Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
eavesdropper
Participant[quote=pri_dk][quote=Allan from Fallbrook] the barbarians are already at the gates. And, in two years, they’ll be inside.[/quote]
Barbarians may have some internal struggles to deal with in those next two years:
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20021350-503544.html
advisers to top potential 2012 Republican presidential candidates are united in their desire to stop Sarah Palin from winning the presidential nomination out of a fear that she would lose badly in the general election.[/quote]
Did she really use the term “anti-dentite” in her email?
Putting aside its rather odd placement in her stream of vitriol against Politico reporters……is this another Sarah Palin made-up word or did she steal it from Jerry Seinfeld?
Participant[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=eavesdropper] I am partial to a (at the least) two-party system. And I don’t want those two parties to be Republican and Tea Party.[/quote]
Eaves: And yet… There’s an old saw in the Army that goes: “Amateurs discuss tactics and experts discuss logistics”.
For those paying close attention, yesterday’s election had nothing to do with “message” or Obama. Instead it was all about voter mobilization. I was very interested in what Democratic strategists like Gergen and Begala had to say last night, and it was clear to them that last night’s victory presaged and prefigured a larger GOP following wave. As one of the other Dem operatives opined: “Obama didn’t have a Movement, Obama had a Moment”.[/quote]
Correction, Alan. Or, at least, qualification. Yesterday’s election was all about voter mobilization on the Right. The Democrats weren’t even aware that mobilizing voters would be necessary until late September. That’s the difference between the Repubs and Dems: the need for voter mobilization is never questioned with the former, even between elections. Republicans could repeal the 22nd Amendment, and bring Ronald Reagan back from the dead, but they would still be pulling out all the stops trying to rally more and more voters.
Frankly, I don’t waste much time listening to Democratic strategists (and I use that word loosely). My reasons were exhaustively outlined in my post but, to sum them up, who the hell is scoring the Rohypnol for these assholes? Watching them tiresomely droning on about “what went wrong” is an incredibly surreal expeience. They are so egocentric, and soooooo incredibly and unbelieveably clueless. I admit to liking David Gerson, but and Paul Begala can be bit uneven. But there are only them and a couple others who seem to be even remotely in touch with the actual truth of the situation.
I made the following observation yesterday:”[The Dems ha]ve failed to detect changes in the sociological landscape. They’ve been convinced that the electorate would never fall for the “tricks” of the GOP, and they are still under the impression that it’s only ill-bred, illiterate folks from the South that are against them, and that the remainder of the middle-class sees them as the “friend of the working man”.” The truth of the matter is that a very significant percentage of white middle class voters have gone in for the Tea Party, both blue collar and white collar, and college grads and high school dropouts. This flight is not a recent phenomenon: many of them abandoned the Democratic Party for the Repubs several years back, and made the subsequent decision to move to the Tea Party. The danger in this startling demographic change is that these people have been very adept at bringing spouses, children, relatives, friends, and even casual acquaintances into the movement. But here are the Dems, still laboring under the delusion that the middle class will remain unquestioningly faithful to them, and totally unaware that they’ve been gone for over 15 years.
[quote=Allan from Fallbrook] As one of the other Dem operatives opined: “Obama didn’t have a Movement, Obama had a Moment”….[/quote]
I don’t quite agree. Obama had a moment, but it was with a following that could have provided a solid structure for a Movement that, given adequate funding and intellectually and politically competent administration, might be capable of some countering of the Tea Party tide. However, immediately following the election, it was left to disintegrate. No one in the Administration or at the Democratic National Committee made any effort to maintain and tap these awesome resources.
[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]…The GOP effectively harnessed and then controlled the Tea Party last night. Where the Tea Party put forth realistic, credible candidates, they won. Where they didn’t (think O’Donnell), they didn’t. It was also about women in politics and Hispanics and here as well the GOP outshot the Dems.
Illinois (Obama’s home state) fell, as did Ohio and Pennsylvania. If you’re thinking 2012, this is galvanic. Nevada almost did and, let’s be honest, how credible was Sharron Angle really? Harry Reid barely eked out a win. California is now within striking distance for the GOP, and that is THE gzme-changer….[/quote]
I agree 100% with the statement about the GOP harnessing the Tea Party’s resources, here and in my earlier post. I believe that the TP’s decision not to unite their organizations and centralize their operations, along with their general lack of political sophistication, will leave them vulnerable to a complete and swift GOP takeover. I also heartily concur with your assessment of the devastating potential of the GOP/TP’s victories in Illinois, and if the Democrats are even attempting to explain this away or excuse it by using any phrase that doesn’t include the words, “We fucked up”, there simply is no hope for the party.
But I am fervently hoping that your question, “let’s be honest, how credible was Sharron Angle really?”, was a rhetorical one. In her defense, however, I found myself making a similar query about her opponent while I listened to the rebroadcast of the Angle-Reid debate on C-SPAN last week.
And, unlike Brian, I have no doubts that California is vulnerable to the GOP and Tea Party, infinitely distressing as that thought may be to me.
[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=eavesdropper]…If I’m Rove or Armey, I’ve been handed the blueprint to marginalize the Dems for the next political cycle, as well as the next political generation…..[/quote]
This is true. However, despite a momentary misstep caused by his glasses being steamed up by his overwhelming hubris, Karl Rove doesn’t need the blueprint. No one can come close to being his equal when it comes to being experienced in marginalizing the Dems. Not because of any particular keen skill of Mr. Rove, but simply because the Dems never fail to buy into whatever he is doing, planning, or thinking.
