Fontesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          We are dealing with an administration that has members who think Mao was a great philosopher.

          1. profile image0
            A Texanposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            You're paranoid or I'm paranoid, someone is paranoid!

            1. Arthur Fontes profile image88
              Arthur Fontesposted 7 years ago in reply to this
  22. ledefensetech profile image79
    ledefensetechposted 7 years ago

    Ah Ralph, I knew you'd join us sooner or later.  You know there have been periods of devolution, the waning of the Roman Empire comes to mind.  Civilization was dealt such a blow it was centuries before the common man's standard of living approached that of the average Roman, much less exceeded it.

    It's obvious you have no sense of what has come before, without know that, how can you be sure you know what's coming?  You can't.

  23. Arthur Fontes profile image88
    Arthur Fontesposted 7 years ago

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zq0-nNIZhbY

    In full disclosure Anita Dunn has since resigned since saying Mao was one of her favorite philosophers.

    1. profile image0
      A Texanposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      They seem to drop like flies when they are outed.

  24. SweetiePie profile image86
    SweetiePieposted 7 years ago

    California's population is growing every day, so I do not know where you get your statistics.  I work with the public, and I am always signing people up for new library cards.  Many have moved to California.  Sure our state has some economic difficulties, but we also have the largest population, so that is to be had.  I would not want to live in any other state, besides Hawaii, so life out here is quite grand.  The taxes are not really that high, unless you own a great deal of real estate or something.  If you do, well then you choose to own that property, and should expect to pay taxes.  The climate, cultural diversity, well stocked libraries, well we have many pluses too.  We are not some veritable waste land, and many people move here every day actually.

  25. SweetiePie profile image86
    SweetiePieposted 7 years ago

    California's population is still increasing quite steadily.

    http://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/stor … ily38.html

    If people leave because they hate the taxes, well there will always be many new people to arrive in their place.

  26. ledefensetech profile image79
    ledefensetechposted 7 years ago

    I get the feeling that most of the incoming immigration is due to people who want to sponge off the welfare system.  So you have the most productive members leaving while more and more destitute (or not so destitute) arrive to take advantage of all the "free" stuff.  That's not exactly a good thing for the state and its finances.  You have to pay your prison guards in scrip, they don't even get real money anymore.  How long do you think those people are going to stick around?  Who is going to guard your prisoners when they don't get paid in real money?  That sounds a bit more than a few problems.

    1. SweetiePie profile image86
      SweetiePieposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      That is simply not accurate.  Many people moving here are doing so to find jobs, and your ideas about sponging off the system are just not accurate.  California is doing fine and well, and many people love it here.  Sorry you look at the negative, but since you do not even live here, I suggest you stop making assumptions about why people enjoy living in this state. 

      Yes I am also friends with several prison guards, and they get a salary just like other state employees.  Most enjoy working in that environment, and they make better pay than many people in the state for only having to have a high school education.

      1. ledefensetech profile image79
        ledefensetechposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Sweetie, I spent the first decade of my life living in California.  I loved the climate and where I lived, but I'm glad I got out and saw more of the country.  I've also, interestingly enough, lived in Taxachussets for some time as well.  I think that I have a bit of experience from which to base my statements on.  The high school I went to in MA lost its accreditation because the voters nixed a tax increase.  They'd had enough of paying more and more for less and less.

        You seem to equate people saying bad things about the way the state is run with insulting citizens of California, that's simply not true.  Heck, I wouldn't mind living there again if it weren't so expensive.

        1. SweetiePie profile image86
          SweetiePieposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          It is not so expensive out here as you imagine.  I pay a thousand dollars a month for my sister and I to live in a two bed room apartment.  If you are looking to buy a house it might not be the time, but renting is always affordable here if you are willing to look around, and not live some where overly expensive like Rancho Cucamonga.  The hospitals are always hiring as well, and my friend just got a job as a PA at one.

