Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

[Handyman]

Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

Thank you for repeating what I said. I guess I was on the right track.

Well I was trying to back you up not take credit. I think you are absolutely right, and part of me thinks the GOP leadership does too so you guys will get your John Kerry nom. (I believe you might have said that in the last thread) If they think a guy like T-Paw is the future you dont waste him in this election if he might lose, it will only make it harder down the line.

I think you're confusing the relationship between the GOP and the tea party - not that that's uncommon for liberals to do. We've seen plenty of occasions where the tea party has stood up to the powers that be in the Republican Party and said loudly, and firmly, "NO." Most often, it is coming in the primaries. NY-23's special election last year was a prime example of what they'll be willing to do if the GOP puts up an unacceptable candidate. To be honest, I think the tea party could be willing to get behind any of those 11 candidates I listed save Huckabee. There is this assumption that the tea party is some wing of the GOP and that couldn't be farther from the truth. The GOP still hasn't figured out how to make the tea party happy most of the time, which is a real problem for them since a significant chunk of the base they had taken for granted for so many years identifies very strongly with the tea party. They've voted Republican for years and been ignored. Now, since the Democrats are the ones in power, the tea party is essentially giving the GOP one last chance to get it right, since a third party would split the vote and leave the same party that's screwing things up in power. If the GOP takes power and doesn't do anything to placate fiscal conservatives, that's when you'll see a third party - because the feeling will be that Democrat or Republican doesn't matter anymore.

No I know the Tea Party is independent and not part of the GOP but for now they are aligned with them and are going to vote for them. They are also a huge part of the base the GOP panders to. I also know that they stand up against the GOP on stuff which I think is great. What I meant (and I guess I didnt say it right) is that you yourself said that is they get screwed by the GOP they will go full third party and I think the fallout from that could be crazy. You would see a huge paradigm shift in the GOP because a lot of their base would probably leave for a true conservative party. This would not be unlike the Dixie-crats walking out of the Dem convention and leaving the party back in the day. The Tea Party may not be GOP, but they are the exact people the GOP wants to get votes from and if the Tea Party is able to go it alone and set up a true conservative platform, there could be a mass exodus from the GOP from that base. I also wonder how Fox would deal with that.

Personally I think this is needed. Hell the Republican Party was formed because of stuff just like this back in the 1850's. (The faltering Whig Party, the Northern Democrats leaving over slavery, the Know-Nothings and the Free Soilers controlling specific bases) Things have stagnated too long and a shakeup is long overdue. The only way for the conservatives to truly be heard is for them to make themselves heard. With the right platform they could become very relevant very quick imho.

 

[geezer]

Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

The funny thing is that lead shot can harm the very resources those against the ban use it on.

That's kind of the point. I'm hoping to put some serious harm on a whitetail this November, then remove his skin and entrails, and grind him up into tasty sausage.

I'm a bit confused as to how this is a gun control issue as opposed to an environmental one, however.

Edit: The first time through I missed that this was an across the board ban. At a minimum I think it should not be permitted for certain uses (such as waterfowl hunting for which it's already banned). Not sure how I feel about a complete ban as it certainly can cause its share of environmental issues.

The thing is that waterfowl hunting is done on the water with dozens of lead BBs being shot off at a time. They can theoretically dissolve somewhat and increase the lead levels in the body of water, affecting countless species... a bullet that doesn't do it's job is one lump of lead buried in a dirt bank somewhere, not significant in the natural lead levels already present. So the only reason to ban lead bullets is to make ammunition prohibitively expensive (I saw one estimate that my .30-06 shells would jump from $17.50 to $55.00 with "alternative" metals) to decrease hunting (the animal rights groups) and gun ownership (the other libs).

 

[Red Cloud]

Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

Well I was trying to back you up not take credit.

Ah, OK. Sorry about that then, I just read it wrong. My bad.

I think you are absolutely right, and part of me thinks the GOP leadership does too so you guys will get your John Kerry nom. (I believe you might have said that in the last thread) If they think a guy like T-Paw is the future you dont waste him in this election if he might lose, it will only make it harder down the line.