Participant[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=eavesdropper] I am partial to a (at the least) two-party system. And I don’t want those two parties to be Republican and Tea Party.[/quote]
Eaves: And yet… There’s an old saw in the Army that goes: “Amateurs discuss tactics and experts discuss logistics”.
For those paying close attention, yesterday’s election had nothing to do with “message” or Obama. Instead it was all about voter mobilization. I was very interested in what Democratic strategists like Gergen and Begala had to say last night, and it was clear to them that last night’s victory presaged and prefigured a larger GOP following wave. As one of the other Dem operatives opined: “Obama didn’t have a Movement, Obama had a Moment”.[/quote]
Correction, Alan. Or, at least, qualification. Yesterday’s election was all about voter mobilization on the Right. The Democrats weren’t even aware that mobilizing voters would be necessary until late September. That’s the difference between the Repubs and Dems: the need for voter mobilization is never questioned with the former, even between elections. Republicans could repeal the 22nd Amendment, and bring Ronald Reagan back from the dead, but they would still be pulling out all the stops trying to rally more and more voters.
Frankly, I don’t waste much time listening to Democratic strategists (and I use that word loosely). My reasons were exhaustively outlined in my post but, to sum them up, who the hell is scoring the Rohypnol for these assholes? Watching them tiresomely droning on about “what went wrong” is an incredibly surreal expeience. They are so egocentric, and soooooo incredibly and unbelieveably clueless. I admit to liking David Gerson, but and Paul Begala can be bit uneven. But there are only them and a couple others who seem to be even remotely in touch with the actual truth of the situation.
I made the following observation yesterday:”[The Dems ha]ve failed to detect changes in the sociological landscape. They’ve been convinced that the electorate would never fall for the “tricks” of the GOP, and they are still under the impression that it’s only ill-bred, illiterate folks from the South that are against them, and that the remainder of the middle-class sees them as the “friend of the working man”.” The truth of the matter is that a very significant percentage of white middle class voters have gone in for the Tea Party, both blue collar and white collar, and college grads and high school dropouts. This flight is not a recent phenomenon: many of them abandoned the Democratic Party for the Repubs several years back, and made the subsequent decision to move to the Tea Party. The danger in this startling demographic change is that these people have been very adept at bringing spouses, children, relatives, friends, and even casual acquaintances into the movement. But here are the Dems, still laboring under the delusion that the middle class will remain unquestioningly faithful to them, and totally unaware that they’ve been gone for over 15 years.
[quote=Allan from Fallbrook] As one of the other Dem operatives opined: “Obama didn’t have a Movement, Obama had a Moment”….[/quote]
I don’t quite agree. Obama had a moment, but it was with a following that could have provided a solid structure for a Movement that, given adequate funding and intellectually and politically competent administration, might be capable of some countering of the Tea Party tide. However, immediately following the election, it was left to disintegrate. No one in the Administration or at the Democratic National Committee made any effort to maintain and tap these awesome resources.
[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]…The GOP effectively harnessed and then controlled the Tea Party last night. Where the Tea Party put forth realistic, credible candidates, they won. Where they didn’t (think O’Donnell), they didn’t. It was also about women in politics and Hispanics and here as well the GOP outshot the Dems.
Illinois (Obama’s home state) fell, as did Ohio and Pennsylvania. If you’re thinking 2012, this is galvanic. Nevada almost did and, let’s be honest, how credible was Sharron Angle really? Harry Reid barely eked out a win. California is now within striking distance for the GOP, and that is THE gzme-changer….[/quote]
I agree 100% with the statement about the GOP harnessing the Tea Party’s resources, here and in my earlier post. I believe that the TP’s decision not to unite their organizations and centralize their operations, along with their general lack of political sophistication, will leave them vulnerable to a complete and swift GOP takeover. I also heartily concur with your assessment of the devastating potential of the GOP/TP’s victories in Illinois, and if the Democrats are even attempting to explain this away or excuse it by using any phrase that doesn’t include the words, “We fucked up”, there simply is no hope for the party.
But I am fervently hoping that your question, “let’s be honest, how credible was Sharron Angle really?”, was a rhetorical one. In her defense, however, I found myself making a similar query about her opponent while I listened to the rebroadcast of the Angle-Reid debate on C-SPAN last week.
And, unlike Brian, I have no doubts that California is vulnerable to the GOP and Tea Party, infinitely distressing as that thought may be to me.
[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=eavesdropper]…If I’m Rove or Armey, I’ve been handed the blueprint to marginalize the Dems for the next political cycle, as well as the next political generation…..[/quote]
This is true. However, despite a momentary misstep caused by his glasses being steamed up by his overwhelming hubris, Karl Rove doesn’t need the blueprint. No one can come close to being his equal when it comes to being experienced in marginalizing the Dems. Not because of any particular keen skill of Mr. Rove, but simply because the Dems never fail to buy into whatever he is doing, planning, or thinking.
Participant[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=eavesdropper] I am partial to a (at the least) two-party system. And I don’t want those two parties to be Republican and Tea Party.[/quote]
Eaves: And yet… There’s an old saw in the Army that goes: “Amateurs discuss tactics and experts discuss logistics”.
