Self-explanatory...
:clap: :thewave: :clap:
I agree. Cabrera had a season for the ages.
Wow, wh, I never knew you were an A's fan...
I admit, someone got steamrolled last night. However, the First Battle of Bull Run was won by the South. It will be interesting to see what happens in Round 2.
wh, I had a good idea of what you meant by "self-explanatory", with "Tonight is a good night!", but I also wasn't sure if you were talking sports, politics, or maybe there was something that happened that you were going to explain later. I'll admit I'm a "dummycrat", but I was proud of what Mitt did to make President Obama look foolish. I'm getting tired of the "vanilla" brand of same old politics that Obama has been pushing around. I really felt like I got some idea of what Mitt wants to do, but was also having to deal with all the people freaking out about Mitt wanting to defund PBS and kill Big Bird. I don't think we'll see all of PBS being defunded, but a lot of their programming will be "repurposed". What I disliked most was that Jim Lehrer didn't take control of things as the moderator. It seems like he took a backseat to Romney's challenges, and that's a bad sign in a seasoned moderator.
Quote from: valporun on October 04, 2012, 02:34:18 PM
wh, I had a good idea of what you meant by "self-explanatory", with "Tonight is a good night!", but I also wasn't sure if you were talking sports, politics, or maybe there was something that happened that you were going to explain later. I'll admit I'm a "dummycrat", but I was proud of what Mitt did to make President Obama look foolish. I'm getting tired of the "vanilla" brand of same old politics that Obama has been pushing around. I really felt like I got some idea of what Mitt wants to do, but was also having to deal with all the people freaking out about Mitt wanting to defund PBS and kill Big Bird. I don't think we'll see all of PBS being defunded, but a lot of their programming will be "repurposed". What I disliked most was that Jim Lehrer didn't take control of things as the moderator. It seems like he took a backseat to Romney's challenges, and that's a bad sign in a seasoned moderator.
his point was not to call into question PBS's programming choices, but rather to say that the government has spread our money into area where it has no business. Further he pointed out that it isn't in fact our money, but rather our obligation, by borrowing the cost from the Chinese.
Quote from: valporun on October 04, 2012, 02:34:18 PM
wh, I had a good idea of what you meant by "self-explanatory", with "Tonight is a good night!", but I also wasn't sure if you were talking sports, politics, or maybe there was something that happened that you were going to explain later.
Yes, I was referring to the debate - trying to say it without saying it - but I quickly got "out clevered" by Apostle and Joe. :)
oh! i see.
shows where my priorities are, but then again I did DVR it.
i'd say i can't wait to watch it, but i'm unsure whether WH stands for "white house"
I'm a die-hard A's fan and it was a very good night indeed! Sorry Tx.
Not really sure who won the debate...but it wasn't the moderator.
Quote from: govalpogo on October 04, 2012, 10:23:43 PM
I'm a die-hard A's fan and it was a very good night indeed! Sorry Tx.
Not really sure who won the debate...but it wasn't the moderator.
Worst...post....ever...I would like this removed from the board, and govalpogo flogged in public lol jk :).
I think this was a wake up call for my Rangers, and we will get it done this year in refocusing starting Friday!
Quote from: valpotx on October 05, 2012, 03:15:23 AM
Quote from: govalpogo on October 04, 2012, 10:23:43 PM
I'm a die-hard A's fan and it was a very good night indeed! Sorry Tx.
Not really sure who won the debate...but it wasn't the moderator.
Worst...post....ever...I would like this removed from the board, and govalpogo flogged in public lol jk :).
I think this was a wake up call for my Rangers, and we will get it done this year in refocusing starting Friday!
Worst...post....ever...I would like this removed from the board, and valpotx flogged in public lol jk :).
Quote from: valpo04 on October 05, 2012, 07:26:38 AM
Quote from: valpotx on October 05, 2012, 03:15:23 AM
Quote from: govalpogo on October 04, 2012, 10:23:43 PM
I'm a die-hard A's fan and it was a very good night indeed! Sorry Tx.
Not really sure who won the debate...but it wasn't the moderator.
Worst...post....ever...I would like this removed from the board, and govalpogo flogged in public lol jk :).
I think this was a wake up call for my Rangers, and we will get it done this year in refocusing starting Friday!
Worst...post....ever...I would like this removed from the board, and valpotx flogged in public lol jk :).
no flogging here gents. i know we're the crusaders, but do we really need a blood-soaked message board to drive the point home? besides, everybody knows the cards are gonna win it all again this year anyway. :)
Quote from: valpo04 on October 5 at 07:26:38 AM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
everybody knows the cards are gonna win it all again this year anyway.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I was going to say we shouldn't play into the crusader/flogging/Holy Land thing but when Cardinal fans are involved let the flogging begin! ;D
And that goes for StlVUFan and any other Cardinal fans (bbtds??) too. ;)
Valpo04, let me apologize in advance for the butt-whooping the Rangers will again put on the minor league Rangers (Orioles have 7 of our old bench players on their main roster). We have some hefty scores against you guys in the last few years ;)
Quote from: govalpogo on March 14, 2012, 10:43:47 AM
Quote from: valpotx on March 14, 2012, 09:58:51 AM
Quote from: govalpogo on March 14, 2012, 08:56:45 AM
Hope springs eternal as spring training heats up! I love baseball season because I don't have to live and die with every game, there's always tomorrow! Go A's!