Well, I guess then the question is, when does the future become now? For a guy like Bobby Jindal, it's probably not by 2012. For a guy like T-Paw, you're right, 2012 could be that time. I'm not saying that the GOP is destined to lose in 2012, but they are certainly on that track considering the hurdles that every single reasonable candidate has.

No I know the Tea Party is independent and not part of the GOP but for now they are aligned with them and are going to vote for them.

This time, yes, and I think a lot of that has to do with the fact that the Democrats have a firm grip on power. The hope of the tea party right now is to use the GOP as the vessel, within the two-party system, to make changes (also because the GOP has traditionally at least given lip service to the tea party's ideals).

They are also a huge part of the base the GOP panders to.

Well, to the extent that both parties "pander" to the core elements of their party, I can agree with that. The thing that really ought to scare the GOP the most about the tea party is that their core, or the people that are supposed to be or have traditionally been their core, are at the heart of the movement.

I also know that they stand up against the GOP on stuff which I think is great. What I meant (and I guess I didnt say it right) is that you yourself said that is they get screwed by the GOP they will go full third party and I think the fallout from that could be crazy.

Absolutely. In the short term it would lead to Democrat victories practically across the board - which, by that time, I don't think would bother tea partiers all that much since A) it would be a way to punish the GOP and B) that's got to happen in order to build a whole new party and C) at that point, it's not like the Republicans, the way they govern, is much of an improvement over the Democrats at all, so why does it matter?

You would see a huge paradigm shift in the GOP because a lot of their base would probably leave for a true conservative party. This would not be unlike the Dixie-crats walking out of the Dem convention and leaving the party back in the day. The Tea Party may not be GOP, but they are the exact people the GOP wants to get votes from and if the Tea Party is able to go it alone and set up a true conservative platform, there could be a mass exodus from the GOP from that base.

That's what the GOP needs to understand. In the past pundits have declared the death of one party or another due to the other party's electoral successes, but the people who identify with one party or the other haven't changed. If/when a third-party is set up that feeds off the core voters of another party and you start to see 20, 30, 40 percent of that core changing parties, that's when you've got sea change.

Personally I think this is needed. Hell the Republican Party was formed because of stuff just like this back in the 1850's. (The faltering Whig Party, the Northern Democrats leaving over slavery, the Know-Nothings and the Free Soilers controlling specific bases) Things have stagnated too long and a shakeup is long overdue. The only way for the conservatives to truly be heard is for them to make themselves heard. With the right platform they could become very relevant very quick imho.

Definitely agree. I wouldn't mind seeing a left-wing version of the tea party start up as well - give people more options and you are more likely to end up with the right one. For too long we've had to choose between this or that.

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

That's kind of the point. I'm hoping to put some serious harm on a whitetail this November, then remove his skin and entrails, and grind him up into tasty sausage.
The thing is that waterfowl hunting is done on the water with dozens of lead BBs being shot off at a time. They can theoretically dissolve somewhat and increase the lead levels in the body of water, affecting countless species... a bullet that doesn't do it's job is one lump of lead buried in a dirt bank somewhere, not significant in the natural lead levels already present. So the only reason to ban lead bullets is to make ammunition prohibitively expensive (I saw one estimate that my .30-06 shells would jump from $17.50 to $55.00 with "alternative" metals) to decrease hunting (the animal rights groups) and gun ownership (the other libs).

I don't think lead "dissolves" in water because it's not a salt. It's pretty stable as a pure metal. In fact, it is pretty resistant to corrosion from what I understand. So it's actually not as bad in water as it's made out to be.

 

[Red Cloud]

Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

Let me put this another way. Why haven't the Green Party or the Constitution Party caught on in any meaningful way? It's because when the chips are down, the people who would support one of those parties end up voting Democrat or Republican anyway, because their candidate won't win and they want to keep one of the other candidates from winning. A person who preferred Nader would vote for Gore to keep from getting Bush. A person who preferred Baldwin would vote for Bush to keep from getting Kerry.

With the tea party movement, though, I can sense a growing frustration with that type of attitude. Especially if the GOP takes power again and doesn't follow through, I think there's going to be an increasing chorus of "they're just the same" the likes of which we haven't seen before.