For those paying close attention, yesterday’s election had nothing to do with “message” or Obama. Instead it was all about voter mobilization. I was very interested in what Democratic strategists like Gergen and Begala had to say last night, and it was clear to them that last night’s victory presaged and prefigured a larger GOP following wave. As one of the other Dem operatives opined: “Obama didn’t have a Movement, Obama had a Moment”.[/quote]
Correction, Alan. Or, at least, qualification. Yesterday’s election was all about voter mobilization on the Right. The Democrats weren’t even aware that mobilizing voters would be necessary until late September. That’s the difference between the Repubs and Dems: the need for voter mobilization is never questioned with the former, even between elections. Republicans could repeal the 22nd Amendment, and bring Ronald Reagan back from the dead, but they would still be pulling out all the stops trying to rally more and more voters.
Frankly, I don’t waste much time listening to Democratic strategists (and I use that word loosely). My reasons were exhaustively outlined in my post but, to sum them up, who the hell is scoring the Rohypnol for these assholes? Watching them tiresomely droning on about “what went wrong” is an incredibly surreal expeience. They are so egocentric, and soooooo incredibly and unbelieveably clueless. I admit to liking David Gerson, but and Paul Begala can be bit uneven. But there are only them and a couple others who seem to be even remotely in touch with the actual truth of the situation.
I made the following observation yesterday:”[The Dems ha]ve failed to detect changes in the sociological landscape. They’ve been convinced that the electorate would never fall for the “tricks” of the GOP, and they are still under the impression that it’s only ill-bred, illiterate folks from the South that are against them, and that the remainder of the middle-class sees them as the “friend of the working man”.” The truth of the matter is that a very significant percentage of white middle class voters have gone in for the Tea Party, both blue collar and white collar, and college grads and high school dropouts. This flight is not a recent phenomenon: many of them abandoned the Democratic Party for the Repubs several years back, and made the subsequent decision to move to the Tea Party. The danger in this startling demographic change is that these people have been very adept at bringing spouses, children, relatives, friends, and even casual acquaintances into the movement. But here are the Dems, still laboring under the delusion that the middle class will remain unquestioningly faithful to them, and totally unaware that they’ve been gone for over 15 years.
[quote=Allan from Fallbrook] As one of the other Dem operatives opined: “Obama didn’t have a Movement, Obama had a Moment”….[/quote]
I don’t quite agree. Obama had a moment, but it was with a following that could have provided a solid structure for a Movement that, given adequate funding and intellectually and politically competent administration, might be capable of some countering of the Tea Party tide. However, immediately following the election, it was left to disintegrate. No one in the Administration or at the Democratic National Committee made any effort to maintain and tap these awesome resources.
[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]…The GOP effectively harnessed and then controlled the Tea Party last night. Where the Tea Party put forth realistic, credible candidates, they won. Where they didn’t (think O’Donnell), they didn’t. It was also about women in politics and Hispanics and here as well the GOP outshot the Dems.
Illinois (Obama’s home state) fell, as did Ohio and Pennsylvania. If you’re thinking 2012, this is galvanic. Nevada almost did and, let’s be honest, how credible was Sharron Angle really? Harry Reid barely eked out a win. California is now within striking distance for the GOP, and that is THE gzme-changer….[/quote]
I agree 100% with the statement about the GOP harnessing the Tea Party’s resources, here and in my earlier post. I believe that the TP’s decision not to unite their organizations and centralize their operations, along with their general lack of political sophistication, will leave them vulnerable to a complete and swift GOP takeover. I also heartily concur with your assessment of the devastating potential of the GOP/TP’s victories in Illinois, and if the Democrats are even attempting to explain this away or excuse it by using any phrase that doesn’t include the words, “We fucked up”, there simply is no hope for the party.
But I am fervently hoping that your question, “let’s be honest, how credible was Sharron Angle really?”, was a rhetorical one. In her defense, however, I found myself making a similar query about her opponent while I listened to the rebroadcast of the Angle-Reid debate on C-SPAN last week.
And, unlike Brian, I have no doubts that California is vulnerable to the GOP and Tea Party, infinitely distressing as that thought may be to me.
[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=eavesdropper]…If I’m Rove or Armey, I’ve been handed the blueprint to marginalize the Dems for the next political cycle, as well as the next political generation…..[/quote]
This is true. However, despite a momentary misstep caused by his glasses being steamed up by his overwhelming hubris, Karl Rove doesn’t need the blueprint. No one can come close to being his equal when it comes to being experienced in marginalizing the Dems. Not because of any particular keen skill of Mr. Rove, but simply because the Dems never fail to buy into whatever he is doing, planning, or thinking.
Participant[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=eavesdropper] I am partial to a (at the least) two-party system. And I don’t want those two parties to be Republican and Tea Party.[/quote]
Eaves: And yet… There’s an old saw in the Army that goes: “Amateurs discuss tactics and experts discuss logistics”.
For those paying close attention, yesterday’s election had nothing to do with “message” or Obama. Instead it was all about voter mobilization. I was very interested in what Democratic strategists like Gergen and Begala had to say last night, and it was clear to them that last night’s victory presaged and prefigured a larger GOP following wave. As one of the other Dem operatives opined: “Obama didn’t have a Movement, Obama had a Moment”.[/quote]
Correction, Alan. Or, at least, qualification. Yesterday’s election was all about voter mobilization on the Right. The Democrats weren’t even aware that mobilizing voters would be necessary until late September. That’s the difference between the Repubs and Dems: the need for voter mobilization is never questioned with the former, even between elections. Republicans could repeal the 22nd Amendment, and bring Ronald Reagan back from the dead, but they would still be pulling out all the stops trying to rally more and more voters.
