tvc184

Right. Just like the president's own press secretary said a few days before the election. His comment when ask about the upcoming wave was that the president and Democrats did not believe that the wave was coming. You appear infatuated with the word denial. That comes to mind in this situation.

The Republicans have been negotiating. Maybe some people missed representative Elijah Cummings went on camera he told the Republicans after the Democrats had taken over both houses, you lost and that's the way things work. We control the legislature now. There was no negotiations. Their negotiations was either go along with us or get out of the way.

Sure he will veto. He will be stuck with bills actually making it to his desk. Obama lost his final surrogate and will have to stand on his own record.. which is no record. By the next two years, that record will finally exist and it won't be pretty, just like last night's results.    Fortunately and just like these elections, he will bring the rest of the Democratic party with him. 

I hope he vetoes everything. That will be the fait accompli for the 2016 presidential election. Might as well make it a clear sweep and get back to business.    The Dems are about to deal with what the Republicans had to deal with after the Democrats controlled both houses during Bush's last two years. He was stuck with a non-cooperative legislature and that led to Obama's election. What caused his election is what will cause a Republican sweep in 2016.    Of course the Dems will be in denial just like in this election. It won't happen.... it won't happen.... it won't.......... okay, it happened. 

    This from the same person that scoffed at a Republican win taking back the Senate.    Realizing that it will not be repealed at first in its entirety, it will have provisions slowly removed. Then the Dems will be on their knees praying that the Obama disaster will not translate to a Republican win in the next presidential election. If so, Obamascare will go bye-bye. 

    I am sure in your disgust at the turnout (understandable) you missed the previous posts so I will quote one of mine.        A president who has not had to use veto power in 6 years because he has had his shills doing his bidding for him, will now be stuck with actually leading, maybe by veto. But the country and world will see. For 6 years the Democrats will not even allow most bills to come up for a vote. They will not allow a budget to pass. Now such things will go forward and if he feels that he can go in front of the people and tell them that it is him now stopping legislation, go for it.    As an example, let the president veto a bill to allow the Keystone pipeline to go through. Let him and the Dems go into the next election knowing that they are blocking a popular energy bill. He won't be on the ballot but many Democrats will be and when they continue to back him, their fate will likewise be sealed.    On the other hand, with a simple veto pen he will have a lot more time to improve his swing on the golf course. 

One of our frequent flyers on the Democrat's side of this forum said a few months ago said that the Republicans were a sinking ship. It looks like that sinking ship just torpedoed the USS Obama.    On the comic side, I had to turn on MSNBC and watch their late coverage and I am glad that I did not watch them during the actual counting of votes because watching them, I thought the Democrats had won. Then they had about a 20 minute discussion about raising the minimum wage and showed New Hampshire Senator Jeanne Shaheen after her "huge" 52% win as an incumbent in a liberal state and she was talking about pushing (yet again) for the higher minimum wage with her stunning 2% victory.    HUH? It kinds of reminds me of the Cpl Hudson (Bill Paxton) in the movie Aliens after they had just fought their way out of the compound against hordes of aliens and he told a guy (and I have to clean it up for this forum), "Maybe you haven't been keeping up on current events pal but we just got our butts kicked!!".    Here's a tip Jeanne, your party had a super majority in both houses that the Republicans could not stop as they did not have enough votes to even filibuster in the Senate. You also had the presidency and that two branch sweep that was unstoppable... yet you and they did nothing. Well...... they did pass Obamacare which coincidentally is likely the reason that you just got smashed on what Obama a few weeks ago called, a referendum on his policies.    The most important part of this Senate victory is not legislation per se because Obama will simply veto almost any bill sent. The huge victory is that Obama can get no treaties passed, no cabinet appointments and no federal judges including the Supreme Court without Republican consent. He has refused to compromise or even get involved legislatively. Now he is completely neutered unless he makes some kinds of concessions. It is also interesting that Harry Reid changed the long time rules and threw away the 60 votes required by Senate to bring something to a floor vote and used the so called "nuclear option" requiring only a majority vote to end any filibuster on nominations. We now he is faced with the fact that the Republicans will use the rules change to shove it right back in their face.    Oh yeah, thank you Obama for giving the Republicans the most representatives in the US House in history. Not even during the heyday of the Republicans and their contract with America did they hold as many seat as they will come January when the new Congress is sworn in.    And one last time, Jimmy Carter is so glad that Obama has proven to be the worst president at least in modern history as even Carter never lost the Senate until Ronald Reagan beat him in 1980 (he never lost the House even in losing to Reagan).    So much for that sinking ship................ 

  I believe it is by both houses, not just the Senate since both houses passed the law and both have to override a veto. 

  Nothing will change in this congress until the next election, period. Even controlling both houses, the president has veto power. He doesn't have to use it because Harry Reid is his buffer and will let nothing come up for a vote that will ever have to be vetoed.    The only changes possible will be after the next presidential election. Either the Republicans will take it back and if they can hold both houses, can get legislation pass or a Democrat that will actually be involved and try to compromise will work some bill through instead of the current stalemate.    The only thing the midterms are likely to do is to keep Obama appointments out of office such as to the Supreme Court. With the House seemingly firmly in Republican hands, no legislation can pass anyway without a compromise and those just aren't coming. The Senate however does not need congressional approval and only from that one house to confirm nominees. With Harry Reid using the nuclear option and changing the long standing rules of the Senate, if the Republicans take the Senate they will have huge power to confirm or stop any nomination in its tracks.    In effect this election is only about a complete stopping of Obama power until a new president can be put in office, not about legislation no matter who wins or keep the Senate. 

