What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

Death to the Incumbent!! Your guide to the 2010 primaries

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: Death to the Incumbent!! Your guide to the 2010 primaries

walrus said:
Wow, its a made up controversy to boot.
Click to expand...

Well, its offensive to think the US is a better place than others.

This doesn't mean we shouldn't generally help the poor and give them avenues... but lets remember that we're striving to be first amongst nations and one way to do it is to make sure our economy and our society works to be the best it can.

edit: the problem that Rand Paul has here is that people want those who will be empathetic to their own plight. It could be that Rand is a bit tone deaf... poor politicking but it doesn't make him wrong.
 
Re: Death to the Incumbent!! Your guide to the 2010 primaries

Patman said:
edit: the problem that Rand Paul has here is that people want those who will be empathetic to their own plight. It could be that Rand is a bit tone deaf... poor politicking but it doesn't make him wrong.
Click to expand...


Agreed. I don't think what he said is wrong at all. Just it's kind of tough to say to someone going through tough times "Hey, it could be worse." When right now sucks pretty bad as well.
 
Re: Death to the Incumbent!! Your guide to the 2010 primaries

It's a bit disingenuous, though, since some of the reasons the poor are better off here than elsewhere are among* the very things Paul wants to eliminate. It's like saying "we're spending money on vaccines for diseases that have decreased in frequency." Well, duh.

* One thing that does give Paul more cred than any other Republican except his Dad, though, is he's also willing to cut GOP goodies like the Forever War and corporate welfare. Lots of luck getting your party to agree to that, Rand.
 
Last edited:
Re: Death to the Incumbent!! Your guide to the 2010 primaries

"Our Founding Fathers," says Nevada Republican Senate candidate Sharron Angle, "they put that Second Amendment in there for a good reason, and that was for the people to protect themselves against a tyrannical government."

Frankly, this quote is true and very important...that guns were not meant to be used against other citizens. Based on the rationale above that guns should protected...but not handguns. And definitely not conceal and carry.


WeWantMore said:
It's been a few weeks. Time for another Rand Paul "controversy"! Yay!
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/07/13/rand-paul-saying-poor-better-poor/
Click to expand...

I have not followed Rand to the extent of his father.

But this quote makes me want to be a fan without having any idea what he stands for! I love the candor.
 
Re: Death to the Incumbent!! Your guide to the 2010 primaries

5mn_Major said:
"Our Founding Fathers," says Nevada Republican Senate candidate Sharron Angle, "they put that Second Amendment in there for a good reason, and that was for the people to protect themselves against a tyrannical government."

Frankly, this quote is true and very important..
Click to expand...

It's not really true, though. The Founding Fathers cared about personal arms and militias because they didn't plan on maintaining a standing peacetime army (too expensive and too tempting to use it to launch rather than defend against attacks -- see how prescient they were?) and we needed a way to mount a temporary organized defense in the face of sporadic attacks by indians, the French, or other varmints.

Gun freaks who want to use originalism as a pretext would be on much steadier ground if they equated gun ownership with things like the right to free assembly or free speech -- fundamental rights grounded in personal dignity. The idea that other personal rights are meaningless without the ability to defend them. (In other words, the exact opposite of what you're arguing.) Except that would mean straying towards privacy rights and they can't go there with their current political allegiances.

The NRA would make the switch in a heartbeat, though. Anything for sales. :-)
 
Last edited:
Re: Death to the Incumbent!! Your guide to the 2010 primaries

Kepler said:
It's not really true, though. The Founding Fathers cared about personal arms and militias because they didn't plan on maintaining a standing peacetime army (too expensive and too tempting to use it to launch rather than defend against attacks -- see how prescient they were?) and we needed a way to mount a temporary organized defense in the face of sporadic attacks by indians, the French, or other varmints.
Click to expand...

So when it was time to refresh the tree of liberty with the blood of tyrants, how were they supposed to kill said tyrant? Sticks? Stones?
 
Re: Death to the Incumbent!! Your guide to the 2010 primaries

WeWantMore said:
So when it was time to refresh the tree of liberty with the blood of tyrants, how were they supposed to kill said tyrant? Sticks? Stones?
Click to expand...

That's a great quote, but also remember who said it. The FF's never advocated revolution from the hayseeds, they were about merchants and landowners protecting themselves from kings and courtiers (who often relied on the mob for force). In fact, the minute there were revolutions from below under the new republic, the Founders crushed them.

