Forum Thread

Shores Lake Topics

(Shores Lake Specific)

0 messages

Updated

Off-Topic

Lakes Online Forum

84,091 messages

Updated 11/8/2024 10:28:12 AM

Boat Maintenance

Lakes Online Forum

5,204 messages

Updated 9/14/2024 10:10:50 AM

Shores Lake Fishing

(Shores Lake Specific)

0 messages

Updated

Jokes

Lakes Online Forum

4,172 messages

Updated 9/9/2024 5:04:44 PM

Sports

Lakes Online Forum

4,262 messages

Updated 11/6/2024 6:43:09 PM

Grilling & Recipes

Lakes Online Forum

2,979 messages

Updated 6/26/2024 5:03:03 AM

Tallapoosa River Topics

Lakes Online Forum

98 messages

Updated 4/15/2024 1:00:58 AM

Forum Usage Rules

Name:	architect -	Reply
Subject:	Buy it,read it,consider it
Date:	6/27/2009 11:53:35 AM

I know most of you will rant and rave about remaining faithful to the eternal truths and never compromising your principals even as you ride into the sunset of political oblivion. That being said, for your sake, the GOP's sake,and the sake of America, please buy, read and take to heart Joe Scarborough's new book. As he said on NPR this morning, how can the Republican party expect to be taken seriously when they rail against gov't intrusion into the market place but demand it's intrusion into the private life of the citizen. He also pointed out that Ronald Reagan was a conservative but knew the value of respect for opposing ideas. He made the point RR were alive today he certainly wouldn't turn off those who might be brought into his camp by calling Barack Obama a communist. You call me a liberal and point out that all "moderates" are actually liberals at heart. If that analysis is true then your side is doomed. I am like most Americans, I come down a somewhere to the right or left of center on most issues and I think Joe is a conservative who makes a lot of sense.

Name:	Talullahhound -	Reply
Subject:	Buy it,read it,consider it
Date:	6/27/2009 2:08:16 PM

As I've mentioned before, I watch Morning Joe most mornings with my coffee. The man makes a lot of sense. I've got his book on order. As I understand it, there is enough Obama bashing in it to even satisfy the conservatives here. But, they won't like it, because Joe subscribes to getting Republicans off social issues and onto Constitutional issues.

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	Joe's Thesis is Wrong
Date:	6/27/2009 4:50:35 PM

Help me understand how alienating the most faithful Republicans (social conservatives) is the key to electoral success?!?!? McCain was Joe's kind of guy and we see how well he did against the Messiah. What Joe doesn't seem to get is that social conservatism is simply a wedge issue used by Democrats to attract certain voters. They will simply move onto another area to demonize Republican candidates that abandon those issues.

If the Republican party abandoned social conservative issues they become in my definition Democrat-lite. And for every social liberal they pick up by abandoning their principals they will lose 2 social conservatives. Ronald Reagan did not do that and neither did Joe Scarborough when he ran for Congress and was seated as a Freshman congressman from Florida in 1994.

He is a true Federalist and for that I admire him. He is opposed to the profligate (Archie: excessive) spending of both parties in control of Congress and is right about that as well. But he has clearly forgotten what brought him to Congress in 1994 in Florida. And he has certainly forgotten what the good priests and nuns taught him in high school that it is better to give up the whole world than to lose your soul.

Abandoning social conservative issues is saying I would rather have power than be true to my principals and would involve abandoning the defenseless unborn, the elderly to euthanasia, marriage to same sex couples, etc. Not for me and I will not vote for any politician that does so. If that means future electoral failure than so be it. I will take my consolation in the next life......God willing.

Name:	architect -	Reply
Subject:	MM's Thesis is Wrong
Date:	6/27/2009 5:47:31 PM

Fine stay where you are. Stand on your social principals rather than change to obtain power and get in the end neither. I know you don't like it but America has spoken and as Hound pointed out so well they don't agree with central Alabama.