Frankly, I don’t waste much time listening to Democratic strategists (and I use that word loosely). My reasons were exhaustively outlined in my post but, to sum them up, who the hell is scoring the Rohypnol for these assholes? Watching them tiresomely droning on about “what went wrong” is an incredibly surreal expeience. They are so egocentric, and soooooo incredibly and unbelieveably clueless. I admit to liking David Gerson, but and Paul Begala can be bit uneven. But there are only them and a couple others who seem to be even remotely in touch with the actual truth of the situation.
I made the following observation yesterday:”[The Dems ha]ve failed to detect changes in the sociological landscape. They’ve been convinced that the electorate would never fall for the “tricks” of the GOP, and they are still under the impression that it’s only ill-bred, illiterate folks from the South that are against them, and that the remainder of the middle-class sees them as the “friend of the working man”.” The truth of the matter is that a very significant percentage of white middle class voters have gone in for the Tea Party, both blue collar and white collar, and college grads and high school dropouts. This flight is not a recent phenomenon: many of them abandoned the Democratic Party for the Repubs several years back, and made the subsequent decision to move to the Tea Party. The danger in this startling demographic change is that these people have been very adept at bringing spouses, children, relatives, friends, and even casual acquaintances into the movement. But here are the Dems, still laboring under the delusion that the middle class will remain unquestioningly faithful to them, and totally unaware that they’ve been gone for over 15 years.
[quote=Allan from Fallbrook] As one of the other Dem operatives opined: “Obama didn’t have a Movement, Obama had a Moment”….[/quote]
I don’t quite agree. Obama had a moment, but it was with a following that could have provided a solid structure for a Movement that, given adequate funding and intellectually and politically competent administration, might be capable of some countering of the Tea Party tide. However, immediately following the election, it was left to disintegrate. No one in the Administration or at the Democratic National Committee made any effort to maintain and tap these awesome resources.
[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]…The GOP effectively harnessed and then controlled the Tea Party last night. Where the Tea Party put forth realistic, credible candidates, they won. Where they didn’t (think O’Donnell), they didn’t. It was also about women in politics and Hispanics and here as well the GOP outshot the Dems.
Illinois (Obama’s home state) fell, as did Ohio and Pennsylvania. If you’re thinking 2012, this is galvanic. Nevada almost did and, let’s be honest, how credible was Sharron Angle really? Harry Reid barely eked out a win. California is now within striking distance for the GOP, and that is THE gzme-changer….[/quote]
I agree 100% with the statement about the GOP harnessing the Tea Party’s resources, here and in my earlier post. I believe that the TP’s decision not to unite their organizations and centralize their operations, along with their general lack of political sophistication, will leave them vulnerable to a complete and swift GOP takeover. I also heartily concur with your assessment of the devastating potential of the GOP/TP’s victories in Illinois, and if the Democrats are even attempting to explain this away or excuse it by using any phrase that doesn’t include the words, “We fucked up”, there simply is no hope for the party.
But I am fervently hoping that your question, “let’s be honest, how credible was Sharron Angle really?”, was a rhetorical one. In her defense, however, I found myself making a similar query about her opponent while I listened to the rebroadcast of the Angle-Reid debate on C-SPAN last week.
And, unlike Brian, I have no doubts that California is vulnerable to the GOP and Tea Party, infinitely distressing as that thought may be to me.
[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=eavesdropper]…If I’m Rove or Armey, I’ve been handed the blueprint to marginalize the Dems for the next political cycle, as well as the next political generation…..[/quote]
This is true. However, despite a momentary misstep caused by his glasses being steamed up by his overwhelming hubris, Karl Rove doesn’t need the blueprint. No one can come close to being his equal when it comes to being experienced in marginalizing the Dems. Not because of any particular keen skill of Mr. Rove, but simply because the Dems never fail to buy into whatever he is doing, planning, or thinking.
Participant[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=eavesdropper] I am partial to a (at the least) two-party system. And I don’t want those two parties to be Republican and Tea Party.[/quote]
Eaves: And yet… There’s an old saw in the Army that goes: “Amateurs discuss tactics and experts discuss logistics”.
For those paying close attention, yesterday’s election had nothing to do with “message” or Obama. Instead it was all about voter mobilization. I was very interested in what Democratic strategists like Gergen and Begala had to say last night, and it was clear to them that last night’s victory presaged and prefigured a larger GOP following wave. As one of the other Dem operatives opined: “Obama didn’t have a Movement, Obama had a Moment”.[/quote]
Correction, Alan. Or, at least, qualification. Yesterday’s election was all about voter mobilization on the Right. The Democrats weren’t even aware that mobilizing voters would be necessary until late September. That’s the difference between the Repubs and Dems: the need for voter mobilization is never questioned with the former, even between elections. Republicans could repeal the 22nd Amendment, and bring Ronald Reagan back from the dead, but they would still be pulling out all the stops trying to rally more and more voters.
Frankly, I don’t waste much time listening to Democratic strategists (and I use that word loosely). My reasons were exhaustively outlined in my post but, to sum them up, who the hell is scoring the Rohypnol for these assholes? Watching them tiresomely droning on about “what went wrong” is an incredibly surreal expeience. They are so egocentric, and soooooo incredibly and unbelieveably clueless. I admit to liking David Gerson, but and Paul Begala can be bit uneven. But there are only them and a couple others who seem to be even remotely in touch with the actual truth of the situation.