          1. ledefensetech profile image79
            ledefensetechposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            I pay 400 dollars a month in rent for a two bedroom apt.  Also your unemployment rate is about 9.3 to 11% depending on the "official" source.  Which means it's probably about 20% or even higher in reality.  They don't count people, after all, who are no longer getting benefits or have given up looking for a job. 

            My tax rate is 5.675 percent, 2.675 percent for food.  I pay about $2.50 a gallon for gas and live within minutes of work.  I'd rather not trade that for more expenses and a longer commute.  The weather is great and I'd love it, but I'm not a playboy millionaire.

      2. Sab Oh profile image59
        Sab Ohposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        California is doing fine and well?!

  27. profile image0
    A Texanposted 7 years ago

    Not exactly happening the way she says even with the increase in Library cards. lol lol



    http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2 … ecade.html

  28. livewithrichard profile image86
    livewithrichardposted 7 years ago

    California is a great place to live and work if you are a Prison Guard or a Teacher, for everyone else, it's no utopia.  Just as LDF says, the affluent are moving away and the immigrants and down trodden are moving in.  Looking for jobs, that's funny as California has the 4th largest unemployment record in the country. Though I'm sure its a great place to live if you work in a public (tax payer paid) position.

    Here are some interesting stats on California:

    Here is a depressing comparison of California taxes and economic climate with the rest of the states (version 1.37 of my report). The news is breaking bad, and getting worse:

    California has the 2nd highest state income tax in the nation: 9.55% at $48,000 income, 10.55% at $1,000,000 income.

    California has by-far the highest state sales tax in the nation, 8.25% (not counting local sales taxes).

    California has the highest state car tax in the nation, at least double any other state: 1.15% per year on value of vehicle.

    California corporate income tax rate is the highest in the West: 8.84%

    California's 2009 Business Tax Climate ranks 48th in the nation.
    www.taxfoundation.org/research/topic/15.html

    California has the fourth-highest capital gains tax: 9.55%
    http://www.thereibrain.com/realestate-b … s-state...

    California has the third-highest gas and diesel tax in the nation at $2.00/gallon. At $3.00 a gallon, California is numero uno.
    www.api.org/statistics/fueltaxes/

    California has the fourth-highest unemployment rate in the nation as of March, 2009: 11.2%
    www.bls.gov/news.release/laus.nr0.htm

    California’s 2009 "Tax Freedom Day" (the day the average taxpayer stops working for government and start working for oneself) is again the fourth-worst date in the nation, up from 28th worst in 1994.
    http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/387.html

    One in 5 in Los Angeles County are receiving public aid.
    www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-welfar … 7048.story

    California prison guards are the highest-paid in the nation.
    www.caltax.org/caltaxletter/2008/101708_fraud1.htm

    California teachers are easily the highest-paid in the nation.
    http://www.nea.org/home/29402.htm

    California has the lowest bond ratings of any state, edging out Louisiana.
    http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c … 16JLKH.DTL

    For every dollar in taxes Californians send to Washington, D.C., California got back 78 cents -– 43rd worst (in 2005, latest figures).
    http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/22685.html

    America;s top CEO's rank California "the worst place in which to do business" for the fourth straight year (3/2009). But here's the interesting part: They think California is a great state to live in (primarily for the great climate), they just won't bring their businesses here because of the oppressive tax and regulatory climate.


    California has 12.1% of the nation's population, but California had 20.9% of the newly-unemployed in February, 2009. That means California's growth in UNemployment was 72.7% above the national average. (California's population is 36,756,666, the USA is 303,824,640)
    http://www.bls.gov/news.release/mmls.htm

    California residential electricity costs 28.7% more on average than the national average. For industrial use, California electricity is 48.6% higher than the national average (11/08).
    http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricit … 5_6_a.html


    Consider California's net domestic migration (movement between states). From April, 2000 through June, 2008 (8 years, 2 months) California lost a NET 1.4 million people. The departures slowed this past year only because people couldn't sell their homes.
    http://www.mdp.state.md.us/msdc/Pop_est … table5.pdf

    The people leaving California are not welfare kings and queens. They are the young, the educated, the productive, the ambitious, the wealthy (such as Tiger Woods), and retirees seeking to make their pensions provide more bang for the buck. The irony is that a disproportionate number of the departing seniors are retired state and local government employees fleeing the state that provides them with their opulent pensions -- to avoid the high taxes that these same employees pushed so hard through their unions.

