mr_genius

I heard on MSNBC that this is all an evil tea party plot to dethrone Obamacus!

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Oct 29, 2010 -> 10:56 AM) Ill probably vote Quinn/G I hate G, but lines have been drawn in the sand and at this point the only way to potentially protect my perspective is to basically vote straight Democrat. I also am going to implore all of my friends to vote for a similar reason. Its hard to vote in non-Presidential years, which means that the more determined (aka older voters) will get more of a say. Regardless I think that in 2 years the Democrats will come back when its a Presidential election and people realize that many of the candidates were all talk no substance. Or I wont vote at all, hard to tell what will happen Tuesday. might as well just stay at home, IMO

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Oct 29, 2010 -> 08:45 AM) For State House 11th district, my choices are apparently a democrat whose consistently dodges questions of how to fix the budget, or a Republican whose web page is almost entirely written in Latin. Fantastic. haha. yes.

QUOTE (Tex @ Oct 28, 2010 -> 07:16 AM) and this . . . Isn't it wonderful that private corporations, who stand to make billions, can write legistlation for us! most corporations are for unlimited immigration. that and the removal of the minimum wage. take a guess as to why.

Brady/Kirk

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 23, 2010 -> 11:11 AM) I'm not going to defend that Grayson ad, but really...that ad is only a new low once you've decided that every ad a Republican ever ran is automatically ok. That kind of personal crap has been run for years, and the Right has won race after race using it. The left shouldn't be using it, but neither should the other side. That's the whole point. that ad took it to all all time high. he, literally, cut and pasted the guys words into something that was exactly the opposite of what he was saying in context. as far as GOP ads, they are usually bulls*** too. for a political ad connoisseur such as myself, the Grayson ad really is in a class of it's own. i applaud him for being completely bats*** crazy, making no apologies for it, and bringing that madness to the masses. i am a fan in a certain sense (entertainment) , but I do have a lot of reservations about some of the politicos gaining momentum as of late. i don't want f***ing idiots making decisions that effect me. but much of the current set of legislators in DC are crap

QUOTE (lostfan @ Oct 23, 2010 -> 11:18 AM) Grayson by default gets lumped in as "crazy" along with Michele Bachmann's bats*** ass because of the media's tendency to want to make everything equal on both sides, mostly because of that "the Republican plan is for you to die quickly" quote. He's really not, he just made a conscious decision to not be a typical p**** ass Democrat who is afraid of hurting Republicans' feelings and just says what's on his mind. This is something that Republicans have never had a problem doing in my memory. Grayson is one of the most entertaining loons i've ever seen in Washington. dude is a retard, much like Bachmann. funny to watch though

The 'Taliban Dan' ad Grayson put out is probably least honost/most hilarious ad i've ever seen. pretty much sets the bar at a whole new level.

QUOTE (Soxy @ Oct 19, 2010 -> 10:21 AM) But will it be a bigger or smaller mess than the NY gubernatorial election? in NY a guy started off one of his rebuttles with the phrase "As a karate master, " win

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Oct 21, 2010 -> 01:34 PM) Is it the ads though? Honestly I don't know. There is also the possibility that the angry votes for changing to anything went GOP, and now people see that some of these GOP candidates aren't any better (or, in the case of some of the Tea Party faves, are worse), so maybe they are sobering a bit. Or, as I saw someone point out, there is the fact that for whatever reason, the Dems tend to get their base going later in the cycle than GOP'ers do. impossible to say for sure. but i think if you strike a nerve in political ads, they can be very effective.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 21, 2010 -> 07:41 AM) You refer to Kentucky...but Rand Paul is the legitimate front-runner in that race, and Conway has actually closed the gap if anything. He certainly hasn't been hurt by his ads. i think aquabuddhagate is having an effect the outsourcing ads the Democrats have been running are closing some gaps (or even building leads) in some races the GOP really wanted to win.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 20, 2010 -> 08:37 PM) He is completely 100% spineless. The things he could do and fix, he ran away from. totally agree

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Oct 16, 2010 -> 04:13 PM) i had a boss several years back that developed a staph infection and almost died about 6 or 7 times over a 3 month period. He ended up paying about $15k out of pocket, but his insurance covered the remaining 500k. We used ours to have surgery on my sons shoulder, cost us $1100, insurance paid the remaining 14k. I had a vascectomy, paid $50 (and yes, went to a hospital, not a back alley!) insurance covered the rest. Wife had appendix removed, no cost to us. good to know that a lot of companies are paying out. i'm sure it's a big reason for the high premiums. not sure what the average ratios of premium/loss would be. saving your own money for something, tax free, drives the Democrats insane.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 16, 2010 -> 01:11 PM) 95% of those who responded "White" were non-Hispanic white. makes me like the tea party even more. evil whiteys, unite