I made the following observation yesterday:”[The Dems ha]ve failed to detect changes in the sociological landscape. They’ve been convinced that the electorate would never fall for the “tricks” of the GOP, and they are still under the impression that it’s only ill-bred, illiterate folks from the South that are against them, and that the remainder of the middle-class sees them as the “friend of the working man”.” The truth of the matter is that a very significant percentage of white middle class voters have gone in for the Tea Party, both blue collar and white collar, and college grads and high school dropouts. This flight is not a recent phenomenon: many of them abandoned the Democratic Party for the Repubs several years back, and made the subsequent decision to move to the Tea Party. The danger in this startling demographic change is that these people have been very adept at bringing spouses, children, relatives, friends, and even casual acquaintances into the movement. But here are the Dems, still laboring under the delusion that the middle class will remain unquestioningly faithful to them, and totally unaware that they’ve been gone for over 15 years.
[quote=Allan from Fallbrook] As one of the other Dem operatives opined: “Obama didn’t have a Movement, Obama had a Moment”….[/quote]
I don’t quite agree. Obama had a moment, but it was with a following that could have provided a solid structure for a Movement that, given adequate funding and intellectually and politically competent administration, might be capable of some countering of the Tea Party tide. However, immediately following the election, it was left to disintegrate. No one in the Administration or at the Democratic National Committee made any effort to maintain and tap these awesome resources.
[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]…The GOP effectively harnessed and then controlled the Tea Party last night. Where the Tea Party put forth realistic, credible candidates, they won. Where they didn’t (think O’Donnell), they didn’t. It was also about women in politics and Hispanics and here as well the GOP outshot the Dems.
Illinois (Obama’s home state) fell, as did Ohio and Pennsylvania. If you’re thinking 2012, this is galvanic. Nevada almost did and, let’s be honest, how credible was Sharron Angle really? Harry Reid barely eked out a win. California is now within striking distance for the GOP, and that is THE gzme-changer….[/quote]
I agree 100% with the statement about the GOP harnessing the Tea Party’s resources, here and in my earlier post. I believe that the TP’s decision not to unite their organizations and centralize their operations, along with their general lack of political sophistication, will leave them vulnerable to a complete and swift GOP takeover. I also heartily concur with your assessment of the devastating potential of the GOP/TP’s victories in Illinois, and if the Democrats are even attempting to explain this away or excuse it by using any phrase that doesn’t include the words, “We fucked up”, there simply is no hope for the party.
But I am fervently hoping that your question, “let’s be honest, how credible was Sharron Angle really?”, was a rhetorical one. In her defense, however, I found myself making a similar query about her opponent while I listened to the rebroadcast of the Angle-Reid debate on C-SPAN last week.
And, unlike Brian, I have no doubts that California is vulnerable to the GOP and Tea Party, infinitely distressing as that thought may be to me.
[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=eavesdropper]…If I’m Rove or Armey, I’ve been handed the blueprint to marginalize the Dems for the next political cycle, as well as the next political generation…..[/quote]
This is true. However, despite a momentary misstep caused by his glasses being steamed up by his overwhelming hubris, Karl Rove doesn’t need the blueprint. No one can come close to being his equal when it comes to being experienced in marginalizing the Dems. Not because of any particular keen skill of Mr. Rove, but simply because the Dems never fail to buy into whatever he is doing, planning, or thinking.
Participant[quote=Russell][quote=walterwhite]How bad could it get?
I am peeved at my realtor for not telling/reminding me to get this inspection done. There was some confusion because he thought the seller was to do it as we’d specified in prior offers. I remembered to do it myself at the last minute. Kinda makes one feel unprotected like the realtor just wants to shove the deal forward. I mean I know that’s true but still it just feels shitty so to speak.[/quote]
It could get bad or maybe the fix is in the first few feet of leach field. You can never really know the shape of the thing without doing some digging(again, having the original design is good). People could have parked motor homes on top of the somewhat fragile system. Any authority you have to go through could be reasonable or a disaster depending on so many factors.[/quote]
Excellent advice, Russell. Sounds like you’re on very familiar terms with septic systems. Listen carefully to Russell, Scaredy: he knows that of which he speaks, and the disposal of shit is not something to be taken lightly when buying a house.
On the other hand, you could simply let matters take their course, and who knows? ABC TV might come and build you a fabulous new house……
http://realitytv.about.com/od/extrememakeoverhome/ss/HarperMakeover.htm
[img_assist|nid=14185|title=harper|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=345|height=210]
But, then again, things don’t always work out for the best:
http://www.wsbtv.com/news/16980412/detail.html
You asked how bad it could get? Read the description of the condition of this family’s former home. The Harper family probably would have been better off had they done the requisite septic system inspection when they bought the property back around 2000. Better follow Russell’s sage advice, Scaredy.
Participant[quote=Russell][quote=walterwhite]How bad could it get?
I am peeved at my realtor for not telling/reminding me to get this inspection done. There was some confusion because he thought the seller was to do it as we’d specified in prior offers. I remembered to do it myself at the last minute. Kinda makes one feel unprotected like the realtor just wants to shove the deal forward. I mean I know that’s true but still it just feels shitty so to speak.[/quote]
It could get bad or maybe the fix is in the first few feet of leach field. You can never really know the shape of the thing without doing some digging(again, having the original design is good). People could have parked motor homes on top of the somewhat fragile system. Any authority you have to go through could be reasonable or a disaster depending on so many factors.[/quote]
Excellent advice, Russell. Sounds like you’re on very familiar terms with septic systems. Listen carefully to Russell, Scaredy: he knows that of which he speaks, and the disposal of shit is not something to be taken lightly when buying a house.