I will do the same. Might be a long year though for your A's with what my Rangers and the Angels have done ;)
Sigh...very true, but that's why hope "springs" eternal. I'm sure reality will eventually "fall" on Oakland or San Jose or wherever they end up. Knowing the A's my hopes may "summer salt" away quickly this year too. I don't expect them to have a great season, but this year's young team should be fun to watch. If it gets that bad, I'll just watch Moneyball again. :)
There were so many times when they'd lose a few games and I'd think, "well, the pipe dream is over, but it was fun..." Then they won the division...and the Angels missed the playoffs ;). Honestly though, I do not like the way the A's match up against Detroit so I wouldn't at all be surprised if the Rangers last longer in the postseason. Can't take away from the O's and A's magic, though, we'll see which team is truly a team of destiny! Or is Washington the real team of destiny?
Quote from: valpotx on October 5 at 02:07:57 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Valpo04, let me apologize in advance for the butt-whooping the Rangers will again put on the minor league Rangers (Orioles have 7 of our old bench players on their main roster). We have some hefty scores against you guys in the last few years
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Quote from: valpotx on Today at 03:15:23 AM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I think this was a wake up call for my Rangers, and we will get it done this year in refocusing starting Friday!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I think that alarm clock failed to go off in Arlington. Did one of the Cowboys give the Rangers their alarm clock? That was some late inning butt-whooping by the Rangers.
And would somebody please beat the Cardinals and not give them the Series again?
Quote from: valpotx on October 05, 2012, 02:07:57 PM
Valpo04, let me apologize in advance for the butt-whooping the Rangers will again put on the minor league Rangers (Orioles have 7 of our old bench players on their main roster). We have some hefty scores against you guys in the last few years ;)
Orioles Magic (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Mr7mQuGmp0#)
Just gave the O's the game. We didn't take advantage of the counts like we used to (pre-middle of September when this pitiful display started), and played without passion. I think their will was sapped over the last 2 weeks, in losing a 5 game lead with 9 to play. Not as bad as Boston's collapse overall last year, but really bad to watch.
On another note, can someone please lure Hamilton away to their team? I DO NOT want that guy on the team anymore. His last month was absolutely terrible, waving at the ball constantly, couldn't buy a clue. I like Napoli as he tries, but we can do better than what he will get in free agency as well. Hamilton has that 'I don't give a s*^*' attitude that I don't respect. He gets in trouble in the offseason, ks too much, and still walks around like he is thinking of something else other than baseball. Show some passion dude, instead of striking out 25+ times in the last 2 weeks. If it wasn't for his high .400+ start the first month and a half, he is a .240 or less hitter this year...
Quote from: historyman on October 05, 2012, 12:14:15 PM
Quote from: valpo04 on October 5 at 07:26:38 AM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
everybody knows the cards are gonna win it all again this year anyway.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I was going to say we shouldn't play into the crusader/flogging/Holy Land thing but when Cardinal fans are involved let the flogging begin! ;D
And that goes for StlVUFan and any other Cardinal fans (bbtds??) too. ;)
Not actually a Cardinal fan, just root for them.
Quote from: historyman on October 05, 2012, 12:14:15 PM
Quote from: valpo04 on October 5 at 07:26:38 AM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
everybody knows the cards are gonna win it all again this year anyway.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I was going to say we shouldn't play into the crusader/flogging/Holy Land thing but when Cardinal fans are involved let the flogging begin! ;D
And that goes for StlVUFan and any other Cardinal fans (bbtds??) too. ;)
you can try to flog me if you want, it won't change my allegiance to the ss red october. :) but the cards are always dangerous. and they earned the series win last year. as for friday, the braves lost that game even more than the umps.
Quote from: historyman on October 05, 2012, 12:14:15 PM
Quote from: valpo04 on October 5 at 07:26:38 AM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
everybody knows the cards are gonna win it all again this year anyway.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I was going to say we shouldn't play into the crusader/flogging/Holy Land thing but when Cardinal fans are involved let the flogging begin! ;D
And that goes for StlVUFan and any other Cardinal fans (bbtds??) too. ;)
I've been misquoted! What are these shenanigans, historyman!
Quote from: StlVUFan on October 06, 2012, 10:01:06 PM
Quote from: historyman on October 05, 2012, 12:14:15 PM
Quote from: valpo04 on October 5 at 07:26:38 AM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
everybody knows the cards are gonna win it all again this year anyway.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I was going to say we shouldn't play into the crusader/flogging/Holy Land thing but when Cardinal fans are involved let the flogging begin! ;D
And that goes for StlVUFan and any other Cardinal fans (bbtds??) too. ;)
Not actually a Cardinal fan, just root for them.
What? What is the difference between a fan & rooting for a team? Please explain.
Also why do teams continue to hand games to the Cardinals? Luckiest damn team in the majors.
The umps haven't been too hard on them either.