Name:	water_watcher -	Reply
Subject:	Buy it,read it,consider it
Date:	6/27/2009 11:50:54 PM

ok archie that is someone elses thoughts ... thanks for sharing ... but what do YOU think the BO administrations will lead us to? what do you see as the vision of where we are going? Please share. I would love to know. I and others have said what we do not like and what we think it will lead to ... you are critical ... so you must see it going somewhere else. What is that. Maybe we are missing something and you can tell us where these policies will take the country. All I ask is that if it doesn't or not even come close ... will you admit he is a failure and the policies do not work? Or are you just a blind follower no matter what?

I and others have said we hope we are wrong. I honestly do. And will admit if I am ... I don't think I am .... but at least tell us your vision. so we know what you are expecting to happen.

At least one simple one? When do you think will we have positive job growth with all this massive spending? What would be an acceptable time frame for you? Is that less than what you would have expected without all the spending? Why do you think the jobless rate is still growing when we have such massive stimulus and in past recessions tax cuts stimulated the economy so much faster and got people back to work.

Name:	water_watcher -	Reply
Subject:	MM's Thesis is Wrong
Date:	6/27/2009 11:53:16 PM

so share your vision of where we are going .... please stop throwing darts. tell us what we are not seeing. I want to share in what you are seeing with those rose colored glasses. Please I would love to know. It must be good so let us share in that happiness of what is coming.

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	MM's Thesis is Wrong
Date:	6/28/2009 8:31:04 AM

Why do you think that what happened in the last election is somehow set in stone forever? What is your historical basis for thinking that? I think even a brief glance at the last 30 years shows how quickly things can turn when one party overreaches or abandons their principals. It is almost inconceivable to me that you would be so sure of this point.

Also, why are you so convinced that all that ails the Republican party is social conservatism? Bush, Reagan, the Republican-lead Congress of 1994 were all socially conservative. I think you misread the return of control of Congress to Dems and Obama's win and ascribe too much to your hot button issue (social conservatism). I truly believe that the middle of the road or moderates or whatever you want to call them did not abandon the GOP only because of social issues.

Maybe set aside the vitriol and insults and answer my questions. And yes, I will not set aside my principals simply for power. While that is the greatest weakness of a democratic form of government I am more concerned about my eternity than the rest of my time on earth.

Name:	architect -	Reply
Subject:	MM's Thesis is Wrong
Date:	6/28/2009 10:52:20 AM

MM look at the demographics! WW, I am concerned about much of what Obama is doing and even more so with Congress. That is the reason I don't want the GOP to commit slow suicide as it is now doing.

I am not in favor of the current direction of healthcare reform but do know something must be done. My favored plan would mandate every American have insurance with some federal help possibly in the form of a gov't option for those who couldn't afford coverage. Insurance Co's should be required to insure all without regard to pre-existing conditions, providers would be required to accept all comers, and the centerpiece, every American would be responsible for their insurance, employers would not allowed to provide coverage and would be required to rebate a percentage (?75%) of the savings to the employee as a salary increase (talk about competition!). Without a viable Republican party any reasonable plan is impossible.

I'm for an court system that is completely without partianship. Judges for all major Federal courts should be selected by lot from a pool of 10 senate pre-approved candidates. The initial pool should be selected by a non-partisan committee selected jointly be the Supreme Court, Congress and the President. After that the appointments would be made by the President with Senate approval.
After the initial sellections no appointee could be raised to the court until they had been in the pool for at least one year. Such a system would make for more centrist (less activist!!!!) judges completely removed fron direct political influence. Constitutional admendment required.

I do not like the energy bill now working its way through the Congress. I do know we MUST cut our use of oil (foreign or domestic) and we MUST cut emissions (just this minute heard Lindsay Graham say "global warming is real" on MTP). How do we do it. Taxes! I can hear you screaming from here. All fossil fuels whether used an individual or business including utilities should be much more heavly taxed. The tax rate should gradually increase if use did not go down. Gas guzzler sales should not be restricted but should be taxed at purchase. Very fuel efficient cars should be given a tax credit at sale. Tax income should be used to develope alternative energy sources including nuclear.