On the other hand, you could simply let matters take their course, and who knows? ABC TV might come and build you a fabulous new house……
http://realitytv.about.com/od/extrememakeoverhome/ss/HarperMakeover.htm
[img_assist|nid=14185|title=harper|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=345|height=210]
But, then again, things don’t always work out for the best:
http://www.wsbtv.com/news/16980412/detail.html
You asked how bad it could get? Read the description of the condition of this family’s former home. The Harper family probably would have been better off had they done the requisite septic system inspection when they bought the property back around 2000. Better follow Russell’s sage advice, Scaredy.
Participant[quote=Russell][quote=walterwhite]How bad could it get?
I am peeved at my realtor for not telling/reminding me to get this inspection done. There was some confusion because he thought the seller was to do it as we’d specified in prior offers. I remembered to do it myself at the last minute. Kinda makes one feel unprotected like the realtor just wants to shove the deal forward. I mean I know that’s true but still it just feels shitty so to speak.[/quote]
It could get bad or maybe the fix is in the first few feet of leach field. You can never really know the shape of the thing without doing some digging(again, having the original design is good). People could have parked motor homes on top of the somewhat fragile system. Any authority you have to go through could be reasonable or a disaster depending on so many factors.[/quote]
Excellent advice, Russell. Sounds like you’re on very familiar terms with septic systems. Listen carefully to Russell, Scaredy: he knows that of which he speaks, and the disposal of shit is not something to be taken lightly when buying a house.
On the other hand, you could simply let matters take their course, and who knows? ABC TV might come and build you a fabulous new house……
http://realitytv.about.com/od/extrememakeoverhome/ss/HarperMakeover.htm
[img_assist|nid=14185|title=harper|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=345|height=210]
But, then again, things don’t always work out for the best:
http://www.wsbtv.com/news/16980412/detail.html
You asked how bad it could get? Read the description of the condition of this family’s former home. The Harper family probably would have been better off had they done the requisite septic system inspection when they bought the property back around 2000. Better follow Russell’s sage advice, Scaredy.
Participant[quote=Russell][quote=walterwhite]How bad could it get?
I am peeved at my realtor for not telling/reminding me to get this inspection done. There was some confusion because he thought the seller was to do it as we’d specified in prior offers. I remembered to do it myself at the last minute. Kinda makes one feel unprotected like the realtor just wants to shove the deal forward. I mean I know that’s true but still it just feels shitty so to speak.[/quote]
It could get bad or maybe the fix is in the first few feet of leach field. You can never really know the shape of the thing without doing some digging(again, having the original design is good). People could have parked motor homes on top of the somewhat fragile system. Any authority you have to go through could be reasonable or a disaster depending on so many factors.[/quote]
Excellent advice, Russell. Sounds like you’re on very familiar terms with septic systems. Listen carefully to Russell, Scaredy: he knows that of which he speaks, and the disposal of shit is not something to be taken lightly when buying a house.
On the other hand, you could simply let matters take their course, and who knows? ABC TV might come and build you a fabulous new house……
http://realitytv.about.com/od/extrememakeoverhome/ss/HarperMakeover.htm
[img_assist|nid=14185|title=harper|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=345|height=210]
But, then again, things don’t always work out for the best:
http://www.wsbtv.com/news/16980412/detail.html
You asked how bad it could get? Read the description of the condition of this family’s former home. The Harper family probably would have been better off had they done the requisite septic system inspection when they bought the property back around 2000. Better follow Russell’s sage advice, Scaredy.
Participant[quote=Russell][quote=walterwhite]How bad could it get?
I am peeved at my realtor for not telling/reminding me to get this inspection done. There was some confusion because he thought the seller was to do it as we’d specified in prior offers. I remembered to do it myself at the last minute. Kinda makes one feel unprotected like the realtor just wants to shove the deal forward. I mean I know that’s true but still it just feels shitty so to speak.[/quote]
It could get bad or maybe the fix is in the first few feet of leach field. You can never really know the shape of the thing without doing some digging(again, having the original design is good). People could have parked motor homes on top of the somewhat fragile system. Any authority you have to go through could be reasonable or a disaster depending on so many factors.[/quote]
Excellent advice, Russell. Sounds like you’re on very familiar terms with septic systems. Listen carefully to Russell, Scaredy: he knows that of which he speaks, and the disposal of shit is not something to be taken lightly when buying a house.
On the other hand, you could simply let matters take their course, and who knows? ABC TV might come and build you a fabulous new house……
http://realitytv.about.com/od/extrememakeoverhome/ss/HarperMakeover.htm
[img_assist|nid=14185|title=harper|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=345|height=210]
But, then again, things don’t always work out for the best:
http://www.wsbtv.com/news/16980412/detail.html
You asked how bad it could get? Read the description of the condition of this family’s former home. The Harper family probably would have been better off had they done the requisite septic system inspection when they bought the property back around 2000. Better follow Russell’s sage advice, Scaredy.
Participant[quote=briansd1]….I have conservative leanings especially when it comes to financial responsibility. But it’s hard for me to support current conservative ideology.
Conservatives have rejected intellectualism and they have embraced crass populism. They are appealing to the lowest common denominator.
What about lofty ideals and the hard choices and sacrifices necessary to become a better person and create a better society?