Quote from: historyman on October 07, 2012, 03:19:31 PM
Quote from: StlVUFan on October 06, 2012, 10:01:06 PM
Quote from: historyman on October 05, 2012, 12:14:15 PM
Quote from: valpo04 on October 5 at 07:26:38 AM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
everybody knows the cards are gonna win it all again this year anyway.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I was going to say we shouldn't play into the crusader/flogging/Holy Land thing but when Cardinal fans are involved let the flogging begin! ;D
And that goes for StlVUFan and any other Cardinal fans (bbtds??) too. ;)
Not actually a Cardinal fan, just root for them.
What? What is the difference between a fan & rooting for a team? Please explain.
Also why do teams continue to hand games to the Cardinals? Luckiest damn team in the majors.
The umps haven't been too hard on them either.
haters gonna hate. the cards have earned their success. you can't simply blame them because other teams choke. you have to make your own destiny. how is it the cards' faults if the braves choke down the stretch, and the rangers bullpen can't close the door in the late innings.
Well, finally someone out managed the Cardinals. Matheny instead of LaRussa may be St.Louis' downfall this year.
I'm a fan of the Nationals now. No matter even if I'm just rooting against one team that automatically makes me a fan of their opponent if only for one game.
Quote from: vuweathernerd on October 07, 2012, 09:14:17 PM
Quote from: historyman on October 07, 2012, 03:19:31 PM
Quote from: StlVUFan on October 06, 2012, 10:01:06 PM
Quote from: historyman on October 05, 2012, 12:14:15 PM
Quote from: valpo04 on October 5 at 07:26:38 AM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
everybody knows the cards are gonna win it all again this year anyway.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I was going to say we shouldn't play into the crusader/flogging/Holy Land thing but when Cardinal fans are involved let the flogging begin! ;D
And that goes for StlVUFan and any other Cardinal fans (bbtds??) too. ;)
Not actually a Cardinal fan, just root for them.
What? What is the difference between a fan & rooting for a team? Please explain.
Also why do teams continue to hand games to the Cardinals? Luckiest damn team in the majors.
The umps haven't been too hard on them either.
haters gonna hate. the cards have earned their success. you can't simply blame them because other teams choke. you have to make your own destiny. how is it the cards' faults if the braves choke down the stretch, and the rangers bullpen can't close the door in the late innings.
In referencing a team's collapse, it wasn't the bullpen that lost the world series last year...it was Nelson Cruz not being able to read an easy line drive for the last out, and jogging to the ball rather than running to it as an OF should. A HS kid could have caught that ball in game 6, and I will always wonder what he was thinking until we win a WS :). Even though it was hit on a line, he had plenty of time to be camped for the ball if he would have just ran to the ball first, rather than coasting from the start
Quote from: historyman on October 07, 2012, 11:25:50 PM
Well, finally someone out managed the Cardinals. Matheny instead of LaRussa may be St.Louis' downfall this year.
I'm a fan of the Nationals now. No matter even if I'm just rooting against one team that automatically makes me a fan of their opponent if only for one game.
it wouldn't surprise me - matheny is a moron as a manager. he makes the same mistakes now that he made in april.
Quote from: valpotx on October 08, 2012, 01:58:04 AM
In referencing a team's collapse, it wasn't the bullpen that lost the world series last year...it was Nelson Cruz not being able to read an easy line drive for the last out, and jogging to the ball rather than running to it as an OF should. A HS kid could have caught that ball in game 6, and I will always wonder what he was thinking until we win a WS :). Even though it was hit on a line, he had plenty of time to be camped for the ball if he would have just ran to the ball first, rather than coasting from the start
the rangers bullpen does bear some of the blame, though along with nelson cruz (i'll grant you that one - he clearly misplayed that freese line drive in the 9th). they couldn't protect their leads in the late innings, blew the save in the 10th, and then gave up the winning run in the 11th in game six.
Last night was a good night...
Do you have an affinity for California MLB teams in general or just those from the Bay Area?
(Biden won ;).)
Quote from: crusaderjoe on October 12, 2012, 09:42:50 AM
Do you have an affinity for California MLB teams in general or just those from the Bay Area?
(Biden won ;).)
:)
Quote from: historyman on October 07, 2012, 03:19:31 PM
Quote from: StlVUFan on October 06, 2012, 10:01:06 PM
Quote from: historyman on October 05, 2012, 12:14:15 PM
Quote from: valpo04 on October 5 at 07:26:38 AM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
everybody knows the cards are gonna win it all again this year anyway.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I was going to say we shouldn't play into the crusader/flogging/Holy Land thing but when Cardinal fans are involved let the flogging begin! ;D
And that goes for StlVUFan and any other Cardinal fans (bbtds??) too. ;)
Not actually a Cardinal fan, just root for them.
What? What is the difference between a fan & rooting for a team? Please explain.
I root for the Cardinals.
I live and die with my White Sox.
The former is known as "jumping on the bandwagon". The latter is known as fanaticism.
When the White Sox came to Busch during interleague play, that was the first time in my life I visited Busch stadium and rooted for the visitors.
Basically, the Cardinals are my National League team.
I also like to see the Rays and the Nats win. Will absolutely root for the Rays against the Yankees or the Red Sox. Does not make me a Rays fan.
Quote from: historyman on October 07, 2012, 11:25:50 PM
Well, finally someone out managed the Cardinals. Matheny instead of LaRussa may be St.Louis' downfall this year.