  29. SweetiePie profile image86
    SweetiePieposted 7 years ago

    There are many affluent people that live in the Lake Arrowhead and Redlands area, both in the Inland Empire, and most are not itching to move away.  Our climate and cultural diversity just cannot be beat, and it is a truly beautiful place.  People that thrive on negativity focus on taxes, and other things in life.  Personally I am happy to live in this state, and what a wonderful life.  Beautiful mountains, beautiful oceans, great libraries, yummy oranges, I could go on.

    1. ledefensetech profile image79
      ledefensetechposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      That's as may be, Sweetie, but I've talked to quite a few Montanans who would like to see their expatriate Californios go back to where they came from.

      1. profile image0
        A Texanposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Texas doesn't want em either!

        1. Ron Montgomery profile image62
          Ron Montgomeryposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Neither does Arizona.  Where are these poor people going to live?

          1. profile image0
            A Texanposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            Mexico?

            1. ledefensetech profile image79
              ledefensetechposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              Hey that's an idea, we could use them in the construction industry, farming industry, cleaning industry, etc.  Kind of ironic, don't you think?

              1. profile image0
                A Texanposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                Probably harder to get into Mexico than the US!

                1. ledefensetech profile image79
                  ledefensetechposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                  It would be like the only scene I liked from Day After Tomorrow, when the Mexican Army moved north to seal the border.  Actually Mexico discourages immigration.  If you're a foreigner you can't legally own land.  That's one of the reasons people aren't rushing to invest in Mexico.

                  1. Ralph Deeds profile image69
                    Ralph Deedsposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                    You are a veritable fount of misinformation. Foreigners can and do buy and own land in Mexico. The restrictions are only on coastal land and there are easy ways to get around those restrictions. Plenty of Americans own condos and houses all along the coasts of Mexico. Some friends of mine recently got a free paid trip to Cancun simply by agreeing to attend a couple of sales sessions for condos there.

                    "People aren't rushing to invest in Mexico." Wrong again. NAFTA and cheap wages prompted a huge manufacturing exodus from the U.S. to Mexico. Where have you been, ldt?

  30. SweetiePie profile image86
    SweetiePieposted 7 years ago

    Just as I thought, livewithrichard does not live in California.  There is hardly anything "opulent" about a retirement pension.  Really, what a joke.

    1. profile image0
      A Texanposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Never let facts get in your way. roll

    2. livewithrichard profile image86
      livewithrichardposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      No, I don't live there but I did and I would never move back there as my only experience was in the Mojave Desert and around San Bernardino, while I was in the Army. But I think its funny that you would point it out that my not living there somehow discredits the info I presented.  The pension plans in CA are opulent compared to the pensions negotiated in other states by public employees, but the point that was being made is that the very people that voted in the high taxes in CA are taking their pensions and moving to states with lower taxes.

  31. profile image0
    A Texanposted 7 years ago
  32. profile image0
    A Texanposted 7 years ago
  33. ledefensetech profile image79
    ledefensetechposted 7 years ago

    Thanks for the post Tex, but as a practical matter, you can still get your land taken away from you on a whim.  You're a gringo and thus you don't have protection under the law.  And I think I mentioned the endemic corruption of the Mexican government.  If they were really interested in protecting the rights of investors, they'd amend their Constitution.

    1. profile image0
      A Texanposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      I was pointing out to Ralph that what he knows as "ownership" is not the same in Mexico.

  34. ledefensetech profile image79
    ledefensetechposted 7 years ago

    Why bother, he's a white condescending liberal.  He obviously knows how to tell us how to run our lives and where to live and how to die.  The good news is that a majority of Americans seem to be abandoning that viewpoint in droves. 