It is hard to tell about the mid-terms since there are a fair substantial percentage of people that have no clue of the names running but put the button for straight ticket.    With that said, the Dems are sweating this one out. They are behind in almost every race that is up for grabs but with only about half the people voting, it doesn't matter who is the most popular but who shows up at the polls. You can lead in true public opinion 55-45% and lose the election if the other side can round up enough people and get them to the polls.    I think the Washington Post just came out with a 96% chance the Republicans take back the Senate. 

I am hoping for a couple of does and a decent buck on the trip. 

A couple of years ago I saw where some college was recommending that we not teach American history prior to (I think) 1895 or something in that range. The reasoning was that it was irrelevant.    I remember no mention of why they thought it was not important. It could be to do with the parts of history like overthrowing our own government like in the Revolutionary War and the Civil War, freeing of the slaves, etc. I wonder if they wanted to remove most references of fighting for freedom. 

    Reading this from CNN...  "In this case, the 18-year-old was armed, and he fired on the officer first, St. Louis Police Chief Sam Dotson said.".....and in the same article....."The officer and one of the three tussled. The teen ran off, then turned around and fired at least three shots at the officer, Dotson said. The officer returned fire, killing the teen. Police recovered a 9 mm handgun".    I am inclined to believe that the officer was fired on. Then again, this is from CNN, a well known Tea Party outlet.    [Hidden Content]

No one has symptoms...... until they have symptoms.    While that seems ridiculously obvious, the CDC has said that you might show symptoms up to 21 days after exposure. I can only think that means that you might be symptom free at 19 days and still come down with the disease.    There is likely about a 99.8% chance that she does not have Ebola. In fact I would probably wager a fairly large sum of money that she doesn't. With that, the idea that "she can't have it" seems stupid while looking at the CDC guidelines. 

  Okay, I remember that one now about three weeks ago.   If that guy fired at an officer (or anyone for that matter) and continued to flee, I don't care if he was shot in the back. As long as he retained a weapon or possibly could have retained a weapon, I see nothing illegal about that. According to what else happened, deadly force could be lawfully used as long as he was fleeing and failed to surrender. 

Who got shot in the back of the head?

  Always a wise choice. 

    It's hard to tell hippy.    Maybe it is the same place this comes from:       Maybe we miss the day when whites could kill blacks in front of witnesses and get away with it?    When I read such comments I always wonder where they come from. I saw nothing in the thread (or any thread ever) that said such nonsense that could be even wildly construed as we longed for the days when you could murder someone without fear of retribution. Even so, apparently some of the comments were interpreted that way.    I guess under that rationale, if you said that PNG will beat Central this Saturday afternoon, I could in response reasonably say, yeah but my income taxes will go up next year and voter ID will be approved by the SCOTUS. 

Awesome weather.... but I will not be hunting this weekend.

Sorry. Didn't know I needed permission to post.   Duly noted. 

.......... and bring your AR-15?

  Leaches on the public dole.    The slug, dropout that is getting it for free or paying $10 a month thinks that is great but for the guy working for a living and it goes from $500 a month to $800 a month, not so much. 

  I listened to his comments and then read the transcript to make sure that I wasn't missing something.    Barkley never said anything about the entire race. His comments were, "The loser kids" (doesn't sound like the entire race) and when speaking directly about blacks knocking other blacks stated, "Black people who are unintelligent, who don't have, uh, success" (again doesn't sound like an entire race).     So losers and unsuccessful people are dragging blacks down in his opinion. I don't know about dragging people down but I do know that I have witnessed some of the exact comments that he is talking about. 

Holder is a divisive pot stirrer and the only difference between him and Jesse Jackson/Al Sharpton/et al, is that he works for the administration.    I honestly do not think he is about truth but an agenda. All politicians (that includes people appointed by politicians) have an agenda but it should end at the point of ignoring facts or trying your best to prove a point even when the facts do not back it up. How would someone like it if I based traffic stops and police action on political affiliation?     I just watched Holder make a statement on the television about Ferguson and he said that definitely the leaks (about Officer Wilson being justified) need to stop and quit swaying public opinion (I will get back to that later). In almost the same sentence he then went on to say that he has an open investigation and there are big problems in the Ferguson PD that needs to be corrected.   Okay... the leaks need to stop and trying to sway public opinion should not be done...... unless of course, it is done in the same statement by the guy saying it. Holder says to quit trying to sway the public and in the same breath says... "But I have found serious issues at Ferguson PD".   Really? You people quit putting out statements.... but let me keep putting out mine on the exact same topic. He might as well say.... "Y'all need to quit trying to paint one of the parties (Michael Brown) in a bad light while as continue to look into the situation with an open eye but that evil FPD needs to have 'wholesale change' due to that evilness".    Again, really?   On the public opinion, what does he care what the public thinks? He seems to more than willing to allow the public to hate the PD and makes statements (including today) that supports that belief but he is unwilling to allow people to know any facts that portray the Officer Wilson as not only using lawful force but necessary force.    I know that people want to believe that he is being completely fair and unbiased but looking at his actions, it doesn't seem to bear that out. 

It is more like we need a specific change in our attorney general.