That's one of the reasons why I'm actually interested to see if the NRSC is successful in getting Murkowski as their nominee in Alaska. If that happens, I can absolutely see tea partiers even supporting the Democrat in that race in retribution - OK, so you want to keep us from having our preferred candidate? Fine, good luck getting control of the Senate like you wanted.

 

[Bakunin]

Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

If he can spin a GOP controlled House as a source of blame, that could potentially be something some people would buy since it's something that would be current.

It'll be a battle of public perception. How much Obama gets pulled into the fray depends on what happens with the Senate - if that chamber compromises at all with a GOP-led House, it'll force Obama's hand. If there's a congressional stalemate, he gets to sit back and blame them for not wanting to get anything done. In other words, this will come down to the moderates in the Senate and whether or not they are willing to side with the GOP to get some sort of watered-down legislation through that is palatable to the GOP-led House.

I believe he declared sometime in mid-'99. Of course, these days, we should be expecting top candidates to start declaring in a little over five months from now. Yeah. It's a two-year process to elect a President in the information age.

As I was hinting at - we won't even have a short list of who it's likely to be 'til perhaps as late as next spring. What are the odds someone not on your list becomes known over the next six months and becomes something of a favorite? Is there anyone who may come out of the teaparty movement that you've overlooked?

I'm sure he'll come up with something. He's always got that racial blunt object that he can wield if all else fails.

He does, but this sort of thing only plays to his base. With his agenda thus far, can he grab any portion of the middle? If that group of voters is turned off, it's all about the bases and turnout.

Bear in mind that Obama still wins practically any head-to-head matchup you throw at him, even with his popularity around 40%.

I don't know if I buy into the hypothetical matchup polls - they are likely ignoring turnout. Obama won by 7 points in '08 in a decidedly pro-Democrat election climate with high voter turnout on the left (8 years of W and an economy that was falling apart). Any poll showing him winning by that margin now is questionable at best given the change in circumstances since then (it's now his economy, the nation's problems are now his problems, and the voters on the right are significantly more motivated now to vote him out than they were in '08 to install McCain - whether or not this motivation continues through to '12 is anyone's guess, but these polls are being conducted right now, so that's really beside the point).

That's why the GOP needs to be walking the straight and narrow. They can't put themselves in a position where the Democrats can seize upon something and make an issue out of it, but at the same time they need to wake up and realize that they need to pay attention to the tea party movement.

Seems pretty easy, but I'm sure they'll put their foot in their mouths a number of times since that's what they are known to do.

If the Republicans don't do any better, expect the tea party movement to move into full-blown third party mode, under the rationale that neither of the established parties are going to do what needs to be done, and as the only truly effective way of punishing the GOP while sticking to principle.

Clearly, this is an outcome the Dems would love to see happen as it would split the vote on the right.

 

[USAFA Bulldog]

Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

CNBC created the Tea Party... though had they realized it I think they would have tried to strangle the baby in its cradle.

The Tea Party was basically a Ron Paul thing. Then Palin got involved. So it turned from a Libertarian idea into a Republican idea. Which is why you see Libertarians avoiding the Tea Party.

Although to be fair Ron Paul isn't completely a Libertarian, since he's still in favor of "states rights" and "national borders" to name a couple. Still, he's certainly more libertarian than all other Republicans.

 

[Red Cloud]

Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

The Tea Party was basically a Ron Paul thing. Then Palin got involved. So it turned from a Libertarian idea into a Republican idea. Which is why you see Libertarians avoiding the Tea Party.

Bzzzt. Wrong.

 

[joecct]

Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

Back a few presidents ago. Say what you want about Howie Carr, but this is a great quote...

OK, Jimmy Carter, thanks for getting this Mattapan moonbat of ours out of North Korea. After 30 years, you finally freed a hostage...

 

[USAFA Bulldog]

Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

Bzzzt. Wrong.

More recently, the Libertarian theme of the "tea party" began with Republican Congressman Ron Paul supporters as a fund raising event during the 2008 presidential primaries to emphasize Paul's fiscal conservatism, which laid the groundwork for the modern-day Tea Party movement.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Party_movement#Background_and_history

 

[Patman]

Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

The Tea Party was basically a Ron Paul thing. Then Palin got involved. So it turned from a Libertarian idea into a Republican idea. Which is why you see Libertarians avoiding the Tea Party.