I'm a fan of the Nationals now. No matter even if I'm just rooting against one team that automatically makes me a fan of their opponent if only for one game.
Oops.
Romney played it perfectly, acted Presidential and showed incredible foreign experience and knowledge. If he doesn't win I'll be shocked. Not that I'm showing my favorite or anything...just my impressions from tonight ;)
QuoteRomney played it perfectly, acted Presidential and showed incredible foreign experience and knowledge.
Were we watching the same debate?
Quote from: mj on October 22, 2012, 10:08:39 PM
QuoteRomney played it perfectly, acted Presidential and showed incredible foreign experience and knowledge.
Were we watching the same debate?
The momentum has been in Romney's favor going into the debate. All he needed to do was look and sound presidential and not have any major gaffes. I think he accomplished that. I also agree with '72 that it was a good strategy. I thought Obama did a good job as well, other than seeming to act overly aggressive and condescending at times (e.g., "We have these things called aircraft carriers, Governor"). Most pundits were saying that Obama needed a decisive win tonight to regain the momentum he lost after the first debate. I don't think he got it.
Obama has been overly aggressive these last 2 debates as wh mentioned, trying to make up for falling asleep in the first one. His overly critical and condescending tone/words can't counteract his traditional one line zingers he attempts in order to try and woo the young voters. The Change and Forward slogans are attempts at rallying young voters around a broad concept, as most often they don't have knowledge of more specific topics at stake in the election. I am not just saying that because I am now 31 and feeling old, but even looking back at why I voted for GW both times in my first 2 elections, I had no clue what issues I really was voting on (neither did most of my undergraduate brethren). It was the 'cool' thing to vote for Obama last election for young voters, and hopefully we don't make a decision based on that same concept this time.
I may sound overly conservative in this post, but am truly more of a conservative-leaning moderate since I graduated from Valpo (was much more conservative before I knew what that meant). I just hope that whoever wins keeps the US as the pre-eminent power in the world, and expands on what the greatest generation started back in/after WWII. Just thinking about what my grandparents would think about these vicious debates makes me sick, as they were much more about coming together for one cause, making the US a world power and preventing tyranny.
I have to agree with valpotx about why first time voters usually rally behind the catchphrase, like "CHANGE We Can Believe In" or the moving forward stuff, because they haven't really understood some of the issues because they haven't had to deal with them before, like taxes, health care insurance, home ownership banking issues, things that my parents have had to experience over time. Now that I have more of an idea about policy issues, health insurance, and how the debt can be more of an issue now, than when I was a first time voter, I feel more ready to vote for whichever candidate has a real idea of getting our country back on the right track.
Tonight is a wonderful night. President Obama won.
I agree it is sad. Romney most likely will win the popular vote and we have four more years of snide remarks and not much more. We had the chance to elect a real leader and we failed. buy gold my friends, there is little other than significantly raised tax rates on all of us or run away inflation that separates us from Greece.
If Romney wins the popular vote, the ghosts of the 2000 election will have been laid to rest. For me anyway.
The Democrats had their shot to regain the presidency in 2004 much like the Republicans had their shot tonight. Time to move forward now, as was done then.
I'm not surprised Florida was as close as ever...again. I probably saw 15 Romney signs for every one for Obama in my area. Not that lawn signs vote, but one could certainly get the impression that the Democrat base down here was somewhat eroded, at least in certain areas of Broward county.
Did I mention that it is time to move forward?
'72 and the Pee Party lost --Hooray! Hooray! Bachman? I was hoping she would abort her campaign. Maybe next time. FORWARD! :thumbsup:
as the large urban areas rolled in, obama grabbed the popular vote lead and never looked back. as of this morning, it's sitting around 2 1/2 million votes. i wasn't thrilled with the choices this time around, but i'm not exactly heartbroken by the result either. i may not like some of the obama administration's policies, but at the end of the day, i still have a job, a place to live, food to eat, and the ability to provide for myself. and for that, i'm thankful. because there are plenty of people that don't have those things.
Luckily we only have 4 more years of this guy. Here's hoping for 2016 that we can right the wrongs that will occur over the next few years (either party, though I lean conservative). I would have even preferred Biden over Obama
Quote from: crusaderjoe on November 07, 2012, 01:55:15 AM
If Romney wins the popular vote, the ghosts of the 2000 election will have been laid to rest. For me anyway.
The Democrats had their shot to regain the presidency in 2004 much like the Republicans had their shot tonight. Time to move forward now, as was done then.
I'm not surprised Florida was as close as ever...again. I probably saw 15 Romney signs for every one for Obama in my area. Not that lawn signs vote, but one could certainly get the impression that the Democrat base down here was somewhat eroded, at least in certain areas of Broward county.
Did I mention that it is time to move forward?
I told a co-worker of mine that when I woke up the following morning, there was a voice mail from the State of Florida: "Just kidding!"
Ya know, this is as good a place as any to put out an impression I've got after the results of this election.Here it is: The day when either party nominates a white guy are over. No Mitt Romneys, No John Kerrys, No John McCains, No white guys.