What’s the conservative plan? I doubt we’ll get a plan from that cast of uneducated characters.[/quote]
I concur, Brian. But while I can fault the nature of the actions of some of these political bottom-feeders, I can’t blame them completely for the results. People do what they believe they need to do to survive, and, to them, this is political survival (and more, to some of the extremists).
I might be repelled by their actions, but that does not excuse me for ignoring said actions, or for failing to spot their potential negative effects, or for choosing to do nothing about them.
For years, I thought that there were intelligent and skilled people running the political machines. Either I was completely wrong about that perception, or else it’s that their arrogance and conceit has clouded their judgement and dulled their intelligence.
The Democrats have been screwing up for years. Decades. They are completely out of touch with their base, and the range of people within it (or that there even *is* a range). They’ve failed to detect changes in the sociological landscape. They’ve been convinced that the electorate would never fall for the “tricks” of the GOP, and they are still under the impression that it’s only ill-bred, illiterate folks from the South that are against them, and that the remainder of the middle-class sees them as the “friend of the working man”. They’ve refused to address the GOP’s smear tactics, adopting a moralistic tone while declaring their certainty that Americans would be ethically and morally repelled by the lies and hypocrisy of the extreme right, never realizing that Americans aren’t repelled by statements that they believe to be the truth. And they used up any political capital they had from two years ago by fighting among themselves while smugly declaring that they had been placed in their seats on a mandate from Americans who trusted Democratic rule (rather than the truth which was that Americans could simply no longer face voting Republican).
The Republicans are also guilty of the same hubris. They sat by and watched the rise of group after group of (for the most part) extremists, each referring to itself as the Tea Party. They sat back, saying and doing nothing while many of the leaders of this movement made false and morally reprehensible statements, and consciously worked at widening the divide among our nation’s people. They were confident that, at election time, they would reap the rewards of the labors of the party leaders, and step in to take over the reins while gaining access to millions of voters seething with Democrat-centered antipathy. What actually happened was that they had their collective GOP asses handed to them at primary time. But rather than turn away from unqualified candidates they knew could be harmful to America, they threw their public support behind them in an effort to remain in power.
I have my own ideas about why the members of the Tea Party movement chose to organize. However, I believe that neither they nor the GOP can survive without the other. The Tea Party chose not to centralize their rule, thus weakening their significant voting power. The GOP needs the voting power of the Tea Party, and its power structure *is* centralized AND experienced. Far more savvy than the Democrats, and absolutely unfettered by a sense of ethics and moral outrage, they’ll insinuate themselves into the Tea Party, and own it lock, stock, and barrel 18 months from now.
The Democrats have a chance to put up some competition in 2014, but it will require a top to bottom house cleaning. There are many people who want no part of what the extreme far right and current crop of Republicans who are aligning themselves with them are offering. But there has to be a clear-cut recognition of this, followed by a circling of the wagons and a rallying of the troops. Believe it, or not, I think that Obama recognizes this. His major problems are his lack of experience/young age and his placing too much faith in his advisors while not following his own instincts. There have been many other very good Presidents who were initially similarly afflicted, and who proved that lack of experience could be overcome. He needs to stop worrying about being re-elected in 2012, and concentrate solely on re-organizing the masses he managed to gather and persuade in 2008. Even if it does not result in his re-election, it is absolutely essential for the survival of the Democratic Party. And even if I am not particularly fond of Democrats these days, I am partial to a (at the least) two-party system. And I don’t want those two parties to be Republican and Tea Party.
Participant[quote=briansd1]….I have conservative leanings especially when it comes to financial responsibility. But it’s hard for me to support current conservative ideology.
Conservatives have rejected intellectualism and they have embraced crass populism. They are appealing to the lowest common denominator.
What about lofty ideals and the hard choices and sacrifices necessary to become a better person and create a better society?
What’s the conservative plan? I doubt we’ll get a plan from that cast of uneducated characters.[/quote]
I concur, Brian. But while I can fault the nature of the actions of some of these political bottom-feeders, I can’t blame them completely for the results. People do what they believe they need to do to survive, and, to them, this is political survival (and more, to some of the extremists).
I might be repelled by their actions, but that does not excuse me for ignoring said actions, or for failing to spot their potential negative effects, or for choosing to do nothing about them.
For years, I thought that there were intelligent and skilled people running the political machines. Either I was completely wrong about that perception, or else it’s that their arrogance and conceit has clouded their judgement and dulled their intelligence.
The Democrats have been screwing up for years. Decades. They are completely out of touch with their base, and the range of people within it (or that there even *is* a range). They’ve failed to detect changes in the sociological landscape. They’ve been convinced that the electorate would never fall for the “tricks” of the GOP, and they are still under the impression that it’s only ill-bred, illiterate folks from the South that are against them, and that the remainder of the middle-class sees them as the “friend of the working man”. They’ve refused to address the GOP’s smear tactics, adopting a moralistic tone while declaring their certainty that Americans would be ethically and morally repelled by the lies and hypocrisy of the extreme right, never realizing that Americans aren’t repelled by statements that they believe to be the truth. And they used up any political capital they had from two years ago by fighting among themselves while smugly declaring that they had been placed in their seats on a mandate from Americans who trusted Democratic rule (rather than the truth which was that Americans could simply no longer face voting Republican).
The Republicans are also guilty of the same hubris. They sat by and watched the rise of group after group of (for the most part) extremists, each referring to itself as the Tea Party. They sat back, saying and doing nothing while many of the leaders of this movement made false and morally reprehensible statements, and consciously worked at widening the divide among our nation’s people. They were confident that, at election time, they would reap the rewards of the labors of the party leaders, and step in to take over the reins while gaining access to millions of voters seething with Democrat-centered antipathy. What actually happened was that they had their collective GOP asses handed to them at primary time. But rather than turn away from unqualified candidates they knew could be harmful to America, they threw their public support behind them in an effort to remain in power.
