Moderator: Jesus H Christ
If this old bird can still put her ankles behind her ears, I'd say "X marks the spot".Neely8 wrote:
Felix wrote:you've become very bitter since you became jewish......
Kierland drop-kicking Wolftard wrote: Aren’t you part of the silent generation?
Why don’t you just STFU.
Dinsdale wrote:
But...
1. We're going to pass a health care plan
Felix wrote:you've become very bitter since you became jewish......
Kierland drop-kicking Wolftard wrote: Aren’t you part of the silent generation?
Why don’t you just STFU.
He peaked too soon. Besides, I caught his act on Hannity's radio show last week and although he's well spoken, he's definitely a movement conservative. And movement conservatives don't get elected in Mass.JMak wrote:Go Brown!
A milliom bucks in one day...impressive fundraising.
Genius. One of the simplest, best approaches I've seen to this issue. Will they run you out of Oregon for this kind of thinking?Dinsdale wrote:I'd fully endorse an independent or a Libertarian... 'cept for that pesky issue of his last name.
But...
1. We're going to pass a health care plan
2. Written by a committee whose head says he doesn't understand it,
3. Passed by a Congress that hasn't read it but exempts themselves from it,
4. Signed by a president that also hasn't read it, and who smokes,
5. With funding administered by a treasury chief who didn't pay his taxes,
6. Overseen by a surgeon general who is obese, and
7. Financed by a country that's nearly broke.
What possibly could go wrong?
The stars just might align for this guy.BSmack wrote:He peaked too soon. Besides, I caught his act on Hannity's radio show last week and although he's well spoken, he's definitely a movement conservative. And movement conservatives don't get elected in Mass.JMak wrote:Go Brown!
A milliom bucks in one day...impressive fundraising.
mvscal wrote:The only precious metals in a SHTF scenario are lead and brass.
Like I said, he peaked too soon.smackaholic wrote:The stars just might align for this guy.
That might be an issue with an unknown Dem. But Coakley's a familiar name with Democratic voters.He's good looking, which will pull a fair number of air head soccer moms.
Mass' gubner, lil' barack, is clueless and hugely unpopular.
Brown will be eating a big fat bowl of fuck come election day.The dems in general are fukking things up badly enough to make a number of solid democrat lemmings in massatwoshits consider straying. He's got a big pile of cayshe. Coakley is a weak candidate running a weak campaign.
I think if joe kennedy doesn't pull too many conservatives AND pulls enough brain dead dems voting solely on the name, Brown has a shot. Wouldn't put money on it, but, wouldn't bet against it either.
Mustang wrote: Genius. One of the simplest, best approaches I've seen to this issue. Will they run you out of Oregon for this kind of thinking?
BSmack wrote:He peaked too soon. Besides, I caught his act on Hannity's radio show last week and although he's well spoken, he's definitely a movement conservative. And movement conservatives don't get elected in Mass.
Oh well, I guess all is well for you. Hell, don't bother to turn out if you're so damn sure.ucantdoitdoggieSTyle2 wrote:Actual polling numbers indicate you don't know WTF you're talking about.BSmack wrote:He peaked too soon. Besides, I caught his act on Hannity's radio show last week and although he's well spoken, he's definitely a movement conservative. And movement conservatives don't get elected in Mass.
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/ ... 398436.pdf
Unlike the Dems who will stay away in droves, I will vote.BSmack wrote:Oh well, I guess all is well for you. Hell, don't bother to turn out if you're so damn sure.
Hey Water, quit being wet.ucantdoitdoggieSTyle2 wrote:Quit being such a bitch.
And the Globe has a poll showing Coakley leading by 15.ucantdoitdoggieSTyle2 wrote:Unlike the Dems who will stay away in droves, I will vote.BSmack wrote:Oh well, I guess all is well for you. Hell, don't bother to turn out if you're so damn sure.