This election proved that too many people vote based on color alone and both parties will try to avoid large blocks of voters going one way or another while the balance is split. Think about it. blacks voted 12 out of 13 for Obama in spite of the fact that they, as a group, are worse off with 15% unemployment. Hispanics voted overwhelmingly for Obama probably because he is part black and a minority, as are they. They didn't really care about issues as much as color. In the meantime white males voted largely for Mitt and white women were split. The overall difference was minimal nationally and Obama was the very first President in history to win reelection by a smaller percentage than his first win. If Mitt could have won a few more points from blacks or hispanics--boom, he's our next President.
So what will the parties do next? Democrats will probably nominate a women--not Hilary as she'll lose interest by then and be over 70. Of course, never count her out. Republicans? A Marco Rubio, a Bobby Jindal, or maybe a Kelly Ayotte, or possibly Nikki Haley, or some combo of these people. I doubt even a bright guy like Paul Ryan could get the nomination and if Republicans chose another white guy, like Chris Christy, they will have the same result.
Now, the wild card in all this is if the economy craters then all bets are off and then maybe a white guy could win for the Republicans.
Quote from: vu72 on November 08, 2012, 09:03:44 PMObama was the very first President in history to win reelection by a smaller percentage than his first win.
BZZT! Woodrow Wilson, 1916.
vu72, I was also hearing such things as Obama's campaign staff was targeting the right demographics, like 25-49 college football fans in B1G Ten country who would watch BTN on Saturday afternoons, or they would targets large areas of minority tv viewers on the stations they typically watched. They didn't just reach out to the major networks, they reached out to those stations that only received viewership from specific groups.
Hilary has already planned to end her work as Secretary of State real soon, and I believe she's ruled out any further political aspirations after these last 4 years. I couldn't tell you who else, besides Biden, will considering running for the Democrats, and the Republicans have to open up to the moderate side of the conservative brand, and get them where they are, not force them to the far right, as though the center/moderates have cooties.
Quote from: valporun on November 08, 2012, 10:17:49 PMthe Republicans have to open up to the moderate side of the conservative brand, and get them where they are, not force them to the far right, as though the center/moderates have cooties.
...really? have you been watching the same country as the rest of us?
Romney was the governor of Massachusetts. How many conservative Republicans get elected there?
McCain "the maverick" WAS the moderate choice in 2008.
GWB wasn't a fiscal conservative nor even a very good social conservative.
...So where are the "far right" conservatives you speak of...maybe you mean Reagan? The one who always got more than 90% of the electoral college?
Romney was definitely more moderate, but had wayyyyyy too many gaffes leading up to the election. Vu72, I can understand what you are saying, but Romney would have won if conservatives get on the bandwagon with more immigration reform talk. Polls have shown over the last few years that most hispanics want to vote republican (religion being a big part of it), but cannot support a party that wants to deport people that were brought over by their parents, or just want to build fences. Living in TX, we definitely see more of the illegal immigration negatives than most of the politicians that talk about it, but there has to be a better solution. I always find it hilarious when people from the Northeast or Midwest talk about illegal immigration not being a big issue, as most often if there are illegal immigrants in their areas, they are not the troubled ones causing problems like what we see in the south of my state (constant murders, drugs, etc). It would be like me trying to talk knowledgeably about unions or steel mills, where there are hardly any/none in my area. Whether it is AZ, NM, CA, TX, FL, etc, illegal immigration is a hot topic, but was not really brought up in the run-up to the election as much as it should have been. Mexican leaders took extreme offense that neither candidate talked about the drug war going on in Mexico or trade with Latin America, which is of course our southern border, but rather focused on countries far away from our true sphere. If Romney would have gotten on the bandwagon of supporting Latino initiatives, their political leaning was already there for the taking...
Where's jj? We need to hear his expert opinion on the matter of whether whitey will ever win the presidency again. :lol:
Seriously, '72 I guess I can see where you are coming from, but I think you are being too fixated on race or color of skin. I don't think its really a question of black or white or brown in general. Sure, there are some examples of where people have voted for the candidate only because the guy has the same skin color as they do. However, what I think is going on right now is more about "R" vs. "D" than it is about one skin color vs. the other. There are colors involved alright, but those are blue and red. This is forcing independents like myself to take sides and run with them (i.e. I am an independent but I will historically lean more "D" than "R"). Meaning, even Romney's moderate stance was not enough for me to change sides.
I think you're painting with too broad a brush on the Hispanics characterizations as well. I mean I'm a white guy of Italian descent, and I am darker than some blue eyed/blond haired Hispanics. And there are also many many conservative Hispanics. Can't paint that stroke too broadly, IMO. Electability or non electability isn't just about race or skin color--I think the current issues and political climate are more complicated than that.
Just my .02.
Great thoughts, thanks. I guess part of the problem as I see it is perception and many people thought Romney just couldn't relate to them because he is rich, even though Obama is also rich (just not nearly as rich as Romney).
Unfortunately most of the electorate are not well informed or even interested until late in the process. Obama's team did a great job of painting Romney as being out of touch, and that made the difference.
The problem is deeper than just superficial skin color, however, the democrats couldn't very easily claim that a Marco Rubio (for example) was a rich guy who couldn't relate. It could put the race back to where it should be focused--on issues.