I have my own ideas about why the members of the Tea Party movement chose to organize. However, I believe that neither they nor the GOP can survive without the other. The Tea Party chose not to centralize their rule, thus weakening their significant voting power. The GOP needs the voting power of the Tea Party, and its power structure *is* centralized AND experienced. Far more savvy than the Democrats, and absolutely unfettered by a sense of ethics and moral outrage, they’ll insinuate themselves into the Tea Party, and own it lock, stock, and barrel 18 months from now.
The Democrats have a chance to put up some competition in 2014, but it will require a top to bottom house cleaning. There are many people who want no part of what the extreme far right and current crop of Republicans who are aligning themselves with them are offering. But there has to be a clear-cut recognition of this, followed by a circling of the wagons and a rallying of the troops. Believe it, or not, I think that Obama recognizes this. His major problems are his lack of experience/young age and his placing too much faith in his advisors while not following his own instincts. There have been many other very good Presidents who were initially similarly afflicted, and who proved that lack of experience could be overcome. He needs to stop worrying about being re-elected in 2012, and concentrate solely on re-organizing the masses he managed to gather and persuade in 2008. Even if it does not result in his re-election, it is absolutely essential for the survival of the Democratic Party. And even if I am not particularly fond of Democrats these days, I am partial to a (at the least) two-party system. And I don’t want those two parties to be Republican and Tea Party.
Participant[quote=briansd1]….I have conservative leanings especially when it comes to financial responsibility. But it’s hard for me to support current conservative ideology.
Conservatives have rejected intellectualism and they have embraced crass populism. They are appealing to the lowest common denominator.
What about lofty ideals and the hard choices and sacrifices necessary to become a better person and create a better society?
What’s the conservative plan? I doubt we’ll get a plan from that cast of uneducated characters.[/quote]
I concur, Brian. But while I can fault the nature of the actions of some of these political bottom-feeders, I can’t blame them completely for the results. People do what they believe they need to do to survive, and, to them, this is political survival (and more, to some of the extremists).
I might be repelled by their actions, but that does not excuse me for ignoring said actions, or for failing to spot their potential negative effects, or for choosing to do nothing about them.
For years, I thought that there were intelligent and skilled people running the political machines. Either I was completely wrong about that perception, or else it’s that their arrogance and conceit has clouded their judgement and dulled their intelligence.
The Democrats have been screwing up for years. Decades. They are completely out of touch with their base, and the range of people within it (or that there even *is* a range). They’ve failed to detect changes in the sociological landscape. They’ve been convinced that the electorate would never fall for the “tricks” of the GOP, and they are still under the impression that it’s only ill-bred, illiterate folks from the South that are against them, and that the remainder of the middle-class sees them as the “friend of the working man”. They’ve refused to address the GOP’s smear tactics, adopting a moralistic tone while declaring their certainty that Americans would be ethically and morally repelled by the lies and hypocrisy of the extreme right, never realizing that Americans aren’t repelled by statements that they believe to be the truth. And they used up any political capital they had from two years ago by fighting among themselves while smugly declaring that they had been placed in their seats on a mandate from Americans who trusted Democratic rule (rather than the truth which was that Americans could simply no longer face voting Republican).
The Republicans are also guilty of the same hubris. They sat by and watched the rise of group after group of (for the most part) extremists, each referring to itself as the Tea Party. They sat back, saying and doing nothing while many of the leaders of this movement made false and morally reprehensible statements, and consciously worked at widening the divide among our nation’s people. They were confident that, at election time, they would reap the rewards of the labors of the party leaders, and step in to take over the reins while gaining access to millions of voters seething with Democrat-centered antipathy. What actually happened was that they had their collective GOP asses handed to them at primary time. But rather than turn away from unqualified candidates they knew could be harmful to America, they threw their public support behind them in an effort to remain in power.
I have my own ideas about why the members of the Tea Party movement chose to organize. However, I believe that neither they nor the GOP can survive without the other. The Tea Party chose not to centralize their rule, thus weakening their significant voting power. The GOP needs the voting power of the Tea Party, and its power structure *is* centralized AND experienced. Far more savvy than the Democrats, and absolutely unfettered by a sense of ethics and moral outrage, they’ll insinuate themselves into the Tea Party, and own it lock, stock, and barrel 18 months from now.
The Democrats have a chance to put up some competition in 2014, but it will require a top to bottom house cleaning. There are many people who want no part of what the extreme far right and current crop of Republicans who are aligning themselves with them are offering. But there has to be a clear-cut recognition of this, followed by a circling of the wagons and a rallying of the troops. Believe it, or not, I think that Obama recognizes this. His major problems are his lack of experience/young age and his placing too much faith in his advisors while not following his own instincts. There have been many other very good Presidents who were initially similarly afflicted, and who proved that lack of experience could be overcome. He needs to stop worrying about being re-elected in 2012, and concentrate solely on re-organizing the masses he managed to gather and persuade in 2008. Even if it does not result in his re-election, it is absolutely essential for the survival of the Democratic Party. And even if I am not particularly fond of Democrats these days, I am partial to a (at the least) two-party system. And I don’t want those two parties to be Republican and Tea Party.
-
AuthorPosts