As the right points out when it suits them, whatever else they were, they were not fans of democracy. So maybe we have changed our interpretation of what the 2nd amendment means over time -- I'm fine with that. But it isn't originalism. For that matter, with the Founders thinking every generation or two should probably have its own constitution, the originals weren't originalists. :p

I strongly suspect if the Founders could come back they'd look at a 223-year old constitution and say, "what are you guys thinking?!" It's the timespan equivalent of Hamilton trying to manage an early 19th century economy using Elizabethan economic theory ("No lending at interest, unless you're a Jew.")
 
Last edited:
Re: Death to the Incumbent!! Your guide to the 2010 primaries

WeWantMore said:
So when it was time to refresh the tree of liberty with the blood of tyrants, how were they supposed to kill said tyrant? Sticks? Stones?
Click to expand...

66859339_7c88c06e93_m.jpg


A board with a nail in it. Duh...
 
Re: Death to the Incumbent!! Your guide to the 2010 primaries

Kepler said:
The Founding Fathers cared about personal arms and militias because they didn't plan on maintaining a standing peacetime army (too expensive and too tempting to use it to launch rather than defend against attacks -- see how prescient they were?) and we needed a way to mount a temporary organized defense in the face of sporadic attacks by indians, the French, or other varmints.
:-)
Click to expand...
No, the Founding Fathers wanted peace but were smart enough to realize that a strong Defense was necessary to support that desire.
 
Re: Death to the Incumbent!! Your guide to the 2010 primaries

Remember a while back when the GOP was polling the best they had ever done in the generic Congressional poll?

Updated numbers. Two things:

(1) The general improvement of Dem numbers is in contrast with an extension of the GOP's enthusiasm advantage, so both sides have something to be hopeful / worried about.

(2) Gallup swaps the color of the parties between those charts, just to keep us on our toes.

Meanwhile, know your wedge issues. Republicans see financial and security issues as big threats, Dems see environmental and social justice issues as more big threats. This could be called the Captain Obvious poll.
 
Last edited:
Re: Death to the Incumbent!! Your guide to the 2010 primaries

Kepler said:
Remember a while back when the GOP was polling the best they had ever done in the generic Congressional poll?

Updated numbers. Two things:

(1) The general improvement of Dem numbers is in contrast with an extension of the GOP's enthusiasm advantage, so both sides have something to be hopeful / worried about.

(2) Gallup swaps the color of the parties between those charts, just to keep us on our toes.

Meanwhile, know your wedge issues. Republicans see financial and security issues as big threats, Dems see environmental and social justice issues as more big threats. This could be called the Captain Obvious poll.
Click to expand...

I've yet to decide which party is better at misinterpreting disdain for the other party as support for theirs.
 
Re: Death to the Incumbent!! Your guide to the 2010 primaries

Hey look, another kooky Milwaukee politician
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100722/ap_on_fe_st/us_odd_ballot_expletive

A legislative candidate from Wisconsin can't use a profane, racially charged phrase to describe herself on the ballot, an election oversight board decided Wednesday. Ieshuh Griffin, an independent running for a downtown Milwaukee seat in the state Assembly, wants to use the phrase, "NOT the 'whiteman's b----.'"
Click to expand...
 
Re: Death to the Incumbent!! Your guide to the 2010 primaries

Fun in the Centennial State guv race.

Shouting Match on local conservative radio between TT and Dick Wadhams, the Colorado GOP head.

Delicious money quote from Wadhams:
"What’s your agenda? What are you going to talk about? Impeach Obama and bomb Mecca?" Wadhams asked.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Re: Death to the Incumbent!! Your guide to the 2010 primaries

WeWantMore said:
So when it was time to refresh the tree of liberty with the blood of tyrants, how were they supposed to kill said tyrant? Sticks? Stones?
Click to expand...

I'm reminding of how Brutus' attempts to revive the spirit of his ancestor's dethroning of Tarquin by killing Caesar went very poorly.
 
Re: Death to the Incumbent!! Your guide to the 2010 primaries

WeWantMore said:
Most ethical Congress ever? Most ethical Congress ever.
Click to expand...

Hey, with only 13 charges it might be the most ethical Congress ever. :p

There was a great discussion on CSPAN this morning about how the Dems would just assume Rangel gets hit by a bus on his way home tonight.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top