Article

2010-07-26 Home Front: Politix

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by GolfBravoUSMC 2010-07-26 10:04|| || Front Page|| [8 views ] Top

#1 Gay Activist Gives Reid his West Point Ring
Wedding to be announced soon.

Posted by Anguper Hupomosing9418 2010-07-26 10:54|| 2010-07-26 10:54|| Front Page Top

#2 She is a nut. I'd hate to have choose between them.

Posted by Formerly Dan 2010-07-26 12:31|| 2010-07-26 12:31|| Front Page Top

#3 So, exactly how is she a nut? Details, please.

Posted by Iblis 2010-07-26 13:02|| 2010-07-26 13:02|| Front Page Top

#4 "So, exactly how is she a nut? Details, please."

That is a lot to ask. Asking for substantive facts from today's generation regarding such generalizations is just too much for their little brain waves to handle specifically.

Posted by Jusoque Henbane7160 2010-07-26 14:14|| 2010-07-26 14:14|| Front Page Top

#5 She seems a little hyper-religious to me.
But it doesn't really matter what I think, I don't live in Nevada. Just the way she comes off to me, I'm guessing that vibe turns off more than a few people in the center and that's what the race is all about. Libs will never vote for her no matter what her platform is, conservatives will vote for her no matter what her platform is, cause she's the Un-Harry. It's all about the center and if you come off as a religious stick in the mud you aint gonna get the center vote. Kick and scream all you want, but you cant win without the votes, and you can't get the votes without the moderate center.

Posted by bigjim-CA 2010-07-26 14:35|| 2010-07-26 14:35|| Front Page Top

#6 She does seem to be unusually serious about her religion, which would make her a nut to a lot of people. She does not seem to be very skilled at the art of campaigning (which I might regard as a feature rather than a bug.) Reid is pretty slimy, regardless of political position (and I have no use for most of his positions.) And of course, virtually any 'out' party candidate is preferable to any 'in' party candidate - gridlock is the closest we can get to a friend in DC.

Posted by Glenmore 2010-07-26 14:36|| 2010-07-26 14:36|| Front Page Top

#7 Yeah, President Reagan was a nut too per the center.

If we ever forget that we are One Nation Under God, then we will be a nation gone under.
Ronald Reagan

and so was George Washington don't ya know...

"To the distinguished character of patriot, it should be our highest glory to add the more distinguished character of Christian" [May 2, 1778, at Valley Forge]

Posted by Jusoque Henbane7160 2010-07-26 15:16|| 2010-07-26 15:16|| Front Page Top

#8 One thing she supposedly proposed that really turned me off was suggesting that drug abusers should be treated in a program run by the "Church" of Scientology. There's religion and there's pseudo-religious con jobs.

Posted by Guillibaldo Flins7414 2010-07-26 16:33|| 2010-07-26 16:33|| Front Page Top

#9 "Yeah, President Reagan was a nut too per the center."

Reagan had a lot of personal charm. You also have to remember that today's electorate is very different from the electorate 30 years ago. The cumulative effects of the 1965 immigration reform and Reagan's 1986 amnesty have seen to that. Could Reagan win today?

Posted by Zhang Fei 2010-07-26 17:03|| http://timurileng.blogspot.com 2010-07-26 17:03|| Front Page Top

#10 His predecessor was Carter. Today it would be Obama. So, yeah, he could win.

Posted by tu3031 2010-07-26 17:07|| 2010-07-26 17:07|| Front Page Top

#11 Having said the above, anybody who votes for Reid due to Angle's devout faith is really a bigot, because Reid is a religious nut, whose religion happens to be socialism. Given that socialism affects our day-to-day lives much more than Christianity, you'd really have to be an anti-Christian bigot to vote against Angle on account of her intense devotion. Unfortunately, that bigotry characterizes a good chunk of the American electorate, thanks to decades of attacks from the glitterati.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2010-07-26 17:09|| http://timurileng.blogspot.com 2010-07-26 17:09|| Front Page Top

#12 Could Reagan win today?

No. Reagan was a pro-defense cold warrior with an unstinting focus on the long game. Americans today are far less interested in foreign policy, much more myopic, much less willing to bear any burden/pay any price to ensure the survival and success of liberty than they were a generation ago.

The equivalent of Reagan's robust defense of US interests today does not exist. It would have to be someone as independent of the job-destroying rightist zealots as he/she is of the statist, union-riddled and crony capitalist left.

Nobody's figured out how to get corporates and banks to stop sitting on their trillions in cash hoards and start hiring and promoting real job growth again. Anyone without a credible plan for doing so will inevitably disappoint, and cause people to become as disenchanted as they are now with both Barry and the GOP.

Posted by lex 2010-07-26 18:05|| 2010-07-26 18:05|| Front Page Top

#13 #12 Could Reagan win today?
No. Lex

Oh wat the hell. Bring him back and let's give it a go. Not much we can lose at this point.

Posted by Besoeker 2010-07-26 18:07|| 2010-07-26 18:07|| Front Page Top

#14 On second thought, maybe not. He would be 99 years old...

Posted by tu3031 2010-07-26 18:22|| 2010-07-26 18:22|| Front Page Top

#15 Nobody's figured out how to get corporates and banks to stop sitting on their trillions in cash hoards and start hiring and promoting real job growth again.

That one is easy, lex: provide a stable and predictable business environment for at least four years where the majority of the rules are guaranteed to be unchanged. Businesses will not commit funds if the situation is too fluid. Right now we've got major tax rules changes (the Bush thingies ending), major paperwork changes (the 1099 filings for purchases over $600), major required benefits changes (Obamacare), and possibly CardCheck and Cap'n'Trade through backdoor regulatory changes, since the Congressional route didn't work.

Bottom line, until they know what the costs will be, businesses cannot decide whether or not to invest in increased or new production and the people to staff it.

Posted by trailing wife 2010-07-26 19:10|| 2010-07-26 19:10|| Front Page Top

#16 Now, that's a LIBTARD response if I've ever heard one.

Posted by Asymmetrical Triangulation 2010-07-26 23:07|| 2010-07-26 23:07|| Front Page Top

#17 My Bad...Previous response was meant as a reply to #4. Not exactly sure just how I blew the sequence...So, sue me.

Posted by Asymmetrical Triangulation 2010-07-26 23:28|| 2010-07-26 23:28|| Front Page Top

#18 Previousresponse was meant as a reply to #4.

Whew! I was concerned for a moment there, Asymmetrical Triangulation. That's why I generally include the bit I'm responding to at the top of my post. I started doing that because I was having to apologize too often.

Posted by trailing wife 2010-07-26 23:49|| 2010-07-26 23:49|| Front Page Top

00:19 JosephMendiola
23:53 JosephMendiola
23:49 trailing wife
23:42 JosephMendiola
23:40 trailing wife
23:38 trailing wife
23:37 JosephMendiola
23:35 trailing wife
23:28 Asymmetrical Triangulation
23:27 JosephMendiola
23:24 JosephMendiola
23:18 JosephMendiola
23:17 Fred
23:07 Asymmetrical Triangulation
22:57 JosephMendiola
22:52 trailing wife
22:48 Mike Hunt
22:38 Asymmetrical Triangulation
22:36 lord garth
22:22 john frum
21:52 Pappy
21:42 Besoeker
21:39 bigjim-CA
21:29 Dale