One thing the dems do well is social media and getting people out to vote. Even if a good amount of younger voters had no clue what issues they were truly supporting, they got them out to vote again, and more on the dem side. It was surprising that polls indicate 90%+ of African American voters went for Obama, definitely something that would need to change in 2016 if Reps are to have a chance as well.
That would be true if they weren't decreasing in numbers. It's Hispanics that need attention because they a) are increasing b) are actually inclined to vote Republican because more naturally conservative.
I'm agreeing with what you're saying, post election about what the Republican party needs to do to reach out to the Hispanic community that wants to support the Conservative intentions/issues, but the leadership in the Republican party forced Romney to be far right. They wanted to focus everything on Obama's leadership faults, but the defensive kept having to be deflecting the mud being slung about how he was out of touch and only sounding like he was playing to far right, 1% of the country financially.
tx, I agree, the youth got more involved because of how they could swing the election to "get out the vote" at their fingertips with texting, Twitter, Facebook, and whatever other social media things they could use to get the word out. I mean they could commonly stand in a lunch line and tweet or instant message something they were hearing, as though their smartphone became the modern day "water cooler".
It will be interesting to see what both parties do in the next four years, since we'll be electing a fresh face in 2016. I'm a Democrat, but I don't see Vice President Biden being a good option in four years.
Quote from: valporun on November 09, 2012, 02:07:12 PM
I'm agreeing with what you're saying, post election about what the Republican party needs to do to reach out to the Hispanic community that wants to support the Conservative intentions/issues, but the leadership in the Republican party forced Romney to be far right. They wanted to focus everything on Obama's leadership faults, but the defensive kept having to be deflecting the mud being slung about how he was out of touch and only sounding like he was playing to far right, 1% of the country financially.
tx, I agree, the youth got more involved because of how they could swing the election to "get out the vote" at their fingertips with texting, Twitter, Facebook, and whatever other social media things they could use to get the word out. I mean they could commonly stand in a lunch line and tweet or instant message something they were hearing, as though their smartphone became the modern day "water cooler".
It will be interesting to see what both parties do in the next four years, since we'll be electing a fresh face in 2016. I'm a Democrat, but I don't see Vice President Biden being a good option in four years.
The last time this happened, we were left with Bush v. Gore. I certainly hope both parties can do much better than those two.
By the way, I don't know that I need a candidate to relate to me in order to vote for him/her.
Just clicked on this thread for the first time. Here I figured the time stamp would be Nov 6!
Quote from: StlVUFan on November 09, 2012, 02:28:47 PMThe last time this happened, we were left with Bush v. Gore. I certainly hope both parties can do much better than those two.
Of course some are saying (a little early mind you) that it could be Bush v Biden in four years.
Just what I hope doesn't happen...
Quote from: covufan on November 13, 2012, 07:53:25 PM
Quote from: StlVUFan on November 09, 2012, 02:28:47 PMThe last time this happened, we were left with Bush v. Gore. I certainly hope both parties can do much better than those two.
Of course some are saying (a little early mind you) that it could be Bush v Biden in four years.
Quote from: covufan on November 13, 2012, 07:53:25 PM
Quote from: StlVUFan on November 09, 2012, 02:28:47 PMThe last time this happened, we were left with Bush v. Gore. I certainly hope both parties can do much better than those two.
Of course some are saying (a little early mind you) that it could be Bush v Biden in four years.
Jeb, I presume?
Yeah, it would be Jeb. George P. Bush is too young yet for the "old faithful" of the GOP to throw their hats behind. Regardless, I'm not interested in another Bush in office, nor do I want Joe Biden, even as a Democrat, because I don't trust his politics enough to get us out of a see-through plastic bag.
In the "family business" discussion, the notion of Bill Clinton replacing Hillary as Secretary of State amused me.
(As did the idea that Hillary likes "Love it or Leave It". "Property Brothers" is a much better program!)
Quote from: valporun on November 14, 2012, 09:21:56 AM
Yeah, it would be Jeb. George P. Bush is too young yet for the "old faithful" of the GOP to throw their hats behind. Regardless, I'm not interested in another Bush in office, nor do I want Joe Biden, even as a Democrat, because I don't trust his politics enough to get us out of a see-through plastic bag.
I'm afraid I agree on both counts.
In '08 I told everyone I wanted Hillary, then Jeb in 2012, Chelsea in 2020, and George P in 2024 so that we could look back on 1988-2032 as "the Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton-Bush years".
Quote from: LaPorteAveApostle on November 14, 2012, 10:42:42 PM
In '08 I told everyone I wanted Hillary, then Jeb in 2012, Chelsea in 2020, and George P in 2024 so that we could look back on 1988-2032 as "the Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton-Bush years".
Sad to say the "Obama" threw off your prediction, blew it out of proportion a little.
Quote from: valporun on November 14, 2012, 09:21:56 AM
Yeah, it would be Jeb. George P. Bush is too young yet for the "old faithful" of the GOP to throw their hats behind. Regardless, I'm not interested in another Bush in office, nor do I want Joe Biden, even as a Democrat, because I don't trust his politics enough to get us out of a see-through plastic bag.
As a republican, the idea of Joe Biden being the democratic nominee is REALLY exciting! However, I agree he won't be the pick, he is clown like in the view of even the late night comedians. Hilary is a possibility I would think, but I expecting another person of color or a women, countered by a person of color or a women. wouldn't surprise me at all to see two women running for President. Who from the democratic side do you think, run??