Furthermore, fuck me for showing you proof that you're misinformed, right? After last night's debate, I wouldn't be surprised if his lead has grown. He flat out abused Coakley. Quit being such a bitch.
Some have noted that the Globe poll was taken from Jan. 2-6th, while PPP was in the field from Jan. 7th-9th, but the timing was so close that it couldn't really explain the dramatic change. It's also worth keeping in mind that PPP is the firm that gave conservative challenger Doug Hoffman a huge lead in New York's 23rd Congressional race that was ultimately won by Democrat Bill Owens.
http://spectator.org/blog/2010/01/10/bo ... ows-dem-up
I bet you could actually take "your own poll" of certain peeps in this forum which tells me that you're not a complete buffoon, but that doesn't take away from the truth does it?BSmack wrote:And the Globe has a poll showing Coakley leading by 15.
mvscal wrote:The only precious metals in a SHTF scenario are lead and brass.
You think Tommy Douglas is rolling over in his grave ?Martyred wrote:Dinsdale wrote:
But...
1. We're going to pass a health care plan
Ummmm....no.
Tom In VA wrote:I am a firm believer that gridlock in Washington is best for the entire country.
When a Republican is President, I do my best to make sure the House and Senate is NOT majority Republican.
When a Democrat is President, I do my best to make sure the House and Senate is NOT majority Democrat.
Keep Checks and Balances alive.
Even the folks from the American Spectator were willing to concede some validity to the Globe poll. But hey, feel free to continue trumpeting the polls of an organization whose most recent claim to fame is completely botching the call last fall in NY-23.ucantdoitdoggieSTyle2 wrote:I bet you could actually take "your own poll" of certain peeps in this forum which tells me that you're not a complete buffoon, but that doesn't take away from the truth does it?BSmack wrote:And the Globe has a poll showing Coakley leading by 15.
Don't be shocked when The Globe's front page headline above the fold screams "Ted's Corpse Wins!!" a week from tomorrow. If you look at how they conducted their poll, you'll see how flawed it was. I suggest you take a Research Fundamentals class and get back to me.
that election was totally rigged and racistBSmack wrote:Even the folks from the American Spectator were willing to concede some validity to the Globe poll. But hey, feel free to continue trumpeting the polls of an organization whose most recent claim to fame is completely botching the call last fall in NY-23.ucantdoitdoggieSTyle2 wrote:I bet you could actually take "your own poll" of certain peeps in this forum which tells me that you're not a complete buffoon, but that doesn't take away from the truth does it?BSmack wrote:And the Globe has a poll showing Coakley leading by 15.
Don't be shocked when The Globe's front page headline above the fold screams "Ted's Corpse Wins!!" a week from tomorrow. If you look at how they conducted their poll, you'll see how flawed it was. I suggest you take a Research Fundamentals class and get back to me.
If that's true, you must have been reading a different board than I've been reading the past five years.Neely8 wrote:And here I thought this board was a bastion of Liberals. Color me surprised to see that I am voting for Brown so far.....
War Wagon wrote:The first time I click on one of your youtube links will be the first time.
The Democratic candidate, Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley, was one of only six attorneys general to receive a grade of A+ from ACORN in 2008. In her news release, Ms. Coakley said, "I am honored to have received this recognition from ACORN."
As attorney general, Ms. Coakley has been responsible for licensing all nonprofit organizations operating in her state, and overseeing the reporting and financial disclosures of those organizations. To the extent ACORN was operating in Massachusetts, it was doing so with the express approval of Ms. Coakley's office. Whatever ACORN's unlawful operations in Massachusetts may have been, Ms. Coakley had the authority and obligation to take actions to stop them.
I'm sure that David Duke would endorse the republican candidate. Your point is?Diogenes wrote:This from the people who helped bring you the housing bubble...
The Democratic candidate, Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley, was one of only six attorneys general to receive a grade of A+ from ACORN in 2008. In her news release, Ms. Coakley said, "I am honored to have received this recognition from ACORN."
