TexasCHLforum.com

I guess we were not clear enough...

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/11 ... rship-bid/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

She refuses to take the blame and said that the party lost elections due to unemployment. I think there was more to it than that lady!

Every time I see him, I hear him singing.

We need a rattlesnake fence.

I could not believe the DEMS are that stupid. They could have put a moderate in charge and at least "looked" like they were trying to listen to the people. But No, they put the same ones back in power. The most liberal of the liberal. They must think so many people are going to end up on government welfare, their votes will be assured.

I read an article that said that the current thinking is that they lost because they were trying to be moderate and trying to be Republican-lite. It said that they need to move the party firmly to the left, like Pelosi type left, and be true to their leftist roots to offer a clear difference from the right.

It also talked about how they wanted to make this effective. It said that by appealing to the moderates that they were fighting for white middle to upper class Independents who ended up voting Republican. They said that they need to ditch the Independents and target the huge block of low income people who don't currently vote as they don't have to fight for their votes, they just need to get them to the polls. It said that they should be out knocking on doors, raking leaves, and helping however they could in minority neighborhoods starting Nov 3 so that in 2 years these people will be happy to vote for them. It said they should specifically target Hispanics and the homosexual community.

This was just one analyst's take on the election, but re-electing Pelosi would definitely fit with that analyst's opinion on the direction they should go.

There might actually be a silver lining to the Dems keeping the same leadership. They might all be gone next time.

I don't really care if the Dems get the message. I just hope that the American people do. Now that the Communist Party of the USA is openly supporting them, perhaps more will.

JFK was to the right of every President that has served since him except perhaps Reagan.

re-instate the poll tax!

Not for the money....let it be a stinking nickle...... just one more little requirement to exercise your voting rights. Since we don't insure citizenship for voting, or require a voter to be informer, or even mentally competent, there should be some way to weed out the totally ignorant masses.


Yes, I know, it don't pass constitutional muster. But, unfortunately, voter ingorance and apathy are what feed the liberal agenda, and persuading and educating 2-3 generations of welfare minded Americans is an overwhelming task. Regardless of party affiliation, we have to get back to principles and personal responsibility.


surv

Heck, instead of a poll tax, how about a competency tax? Although in a capitalist, free market economy, being able to cough up a few sheckels is just about the same thing.

It'd be nice to see voters have to demonstrate the most basic understanding of government and economics. Supply and demand, how an increase in costs or taxation is absorbed by buyer & seller, what are the three branches of government, what's the difference between the Declaration of Independence & the Constitution, how does a Constitutional amendment get passed, what is a bill, how does a bill become law, etc.

Of course, a lot of current representatives probably couldn't pass a test like that.

mr surveyor wrote:re-instate the poll tax!

Not for the money....let it be a stinking nickle...... just one more little requirement to exercise your voting rights. Since we don't insure citizenship for voting, or require a voter to be informed, or even mentally competent, or even alive in some areas, there should be some way to weed out the totally ignorant masses.


Yes, I know, it don't pass constitutional muster. But, unfortunately, voter ignorance and apathy are what feed the liberal agenda, and persuading and educating 2-3 generations of welfare minded Americans is an overwhelming task. Regardless of party affiliation, we have to get back to principles and personal responsibility.


surv

I fixed it for you

Moving farther to the left is the best thing that can happen for the right. Right-wing voters only tend to get off their non-voting behinds when they really feel threatened by the lefts shenanigans. Otherwise they tend to act like Sheeple.

Purplehood wrote:Moving farther to the left is the best thing that can happen for the right. Right-wing voters only tend to get off their non-voting behinds when they really feel threatened by the lefts shenanigans. Otherwise they tend to act like Sheeple.

I disagree. The right (or, in general, Republicans) tend to vote in much greater percentages than Democrats. One of the best things that can happen for "the right" is for weather to be bad on election day. The Demo's stay home, the Repub's get out and vote anyway. The problem with the 2008 election was that there really wasn't much of a candidate for the right to vote for. Even McCain (in a Freudian Slip) declared he was a liberal.

sjfcontrol wrote:

Purplehood wrote:Moving farther to the left is the best thing that can happen for the right. Right-wing voters only tend to get off their non-voting behinds when they really feel threatened by the lefts shenanigans. Otherwise they tend to act like Sheeple.

I disagree. The right (or, in general, Republicans) tend to vote in much greater percentages than Democrats. One of the best things that can happen for "the right" is for weather to be bad on election day. The Demo's stay home, the Repub's get out and vote anyway. The problem with the 2008 election was that there really wasn't much of a candidate for the right to vote for. Even McCain (in a Freudian Slip) declared he was a liberal.

I disagree. The left has been mobilizing traditionally non-voting (and sometimes non-living) people to get out and register for years. The present administration knows how to capitalize on it. As long as the right is scared, they are not complacent.

Purplehood wrote:

sjfcontrol wrote:

Purplehood wrote:Moving farther to the left is the best thing that can happen for the right. Right-wing voters only tend to get off their non-voting behinds when they really feel threatened by the lefts shenanigans. Otherwise they tend to act like Sheeple.

I disagree. The right (or, in general, Republicans) tend to vote in much greater percentages than Democrats. One of the best things that can happen for "the right" is for weather to be bad on election day. The Demo's stay home, the Repub's get out and vote anyway. The problem with the 2008 election was that there really wasn't much of a candidate for the right to vote for. Even McCain (in a Freudian Slip) declared he was a liberal.

I disagree. The left has been mobilizing traditionally non-voting (and sometimes non-living) people to get out and register for years. The present administration knows how to capitalize on it. As long as the right is scared, they are not complacent.

Yes, there are more democrats than republicans -- especially when you count all the "underprivileged" (who believe the democrats are their saviors), illegals and dead people. But the republicans vote in higher percentages and more reliably. Who wins, then, is determined by which absolute number is higher -- Larger number times lower percentage, or lower number times higher percentage.

The left has been mobilizing to get people (and non-people) registered. Getting them to vote is more difficult. My argument with your statement (highlighted above) is that the right only votes when motivated by the left. It certainly helps when motivated that way, but percentage-wise, the right has always voted more reliably than the left. We just don't always have the absolute numbers to prevail.

I work with a guy who's at least as liberal - if not more so - than Nancy Pelosi. To put it in perspective, his browser home page is MoveOn.org and he gets his news exclusively from The Daily Show, The Colbert Report, Real Time with Bill Mahr, MSNBC, and The Huffington Post. He is absolutely convinced that the Dems lost so bad because:

1. The Obama Administration failed to properly communicate to the American people what their successes were and how those successes benefit them.
2. The Obama Administration and the Democrats in Congress compromised too much with Republicans over the last two years.

My jaw just about dropped when he mentioned #2.