Health insurance does seem like a total ripoff. But I'm an idiot, so I probably don't know what I'm talking about but anyways.... 1) I have no idea what my health insurance even covers. There could be a clause in my coverage that, in lawyer speak, says I explicitly agree to never file a cliam. I don't understand any of the BS in that policy. 2) If I actually get seriously ill would they pay? I've worked with the insurance industry enough to know that they would do everything in their power to avoid payment. The only person I know that actually got really sick and had health insurance got screwed. They basically found a loop hole in her coverage and told her to f*** off. 3) From, let's say 22- 40 years of age, if you don't seriously sick you will have saved a s*** LOAD of loot if you had all that health insurance premium. You could save it away for when you get old and do need it. I could easily amass $200k. 4) Once you have your mass amount of money saved, you can get care wherever you want. You don't have to pay super high US health care costs if you don't want. More options, go to Germany or something for major stuff.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 14, 2010 -> 08:20 PM) If I point at another poll that says 89%+ of self-identified Tea Party respondents are White not really that surprising considering 75% of the country is classified as white. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_...e_and_ethnicity

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 14, 2010 -> 08:25 PM) You can check the one I just posted. Tea partiers are more strongly anti-abortion than a general sample, 65% think Global Warming isn't a serious problem or doesn't exist, 16% support gay Marriage (national number = 40%). Interesting thing I note...only 28% of self-identified Tea Partiers have a favorable impression of Ron Paul, while 65-70% have favorable opinions of Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin. it was interesting to see that 20% also consider themselves as Democrats or closely associate with the Democrats.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Oct 14, 2010 -> 04:03 PM) That's an interesting point. While the GOP has chosen to thoroughly co-opt the movement, because the alignment is better... the Dems have decided to mock it. To me, that makes no sense, especially since the more libertarian aspects of the general movement actually fits better witht he Dems than the GOP. Seems like the smart thing would be to try to wedge between the candidates and the partiers. Try to appeal to the movement in areas like social issues where they would agree with the Dems at least in part, and then try to illustrate NOT how the TP-endorsed candidates are crazy because they are conservative, but that the are just plain crazy, and not actually defending liberty at all. seems like the Dem strategy has been to try and 'take the wind out of the sails' of the tea party. but when i read some of the tea party stuff, it seems some of those 'sails' actually belong on the Democrat ship, rather than the GOP ship. i think sapping 20% of tea party support and transferring to the Democrats would be a very workable goal without compromising the Democrat platform.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 14, 2010 -> 02:06 PM) And the problem we keep focusing on, and the reason that this matter infuriates us so much is...these people are unhappy about the way things are going in our nation, and their solution is to say repeatedly that they're not part of any party, and then fit entirely under the umbrella of one party, adopt the beliefs of one party, and then get angry when my side points out "but you're almost entirely in that party!" They want to be divorced from parties, and yet adopt 95% of the Republican platform. Then, when the Republicans decide on a policy, the Tea party manages to find a way to follow that policy decision exactly. Aside from the Arizona immigration example, I can give you another one; Wall Street reform. The Tea Party, if it really hated the bailouts, should have been all over that issue. Even if they didn't fully agree with the Obama proposal, dismantling the system that led to the bailouts should have been an issue that would have put thousands in the streets. They should have been out demanding stronger Wall Street reform such that the bank bailouts would never happen again, but that would have interfered with the interests of the Republican Party and the financial entities (like AFP) that fund the Tea party, so Finreg went through without a whimper of protest. (and yes, it's the Dem thread so I can link to a liberal blog and you can't complain). Or, here's another one...the banks openly violating the law by foreclosing on thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands of people, kicking hard working Americans out of their homes, without proper standing or documentation? Basically a bunch of banks trampling on individual property rights and contract standing? That does nothing either. there are actually some issues that the Dems could use to make inroads to get some tea party supporters away from the GOP. the current Democrat technique of accusing everyone of being a racist idiot doesn't seem to be working.

QUOTE (Tex @ Oct 14, 2010 -> 01:32 PM) I believe people should be compelled to act up to their comfort and skill level. That is impossible to quantify in a court of law. agreed

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Oct 14, 2010 -> 12:57 PM) I agree with this, but, that also begs a different question. If there is no cohesive set of beliefs or policy stances, no single movement, no party and nothing knitting them together... what purpose do they serve? Good, bad or otherwise, what are they going to accomplish if they don't stand for anything? the 'Tea Party' seems more like a network, than a typical political organization. there isn't really a way to dictate to a group such as that, but there are ways to get your message across the network and hope it gains momentum.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 8, 2010 -> 09:30 PM) They sell the house at near full value someone is selling foreclosed houses at 'full value' bubble prices'? I need to find this salesperson and hire them. they can obviously sell anything.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Oct 8, 2010 -> 08:24 PM) a bong and a crack pipe? haha

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 6, 2010 -> 04:48 PM) Remember when President Obama said that the Citizens United decision could open the door to foreign funding of ads in U.S. elections, and justice Alito was caught on camera saying "not true"? Basically, if the Chamber is following the letter of the law as closely as possible, they're taking donations from overseas, using that to finance their operations, and that frees up those funds to spend on anti-Democrat ads. But...there's no way for anyone to check if they're even doing that, and not just openly using foreign contributions, because there are no disclosure requirements. If the Democrats can't create a campaign ad from that, they might as well just give up.

home insurance should be really high in an area that has a fire dept like that. i know there are often different rates based on distance from fire hydrant, fire station, ect. imagine the extra charge for having a fire dept that will watch your house burn down if you forget to pay a 75$ fee. there would have to be a clause in the policy that excluded insurance payment if the 75$ fee was not paid.