As attorney general, Ms. Coakley has been responsible for licensing all nonprofit organizations operating in her state, and overseeing the reporting and financial disclosures of those organizations. To the extent ACORN was operating in Massachusetts, it was doing so with the express approval of Ms. Coakley's office. Whatever ACORN's unlawful operations in Massachusetts may have been, Ms. Coakley had the authority and obligation to take actions to stop them.
9/27/22“Left Seater” wrote:So charges are around the corner?
WTF does Dave Duke have to do with this, you racist POS?Diego in Seattle wrote: I'm sure that David Duke would endorse the republican candidate. Your point is?
mvscal wrote:The only precious metals in a SHTF scenario are lead and brass.
Over your head as usual. I'm sure that you're an idiot. But even if Duke did endorse a GOP candidate, I doubt they would put that on their resume.Diego in Seattle wrote:I'm sure that David Duke would endorse the republican candidate. Your point is?Diogenes wrote:This from the people who helped bring you the housing bubble...
The Democratic candidate, Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley, was one of only six attorneys general to receive a grade of A+ from ACORN in 2008. In her news release, Ms. Coakley said, "I am honored to have received this recognition from ACORN."
As attorney general, Ms. Coakley has been responsible for licensing all nonprofit organizations operating in her state, and overseeing the reporting and financial disclosures of those organizations. To the extent ACORN was operating in Massachusetts, it was doing so with the express approval of Ms. Coakley's office. Whatever ACORN's unlawful operations in Massachusetts may have been, Ms. Coakley had the authority and obligation to take actions to stop them.
Want ANOTHER reason to NOT vote for Martha Coakley???
Posted By Curt Schilling On January 14, 2010 @ 11:02 am In Family, General, Life | 25 Comments
Picked this up from here… [1]
If she hasn’t done it yet, Martha Coakley may have just killed her campaign.
She’s apparently been trying to win the title of Worst Political Campaign Ever, and she might have just clinched it with her little dig at Scott Brown over Fenway Park. [2]
The appearance characterizes Coakley’s approach to this truncated race. Aware that she has little time for the hand-shaking and baby-kissing of a standard political campaign, she has focused instead on rallying key political leaders, Democratic activists, and union organizers, in hope they will get people to the polls.
… Despite that, there is a subdued, almost dispassionate quality to her public appearances, which are surprisingly few. Her voice is not hoarse from late-night rallies. Even yesterday, the day after a hard-hitting debate, she had no public campaign appearances in the state.
Coakley bristles at the suggestion that, with so little time left, in an election with such high stakes, she is being too passive.
“As opposed to standing outside Fenway Park? In the cold? Shaking hands?’’ she fires back, in an apparent reference to a Brown online video of him doing just that. “This is a special election. And I know that I have the support of Kim Driscoll. And I now know the members of the [Salem] School Committee, who know far more people than I could ever meet.’’
There are just so many things wrong with that statement.
It shows her elitism and arrogance unbelievably. Aside from the apparent feeling that the seat belongs to her just by virtue of her party, she just admitted that she doesn’t need to bother meeting with constituents because she’s meeting people like Kim Driscoll, and political leaders, and Democrat activists. I guess they’re the ones that matter, huh? I know it’s a “special election” and all, but that doesn’t mean that she doesn’t need to fight for this seat. Prancing around with this mindset of “Oh, I’m a Democrat, therefore Ted Kennedy’s seat just automatically belongs to me regardless of what the people think,” is idiotic. Acting as if she doesn’t need to give her constituents the time of day is ludicrous. She can make all the snide remarks about Scott Brown shaking hands with people in the cold that she wants, but that’s what you’re supposed to do when you’re trying to get elected. She seems to have forgotten that she’s trying to get elected in Massachusetts, and not in Washington D.C. — if she remembered that, maybe she’d spend more time trying to impress Massachusetts voters and less time rubbing elbows with the Democrat establishment, Big Pharmacy lobbyists, and union leaders. Most normal politicians, Republican or Democrat, do go shake hands with voters. Even if it means standing in the cold outside of Fenway Park.