Although to be fair Ron Paul isn't completely a Libertarian, since he's still in favor of "states rights" and "national borders" to name a couple. Still, he's certainly more libertarian than all other Republicans.

BZZZT... WRONG! (It has to be emphasized.)

Santelli started the movement... the Paultards are symbiotes which need a host the thrive upon. Have you noticed how non-focal the Paultards have been during this whole Tea Party progression. Lie as much as you like, but that's the facts of the matter.

edit: when has the Tea Party EVER been about Ron Paul?

 

[USAFA Bulldog]

Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

edit: when has the Tea Party EVER been about Ron Paul?

Do some searching about Ron Paul and Tea Party. The Tea Party started on RP ideas and then the neo-cons took it over.

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

Hey, did you guys know that Ron Paul was the first man to land on the moon?

 

[Bakunin]

Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0410/35988.html

Doesn't look like the movement has been "taken over" by neocons to me.

Roughly half of the respondents don't want the government to pick sides on moral issues (clearly a libertarian view). That's about 20 points lower than the typical GOP voter (2/3 of them think it should encourage "traditional values").

Whether the respondents trend libertarian or social conservative, the one overriding issue that unites them is the growing national debt, since that polled at the top of the list of things they are angry about. Interestingly, gay marriage didn't register any anger at all among 1/4 those polled.

I find these numbers very difficult to believe if the neocons had truly co-opted the movement.

 

[Patman]

Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

Do some searching about Ron Paul and Tea Party. The Tea Party started on RP ideas and then the neo-cons took it over.

You know, you don't have to double down just because everybody else is doing it.

Don't forget, I remember when the argument for the grounds for an Iraq invasion was the violation of cease fire terms.

edit: the PaulBots probably tried to co-opt the movement... but it didn't come close to working... that's what these fringe groups do... they co-opt weakspots... the PaulBots do that with local GOP boards... just as the LaRouchians doe the same to Democrats.

 

[Old Pio]

Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

Hey, did you guys know that Ron Paul was the first man to land on the moon?

When is he scheduled to return?

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

When is he scheduled to return?

HA!

In all seriousness though, I do like some of what he has to say, but other stuff...? Yikes.

 

[XYZ]

Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

That's kind of the point. I'm hoping to put some serious harm on a whitetail this November, then remove his skin and entrails, and grind him up into tasty sausage.

Oh, don't get me wrong...there's nothing wrong with that

The thing is that waterfowl hunting is done on the water with dozens of lead BBs being shot off at a time. They can theoretically dissolve somewhat and increase the lead levels in the body of water, affecting countless species... a bullet that doesn't do it's job is one lump of lead buried in a dirt bank somewhere, not significant in the natural lead levels already present. So the only reason to ban lead bullets is to make ammunition prohibitively expensive (I saw one estimate that my .30-06 shells would jump from $17.50 to $55.00 with "alternative" metals) to decrease hunting (the animal rights groups) and gun ownership (the other libs).

With waterfowl another problem is that birds will eat the shot that falls in shallow water. I've cut gizzards open before that have had upwards of a dozen pellets in them.

I misread the article the first time which is why I edited the original post. I first was thinking strictly in terms of waterfowl but as I said I'm not sure the across the board ban makes sense. I'd like to think some common sense would take hold and these sorts of things could be evaluated on a case-by-case or per use basis. Lead slug into a deer? Not a big deal. Birds eating a steady diet of lead? Probably not a good idea (hence already not allowed). And so on...

 

[Slap Shot]

ok, let's talk about that. Who brought on the housing crisis that has brought us to the brink twice or more of financial collapse?

Not this b.s. again. No one forced the banks to lend and no one forced idiots to take on mortgages they couldn't afford. This was the case of too many lenders wanting to get rich and too many Joe Schmoes trying to buy a house they had no business buying. Never mind that the housing collapse was already well in motion, so I see no reason to hash this one over and over...

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

Slap Shot's right, everyone shares the blame equally.