    But then again you can't tell anything to a kumbaya liberal.  They just don't get it.

    1. profile image0
      A Texanposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Point made.

      1. Friendlyword profile image59
        Friendlywordposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        I have to disagree with you two. This Liberal got it. President Obama commited suicide and took the Democratic Party with him. He stood silent and let the Health Care Bill and the Democratic Party die a painful death. We may never know the reason behind his silence on the Public Option.  We may never know his reason behind his way too little, way too late backing of Democratic Candidates. If it's fear; that's understandable. If it's some highminded brilliant strategy; I dont get it, his base turned out and elected him to see some Highminded Action. We deserved his support on the Public Option, or we at least earned the right to an explanation of his insulting silence when the people of this Country and the Congress needed him the most. In the end, he was forced to push this monstrosity on the American People thereby destroying himself and his party. I'm done waiting for his actions to be explained.

        1. ledefensetech profile image79
          ledefensetechposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          There's no surprise, Friendly, Obama ran on one ticket, but once in office did exactly the opposite of what he said he was going to do.  Televising the healthcare debates on C-SPAN comes to mind.  Not all the closed-door nonsense we've seen.  Look at the bank bailouts.  He told us one thing, then it turns out the money was used by certain people to break their rivals and/or get their money back. 

          I don't think he was forced to push this monstrosity on anyone, this bill was what he wanted from the beginning.  Why else would Republicans not have anything to do with it.  They understood, at least, that to support this bill meant political suicide.  Be glad this bill is dead, Friendly, it would never have come close to solving the problem.  All the bill was, was a giant payoff to campaign contributors, not a sincere effort to help people.  Now that it's dead, maybe we can have a real debate about the problem and the best way to deal with it.

  35. ledefensetech profile image79
    ledefensetechposted 7 years ago

    It wont work.  Unlike Bill Clinton, Barak Obama is a True Believer.  It's not his policies that caused the losses in recent elections, but the candidates.  There really are none so blind as those who refuse to see.

    1. rhamson profile image74
      rhamsonposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Just remember, one mans reality is another mans' nightmare.

  36. profile image0
    Madame Xposted 7 years ago

    Hello Tech! Glad to see you back smile

  37. ledefensetech profile image79
    ledefensetechposted 7 years ago

    Glad to be back. I doubt I'll be on as much as I have been, but I decided to take some time off, read some good books and get back to fighting the good fight.

    You're doing well, I hope.

  38. ledefensetech profile image79
    ledefensetechposted 7 years ago

    No Ralph, I'm just thinking like a Mexican.  We're not really all that well liked south of the border, don't you know.  Central and South America has a history of screwing Americans and Europeans out of their investment money.  It's happened numerous times in the past.  If I didn't have someone I trusted down there keeping an eye on things, I'd be worried about losing my investment.  Still, if you don't want to listen, it's your money, or your friends on the line not mine, so you can believe what you want.

    1. Ralph Deeds profile image69
      Ralph Deedsposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Do you agree that Americans can buy land, except along the coasts, in Mexico and that there has been a huge amount of American money invested in Mexico during the past 25 years to take advantage of low wage costs?

      I've spent a lot of time in Mexico, and while there is some resentment against the U.S. for various reasons, I've found the people their friendly and gracious to visitors. And the workers learn new jobs quickly and work very hard for very low compensation.

  39. ledefensetech profile image79
    ledefensetechposted 7 years ago

    You may consider their wages low, but compared to most non-professional jobs in Mexico, they make much more in manufacturing than they would just about anything else.  Heck my mother's family are professionals there, doctors, architects, nurses, etc. so a lady my mother works with in the States told her she wasn't a real Mexican because she was born with a silver spoon in her mouth.  If she thinks that about another Mexican, how do you think she feels about gringos?

    You're right, most Mexicans are kind, wonderful people.  But don't think for a minute that if you buy land there, it's yours.  All land is vested in the government, it says so right in their Constitution.  So no, you don't have clear title to any land, much like eminent domain in the US, the Mexican government can take your land.  Unlike the US, they don't really need a reason.  At least here you have to build a freeway for something on the land.  Since you don't have a free and clear claim on the land, you can't really own it.