I'd choose Amy Klobucher on the Democratic side and the LCMS member Michele Bachmann as the Republican candidate. Debate wise,Klobucher would show the world just how dumb and insular Michele is. Go Amy! :-*
Quote from: setshot on November 17, 2012, 07:09:21 AM
I'd choose Amy Klobucher on the Democratic side and the LCMS member Michele Bachmann as the Republican candidate. Debate wise,Klobucher would show the world just how dumb and insular Michele is. Go Amy! :-*
except bachman's not a lutheran anymore. she's labeled an evangelical christian.
Pretty sure she wasn't LCMS either, porbably not conservative enough!! I think it was Wisconsin.
Now Amy is smart but just to darn homely to get the nomination!!
http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/07/15/michele-bachmann-officially-leaves-her-church/ (http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/07/15/michele-bachmann-officially-leaves-her-church/)
Quote from: vu72 on November 17, 2012, 08:35:12 AM
Pretty sure she wasn't LCMS either, porbably not conservative enough!! I think it was Wisconsin.
I should know better, but for some reason I read this as "Bachman ... not conservative enough" for the LCMS, instead of the other way around. DUH. :crazy:
Is WELS now the "line in the sand" of Lutheran denominations for "The Pope is the antichrist" ideology? It was LCMS at one time, I think.
Now that i read the article on her leaving, it did say that her former church was part of the Wisconsin Synod. Yes, St. Louie, Wisconsin is viewed as the most conservative bunch of Lutherans, not that i'm an expert, as i'm part of the "left wing" Lutherans, the ELCA :o
vu72, right now, I'm under such election fatigue that I'm not sure who the Democrats are talking about, but I believe, and I'll check on it later, Hilary said that once she's resigned as Secretary of State, she's DONE with politics. She'll be almost 70-years-old by the time the 2016 election comes, will she really have the energy to want to spend months fundraising and campaigning? Biden is a definite clown that the GOP wants running because they could counter with either Romney or Ryan, and kill Biden easily.
At this time though, I have no idea, and I just want to get past Inauguration Day, see what happens to this country, and try to find some full-time work before 2014, so I don't have to pay health insurance penalties.
Quote from: vu72 on November 17, 2012, 10:33:39 AM
Now that i read the article on her leaving, it did say that her former church was part of the Wisconsin Synod. Yes, St. Louie, Wisconsin is viewed as the most conservative bunch of Lutherans, not that i'm an expert, as i'm part of the "left wing" Lutherans, the ELCA :o
Surprised you did not mention the section of the article that quotes a VU professor!The Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod has come under criticism from some Catholics for its views on the papacy, an institution that the denomination calls the Antichrist.
"We identify the Antichrist as the Papacy," the denomination's website says. "This is an historical judgment based on Scripture."
The Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights issued a statement Thursday about Bachmann's denomination, saying it's "regrettable that there are still strains of anti-Catholicism in some Protestant circles."
"But we find no evidence of any bigotry on the part of Rep. Michele Bachmann," the statement continued. "Indeed, she has condemned anti-Catholicism. Just as President Barack Obama is not responsible for the views of Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Rep. Bachmann must be judged on the basis of her own record."
The debate over the legitimacy of the papacy goes back to the Protestant Reformation. The Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod's namesake is Martin Luther, who led the 16th century Reformation and who opposed the papacy.
"The issue of the papacy as the Antichrist does go back to Luther - he did use that terminology," said Professor George C. Heider, theology chair at Valparaiso University, a Lutheran school in Indiana."Luther's point was, that in his view, the pope was so obstructing the gospel of God's free love in Jesus, even though he wore all the trappings of a leader in the church," Heider said. "He was functioning as the New Testament describes it as the Antichrist."
Still, Heider notes that Roman Catholics and Lutherans have close ties today. They recognize each other's baptisms, a point of contention in relations between the Catholic Church and other Protestant denominations.
I'm well aware that WELS is more conservative than LCMS (and there are more obscure Lutheran denominations that ever more conservative than WELS).
What I'm wondering is: does the LCMS still profess the papacy to be the anti-christ, or have they abandoned that position. It was one of the lesser conflicts going on in the background of the Seminex controversy in the late 60s/early 70s.
Quote from: StlVUFan on November 17, 2012, 04:33:56 PM
I'm well aware that WELS is more conservative than LCMS (and there are more obscure Lutheran denominations that ever more conservative than WELS).
What I'm wondering is: does the LCMS still profess the papacy to be the anti-christ, or have they abandoned that position. It was one of the lesser conflicts going on in the background of the Seminex controversy in the late 60s/early 70s.
From as LCMS FAQ page.
Connection between the antichrist and the pope
Q: As a Methodist living in a new town, I have found a local LCMS church where I feel comfortable
and fed. Seeking information, I have looked over your pages on the net and have developed some
questions. The connection between the antichrist and pope are unclear to me. Do you believe the pope
is the only enemy?
A: The LCMS does not teach, nor has it ever taught, that any individual Pope as a person, is to be
identified with the Antichrist. The historic view of LCMS on the Antichrist is summarized as follows by
the Synod's Theological Commission:
The New Testament predicts that the church throughout its history will witness many antichrists (Matt.