Now WW you have a few of my ideas. They don't seem to be in Obama's orbit but their not even in the GOP universe. Now what are your alternatives other than if Obama and the Democrats are for it I'm against!

PS: MTP just posted a poll comparison for Pres. approval at end of June: W = 50%
BO = 58%

Name:	water_watcher -	Reply
Subject:	MM's Thesis is Wrong
Date:	6/28/2009 11:35:26 AM

much of what you outlined is so out of touch with where we are going it does not answer the question as to what policies you support from the Obama administration and where do you think it will take the country. If you are saying you don't support him and his policies now (which it sounds like with your views), then you are basically saying you will support a wrong direction because you dod not like republicans. and that is sad. what is it that you don't like about republicans?

your poll comparison is wrong from what i have seen. but i am sure some liberal media source is trying to spin it as favorable since he has dropped so far so fast that the trend is not good.

i have put my ideas out there many times ... and while I have said many many times that i do not agree with Obama's policies and direction, i hope i am wrong and missing something and that it works for the country .... but so far it is pretty clear it is not and may be getting worse as unemployment keeps raising with massive wasteful spending. which means tax revenues declining too which spells disaster.

the dems should be ashamed they were critical of republican deficits (which BTW were too high) since now that is pocket change compared to what obama and they are doing.

Name:	architect -	Reply
Subject:	MM's Thesis is Wrong
Date:	6/28/2009 12:08:47 PM

I am very wary of where Obama and Congress will take us especially If the GOP continues to self distruct. That being said all of us often have to select the less bad, the perfect can't be the enemy of the generally good. That was certainly the case in '08. Remember I reluctantly voted for W on '04 and consider it the biggest mistake of my life. I hope Obama doesn't make it the 2d biggest. I think BO is moving in what I consider the generally politically possible correct direction even if he takes 3 steps back for every 4 forward. Again. he is not doing what I would wish but he is performong far better than any of the rightwingers on this forum or the GOP heros they worship would.

Name:	water_watcher -	Reply
Subject:	that is where you ARE wrong
Date:	6/28/2009 12:27:45 PM

I and i don't think the other "rightwingers" (do you really need to be so childish with the name calling ... are you in HS or something) support and particular person. It is conservative principals, economic disapline, low taxes, strong national security, capitalism, smaller government, allowing the private sector create jobs and government can and should manage that when necessary through tax incentives and not massive spending bills.

The GOP did lose some of these conservative principals, but for the most part align with those core beliefs.

What do you not agree with from what i laid out above?

Name:	architect -	Reply
Subject:	that is where you ARE wrong
Date:	6/28/2009 12:32:32 PM

How can I agree or disagree with such a poorly composed and structured post that makes no sense. Are you in elementary school?

Name:	water_watcher -	Reply
Subject:	that is where you ARE wrong
Date:	6/28/2009 12:37:30 PM

there you go again ... hopefully will move on later this year. wish me luck.

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	Thoughts on your points
Date:	6/28/2009 7:04:34 PM

"MM look at the demographics! WW, I am concerned about much of what Obama is doing and even more so with Congress. That is the reason I don't want the GOP to commit slow suicide as it is now doing."

I am well aware of the demographics but you still haven't explained to me how alienating the most reliable 75% of your base is the key to electoral success? What is your evidence for that? I have pointed out several times that the GOP enjoyed electoral success when it did the opposite of what you are suggesting. I just don't see the connection but I am going to buy his book and read it and see if I can understand.

"I am not in favor of the current direction of healthcare reform but do know something must be done. My favored plan would mandate every American have insurance with some federal help possibly in the form of a gov't option for those who couldn't afford coverage. Insurance Co's should be required to insure all without regard to pre-existing conditions, providers would be required to accept all comers, and the centerpiece, every American would be responsible for their insurance, employers would not allowed to provide coverage and would be required to rebate a percentage (?75%) of the savings to the employee as a salary increase (talk about competition!). Without a viable Republican party any reasonable plan is impossible."