  40. I am DB Cooper profile image67
    I am DB Cooperposted 7 years ago

    I wouldn't call this an epic upset, as Massachusetts has regularly elected Republicans into state office. That tax-happy liberal image is not entirely accurate (compare Mass. taxes with nearby states like NY and you'll see why). This was without a doubt the weirdest campaign I've ever seen. From Martha's supposed friend and supporter not knowing her name to Brown's victory speech that for some reason had to include the message that his two daughters (one of whom is a teenager) are both "on the market", this is not the type of circus politics Massachusetts is used to seeing.

    1. Arthur Fontes profile image88
      Arthur Fontesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      I am from MA and I can say circus politics defines Bawney Fwank pwetty well!

      1. profile image0
        A Texanposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Penith!

    2. profile image0
      A Texanposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Lord knows Barney Frank ain't a circus, he's a frikin freakshow!

  41. Merecedes Frances profile image61
    Merecedes Francesposted 7 years ago

    Coakley did not show up for the race. For there to have been a referendum the voters would have needed to have a choice. It is not over yet. Mass Dems will not let this stand. Brown should rent monthly in DC. The General Election will be great! If we are lucky Palin will show up to help out.

    1. profile image0
      A Texanposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      lol I gotta hand it to you Democrats, you do know how to spin bad news and rejection.

    2. Friendlyword profile image59
      Friendlywordposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      And on the Democratic side...let's hope Obama DOES NOT show up with his kiss of death.

  42. Arthur Fontes profile image88
    Arthur Fontesposted 7 years ago

    114 more days and Scott brown will have more experience then Obama had when he started campaigning for POTUS.

    1. Ralph Deeds profile image69
      Ralph Deedsposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      He already has more experience as a nude model for a magazine--Cosmopolitan as I recall. He may have been turned down by Playgirl. :-)

      1. Arthur Fontes profile image88
        Arthur Fontesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        I remember seeing Barry O in a bathing suit somewhere  hmmm.

  43. Ralph Deeds profile image69
    Ralph Deedsposted 7 years ago

    Here's why Scott Brown won in Massachusetts--

    http://www.pierceflicks.com/images/scottbrown.jpg

    1. tony0724 profile image60
      tony0724posted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Even a centerfold has more brains then Coakley

  44. Hmrjmr1 profile image75
    Hmrjmr1posted 7 years ago

    Ralph
    and now you marginalize the women voters by implying that a 28 year old picture is the reason they voted for him? Your hidden sexism is showing! The circular firing squad continues big_smile big_smile big_smile cool

    1. Ralph Deeds profile image69
      Ralph Deedsposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Where's your sense of humor?

    2. Ron Montgomery profile image62
      Ron Montgomeryposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      He wasn't marginalizing women, he was explaining the gay male Republican vote.

      1. profile image0
        A Texanposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Yeah, like Barney Frank, wait he isn't a Republican.  Penith!

  45. profile image0
    Denno66posted 7 years ago

    Coakley shot herself in the foot. She arrogantly assumed she would win; that was her undoing.

  46. Will Apse profile image91
    Will Apseposted 7 years ago

    The problem with globalization is that it has been handled in the main by people who have no interest in workers in either the developed world or developing world.

    There are instances of globalization though which have been genuinely beneficial to all concerned.

    The EU used its trade leverage in Thailand (and its expertize)for example, to persuade the Thai government to introduce humane working hours, health and safety regulations for products (and for factory conditions) plus a whole raft of other reforms which have improved the lives of millions.

    It also meant a more level playing field for trade that benefited western workers.

    If the US had taken a similar approach twenty years ago, there would be a lot less pain all around. Now, I think it is too late. The US and Europe don't have the power that they used to have to demand reforms

    1. Ralph Deeds profile image69
      Ralph Deedsposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Good thought. I hope you're not right.

 
working