24:5,23-24; Mark 13:6,21-22; Luke 21:8; 1 John 2:18,22; 4:3; 2 John 7). All false teachers who teach
contrary to Christ's Word are opponents of Christ and, insofar as they do so, are anti-Christ.
However, the Scriptures also teach that there is one climactic "Anti-Christ" (Dan. 7:8,11, 20-21, 24-25;
11:36-45; 2 Thessalonians 2; 1 John 2:18; 4:3; Revelation 17-18). . . Concerning the historical identity of
the Antichrist, we affirm the Lutheran Confessions' identification of the Antichrist with the office of the
papacy whose official claims continue to correspond to the Scriptural marks listed above. It is important,
however, that we observe the distinction which the Lutheran Confessors made between the office of
the pope (papacy) and the individual men who fill that office. The latter could be Christians themselves.
We do not presume to judge any person's heart. Also, we acknowledge the possibility that the historical
form of the Antichrist cold change. Of course, in that case another identified by these marks would rise.
In a footnote, the Commission adds:
To the extent that the papacy continues to claim as official dogma the canons and decrees of the Council
of Trent which expressly anathematizes, for instance, the doctrine "that justifying faith is nothing else
than trust in divine mercy which remits sins for Christ's sake, or that it is that trust alone by which we
are justified," the judgment of the Lutheran confessional writings that the papacy is the Antichrist holds.
At the same time, of course, we must recognize the possibility, under God's guidance, that
contemporary discussions and statements (e.g., 1983 U.S. Lutheran-Roman Catholic dialogue statement
on "Justification by Faith") could lead to a revision of the Roman Catholic position regarding Tridentine
dogma.
Usage: We urge you to contact an LCMS pastor in your area for more in-depth discussion.
Published by: LCMS Church Information Center
©The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod
1333 S. Kirkwood Road, St. Louis, MO 63122-7295
888-843-5267 • infocenter@lcms.org • www.lcms.org/faqs (http://www.lcms.org/faqs)
Quote from: LaPorteAveApostle on November 14, 2012, 10:42:42 PM
In '08 I told everyone I wanted Hillary, then Jeb in 2012, Chelsea in 2020, and George P in 2024 so that we could look back on 1988-2032 as "the Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton-Bush years".
Why does Chelsea only get 4 years? FDRoosevelt was elected to 4 terms!!!!
Personally I think Chelsea would have gotten 5 terms with Monica Lewinsky as her Madam Vice President. We all know the VP is there to look good and be stupid enough to do everything the president says no matter what. Chelsea knows just exactly how skilled Miss Lewinsky is at that.
Quote from: bbtds on November 18, 2012, 09:40:04 AM
Quote from: LaPorteAveApostle on November 14, 2012, 10:42:42 PM
In '08 I told everyone I wanted Hillary, then Jeb in 2012, Chelsea in 2020, and George P in 2024 so that we could look back on 1988-2032 as "the Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton-Bush years".
Why does Chelsea only get 4 years? FDRoosevelt was elected to 4 terms!!!!
Personally I think Chelsea would have gotten 5 terms with Monica Lewinsky as her Madam Vice President. We all know the VP is there to look good and be stupid enough to do everything the president says no matter what. Chelsea knows just exactly how skilled Miss Lewinsky is at that.
let's not let the constitution get in the way of these things...
Self-explanatory...
Quote from: wh on November 05, 2014, 12:09:08 AM
Self-explanatory...
How did I know you'd be posting here today?
Great night? Nah. With 57% of voters in favor, medical marijuana failed in Florida. That's really the only thing I kept my eye on this time around. Otherwise, congratulations.
Quote from: crusaderjoe on November 05, 2014, 07:32:18 AMWith 57% of voters in favor, medical marijuana failed in Florida. That's really the only thing I kept my eye on this time around.
just as well our state didn't go to pot
First time in decades a Democrat will be on the Center Township board.
Interesting little tidbit for the Valpo residents.
A Red November is always a good thing :)
:)
Quote from: wh on February 09, 2016, 10:55:41 PM
:)
Turning a new leaf? I don't know if Bernie's practical, maybe not the candidate you take home to your mother, but for a socialist in his 70's, I'll agree he's awfully exciting.
Well played! :thumbsup:
The wave of anger rolls on...
Is anger the best way to make decisions?
How would Trump handle a Congress and Supreme Court that he does not agree with? How would Trump handle a Congress that is not likely to be supportive of him? Last time I checked, the constitution had a pretty strong system of checks and balances.
Quote from: vu84v2 on February 24, 2016, 07:28:13 AM
Is anger the best way to make decisions?
How would Trump handle a Congress and Supreme Court that he does not agree with? How would Trump handle a Congress that is not likely to be supportive of him? Last time I checked, the constitution had a pretty strong system of checks and balances.
It may be that Trump is a strong believer in the rule of law. He's a businessman, right? They benefit from the rule of law.
It's terrifying to say it, but, it did cross my mind the other day, "If he won, and served a term, would he step down if he lost the next election? Or, if by some freak set of circumstances he was re-elected, would he stop at two?"
Maybe I've seen too many Trevor Noah African dictator comparisons...