What did you think you were going to get when you voted for Obama? Honestly, you and others like Hound were warned and now you tell us we need to be viable to provide the loyal opposition to this craziness? I can tell you if they go to a government plan that I know I am going to be paying for in the form of much higher taxes I am going to drop our employer-provided insurance, especially when they tax it. As for a rebate of the savings from employers, what you are suggesting is a pay increase because we no longer pay our portion of the premium. Well I am going to be paying for their "free" health insurance in the form of confiscatory taxes and then I have to give them a raise to boot? Not likely. I don't have the answer to health care costs and insurance except to say that until the consumer understands and bears the cost of health and we get rid of third parties (insurance companies or the government) for all but catastrophic care nothing will change. Government health care is a disaster in Canada and England and everywhere else, but its coming here because of you other so-called moderates votes....not mine.

"I'm for an court system that is completely without partianship. Judges for all major Federal courts should be selected by lot from a pool of 10 senate pre-approved candidates. The initial pool should be selected by a non-partisan committee selected jointly be the Supreme Court, Congress and the President. After that the appointments would be made by the President with Senate approval.
After the initial sellections no appointee could be raised to the court until they had been in the pool for at least one year. Such a system would make for more centrist (less activist!!!!) judges completely removed fron direct political influence. Constitutional admendment required."

The issue isn't partisanship (D versus R), it is being a strict constructionist and not legislating from the bench. I like your desired outcome but I don't really understand how your approach would get there. How do you remove a political bias from a lawyer? Every one that I know and work with has a world view that informs their judicial approach. I would really like to understand how it would work the way you hope because if we could get there by your approach I would be all for it. I am sick of a few unelected tyrants negating the will of the people.

"I do not like the energy bill now working its way through the Congress. I do know we MUST cut our use of oil (foreign or domestic) and we MUST cut emissions (just this minute heard Lindsay Graham say "global warming is real" on MTP). How do we do it. Taxes! I can hear you screaming from here. All fossil fuels whether used an individual or business including utilities should be much more heavly taxed. The tax rate should gradually increase if use did not go down. Gas guzzler sales should not be restricted but should be taxed at purchase. Very fuel efficient cars should be given a tax credit at sale. Tax income should be used to develope alternative energy sources including nuclear."

Archie: the relationship between man-made carbon emissions and global temperatures is not a settled issue and I don't care what a moron like Lindsey Graham or McCain or any other mind numbed politician says. They are just plain wrong and I can tell you this is an area which I have a lot of expertise. This whole issue will one day be shown to have been the greatest fraud perpetrated on mankind and Algore will be seen as a charlatan. Taxes are not the answer and I will tell you why. A recent study in Spain (where they have a very advanced cap and trade system, high carbon taxes, etc.) showed that for every green job created Spain lost between 2 and 3 jobs. Hence, while we have a 9% unemployment rate theirs is 19%. Question for you, assuming there is no relationship between carbon use by man and global climates would you still support the tax?

"PS: MTP just posted a poll comparison for Pres. approval at end of June: W = 50%
BO = 58%"

This is cherry picking at its finest. 50% represents that lowest approval rating of the lot. His composite average at the end of June 2001 was 56% with a range of 50% to 60%. What is interesting is he started at a composite of around 56% with the maximum being in the low 60's. So it is undeniable that the Messiah has fallen considerably in the first 6 months while Bush stayed consistent. Of course we will ignore comparisons post 9-11 because Bush was in the 85%+ approval rating range and rightly so.

Archie: Your best post so far, not that you care about my opinion. Keep up the good work and maybe we can have civil disagreements like I do with Hound.

Quick Links
Shores Lake News
Shores Lake Photos
Shores Lake Videos