Finally, has she forgotten who she’s talking to? What state she’s wanting to represent in the Senate? It’s Massachusetts. You do not make sneering insults about Fenway Park. What’s she going to do next, insult the Red Sox? That’d really just be the cherry on top of a delightful campaign. Fenway Park and the Red Sox are damned near sacred to Massachusetts residents, Bostonians in particular. Really, I’m starting to think that she just doesn’t want to get elected or something. Because anyone with half a modicum of sense knows that you do not go into Boston and mess with Fenway Park.
mvscal wrote:The only precious metals in a SHTF scenario are lead and brass.
WacoFan wrote:Flying any airplane that you can hear the radio over the roaring radial engine is just ghey anyway.... Of course, Cirri are the Miata of airplanes..
smackaholic wrote:Anyone listen to any of coakley's ads? The only ones I've heard, summed up are....Scott Brown. Did you know he's a republican? Not even a mention of who she is or what she wants to do. Not saying she shouldn't run the negative ones, but, jeeeze, mix in an occasional, this is who I am and what I'll do.
I think she's going down.
Why do you think Cokeley's so chummy with ACORN?Cuda wrote:Look at it this way, SG. It's been a long time since they've had to steal an election there so they couls be so far out of practice they can't pull it off- or at least it'll be very clumsy
Mark Steyn: Can Obama hold Teddy's seat?
I've been out of the country for a couple of days, so let me see if I've got this right:
America's preparing to celebrate the first anniversary of Good King Barack the Hopeychanger's reign by electing a Republican?
In Massachusetts?
In what the tin-eared plonkers of the Democrat machine still insist on calling "Ted Kennedy's seat"?
Remember the good old days when the glossy magazine covers competed for the most worshipful image of the new global colossus? If you were at the Hopeychange inaugural ball on Jan. 20, 2009, when Barney Frank dived into the mosh pit, and you chanced to be underneath when he landed, and you've spent the past year in a coma, until suddenly coming to in time for the poll showing some unexotically monikered nobody called Scott Brown, whose only glossy magazine appearance was a Cosmopolitan pictorial 30 years ago (true), four points ahead in Kennedy country, you must surely wonder if you've woken up in an alternative universe. The last thing you remember before Barney came flying down is Harry Reid waltzing you round the floor while murmuring sweet nothings about America being ready for a light-skinned brown man with no trace of a Negro dialect. And now you're in some dystopian nightmare where Massachusetts is ready for a nude-skinned Brown man with no trace of a Kennedy dialect.
How can this be happening?
You don't need to have been in an actual coma. Subscribing to The Boston Globe, the unreadable and increasingly unread Massachusetts snooze-sheet, has much the same effect. As the house organ of a decrepit one-party state, the Globe endorsed Martha Coakley with nary a thought using its Sober Thoughtful Massachusetts Election Editorial template ("[INSERT NAME OF CAREERIST HACK HERE] For Governor/Senator/Mayor/Whatever") and dutifully obscured what happened when one of the candidate's minders shoved to the sidewalk a reporter who had the lese majeste to ask an unhelpful question. If you're one of the dwindling band of Bay Staters who rely on the Globe for your news, you would never have known that a Massachusetts pseudo-"election" had bizarrely morphed into a real one – you know, with two candidates, just like they have in Bulgaria and places. On Friday, the paper finally acknowledged that something goofy was happening: As the revealing headline put it, "Race Is In A Spinout." As in "spinning out of control"? You mean, out of the control of the party and its dopey media cheerleaders? What they really mean is that the Democrats' coronation procession is in a spinout.
Now this is Massachusetts, so the Dems may yet regain control of the spinout and get back on track for victory. If not, they've already taken the precaution of tossing Martha Coakley under the bus the way her minder sent that guy to the sidewalk. Martha? Oh, hopeless candidate.
Terrible campaign. Difficult climate. Yes, but this is Massachusetts.
Tone-deaf candidates running on nothing but a sense of their own entitlement are all but compulsory: This is a land where John Kerry demonstrates the common touch by windsurfing off Nantucket in buttock-hugging yellow Spandex.
As for the "climate," that gets closer to the truth, but, as my colleague Jonah Goldberg pointed out, in this case the Democrats created the climate. If Scott Brown gives Martha Coakley a run for her money on Election Day, Jan. 19, 2010, will be a direct consequence of Jan. 20, 2009. Once upon a time, Barack Obama, in the words of Newsweek editor Evan Thomas, was "standing above the country, above the world, he's sort of God." Seeking to explain why the God of Hope had fallen farther faster than any modern president, David Brooks of the New York Times argued that the tea-party movement had declared war on "the educated class." He seemed to think this was some sort of inverted snobbery: If "the educated class" is for it – "health" "care" "reform," cap-and-trade, Miranda rights for terrorists – Joe Six-Pack and his fellow knuckledragging morons are reflexively opposed to it.
This almost exactly inverts what really happened over this past year.
"The educated class" turned out to be not that educated – if, by "educated," you mean knowing stuff. They were dazzled by Obama: My former National Review colleague Christopher Buckley wrote cooing paeans to his “first-class intellect” and “temperament.” I used to joke that “temperament” was for the Obammysoxers of “the educated class” what hair was to Tiger Beat reporters. But you don't really need analogies. As David Brooks noted after his first meeting with Obama, "I was looking at his pant leg and his perfectly creased pant, and I'm thinking, a) he's going to be president and b) he'll be a very good president." And once you raised your eyes above pant level it only got better: "Our national oratorical superhero," gushed New York magazine, "a honey-tongued Frankenfusion of Lincoln, Gandhi, Cicero, Jesus, and all our most cherished national acronyms (MLK, JFK, RFK, FDR)."
Where'd that guy go? "People once thought Obama could sound eloquent reading the phone book," wrote Michael Gerson in The Washington Post last week. "Now, whatever the topic, it often sounds as though he is."
If the educated class's pant legs weren't as perfectly creased as Obama's, that's because they were soaking wet. While the smart set were demonstrating all the sober forensic analysis of a Jonas Brothers audience, the naysayers were looking at the actual policies: What is this going to cost me? And my children? And the country? A week before the presidential election, I wrote in this space:
"Settled democratic societies rarely vote to 'go left.' Yet oddly enough that's where they've all gone. In its assumptions about the size of the state and the role of government, almost every advanced nation is more left than it was, and getting lefter."
For the most part, that's just the ratchet effect of Big Government, growing, expanding, remorselessly, under cover of darkness. What happened this past year is that Obama and the Democratic Congress made it explicit, and did it in daylight. And, while Barack may be cool and stellar if you're as gullible as "the educated class," Nancy Pelosi and Ben Nelson most certainly aren't: There's no klieg light of celebrity to dazzle you from the very obvious reality that they're spending your money way faster than you can afford and with no inclination to stop.
"The educated class" is apparently too educated to grasp this insufficiently nuanced point.
It's not just the money. The notion that the IRS should be able to seize your assets if you don't arrange your health care to the approval of the federal government represents the de facto nationalization of your body, which is about as primal an assault on individual liberty as one could devise.
As Michael Barone observed, "the educated class" was dazzled by style, the knuckledragging morons are talking about substance. They grasp that another year of 2,000-page, trillion-dollar government-growing bills offers America only the certainty of decline. Just before the Senate's health care vote, Obama, the silver-tongued orator, declared that we were "on the precipice" of historic reform. Indeed. On Tuesday, we'll find out whether even Massachusetts is willing to follow him off the cliff.
