It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Latest Polls : Republicans get a clean sweep!

page: 5
5
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 02:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
reply to post by Eurisko2012
 


I'm just curious. Hoffman's district has been electing Republicans nonstop since before the civil war. Over seventy elections, every time, Republican. Why is the seventy-first time "special" exactly?


Temporary fumble.
The GOP put the wrong person in there.

She dropped out and then endorsed the democrat. (Rino)
I think the GOP has learned from their mistakes.
In November 2010 the NY 23 will be back up for grabs.
Hoffman will win.
Actually, November 2010 will be another dark night for the democrats.
We might take back the House and the Senate.




posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 09:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by lernmore
Liberals are so cute when they're angry.


That was a good one. Made me laugh. Their faces get so scrunched up.



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 09:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProfEmeritus
reply to post by Mak Manto
 





How is it bad if we want a trade and cap?

It is wrong because it is based on the false claim that Carbon emissions are causing global warming. In fact, many scientists believe that we are heading straight into a new ice age, so even IF C was contributing to global warming, we may then be helping along the race to the ice age.
It is better NOT to act, if we are not sure which way things are going.
Sometimes DOING NOTHING is better than doing the wrong thing.

But we're not doing nothing.

We're dumping pollutants into the atmosphere.

EVEN IF none of you believe that global warming is caused by people, pollutants ARE KNOWN to be dangerous.

That isn't a false claim...



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 09:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by sos37
reply to post by illuminatislave
 


No way, I mean a real conservative that cares about the Constitution and the people of this country, not someone that cares about their friends in high business places. A moderate conservative would be ideal as long as they uphold the Constitution and all of the freedoms therein.


The problem is is that most everyday Republicans, the ones that are your neighbors, friends, etc, who CALL themselves conservative still think the Republican party is conservative and vote that way without realizing that they are voting in someone who is a socialist.

The party has been subverted and is being sold as the same old Republican party and people are still buying it because they aren't serious about their country and don't take the time to do the research about who they are voting for.

I've sworn off R and D and I'm only voting for people that are standing for the Constitution, so far, they're hard to find!



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 09:31 PM
link   


wasnt even close in NJ...

HAHA go repubs!



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 10:05 PM
link   
49% to 45% is close, and not only is it not "not close" it is a huge statement that the Governor-elect doesn't have half the state's population's confidence.

Christie was the only choice given the options presented; as long as he remains moderate and fights to fix the state rather than tow the GOP line he may even earn a second term.



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 11:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Mak Manto
 





But we're not doing nothing. We're dumping pollutants into the atmosphere. EVEN IF none of you believe that global warming is caused by people, pollutants ARE KNOWN to be dangerous.

No one is saying that we shouldn't control true pollution. We should.
However, according to the global warming fanatics, even humans are contributing to global warming by exhaling CO2. In fact, some are suggesting that we "cut" the world population down to 500,000,000 to cut down on CO2 emissions.



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 11:31 PM
link   
reply to post by ProfEmeritus
 


Will ice ages on Earth come to screeching halt if everyone on Earth
commits suicide tomorrow?

I guess 1 person should be kept alive. Al Gore.



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 11:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Eurisko2012
 





I guess 1 person should be kept alive. Al Gore.

Yup! He has enough hot air to melt all of the ice on Earth.



posted on Nov, 5 2009 @ 12:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by ProfEmeritus
reply to post by Mak Manto
 





But we're not doing nothing. We're dumping pollutants into the atmosphere. EVEN IF none of you believe that global warming is caused by people, pollutants ARE KNOWN to be dangerous.

No one is saying that we shouldn't control true pollution. We should.
However, according to the global warming fanatics, even humans are contributing to global warming by exhaling CO2. In fact, some are suggesting that we "cut" the world population down to 500,000,000 to cut down on CO2 emissions.

But no cap and trade at all allows companies to dump how much they want...

Do you see the problem with this?



posted on Nov, 5 2009 @ 09:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mak Manto
But no cap and trade at all allows companies to dump how much they want...

Do you see the problem with this?


Its the age-old question of 'Is the cure worse than the disease?' In my opinion, I think it is. Aside from questions I have about its actual ability to reduce CO2 emissions, it gives the government the power to control the means of delivery and amount of electricity American consumers receive, it sets overbearing burdens on homeowners preparing to sell homes and upon small communities that will have to set up bureaucracies in order to inspect those homes, and its going to significantly increase end-user prices for energy at a time when American citizens and businesses are already on the ropes financially.

That's just the start of it. There's a ton of flat-out garbage in that bill that needs to be jettisoned before it should even remotely be considered.


[edit on 5-11-2009 by vor78]



posted on Nov, 5 2009 @ 11:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by eNumbra
49% to 45% is close, and not only is it not "not close" it is a huge statement that the Governor-elect doesn't have half the state's population's confidence.



It is a relative "big" win. Clinton won by 43% and 49% winning percentages, to use your analogy, what does that say about his Presidency?

Considering it was a victory against an incumbent in a heavily Democratic State, with a thrid party candidate, it was a very impressive win.



posted on Nov, 5 2009 @ 01:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Mak Manto
 





But no cap and trade at all allows companies to dump how much they want... Do you see the problem with this?

Instead of throwing the baby out with the wash water, which is what cap and trade would do, there should be stricter standards for true pollutants and very serious penalties for those who pollute. By serious penalties, I mean shutting them down if they fail to comply. That would make more sense than the cap and trade approach, where clever accountants will figure out how to beat the system by trading and exchanging "carbon credits".
The approach would be similar to the CAFE standards which have worked very well, in getting the auto manufacturers to up their mileage standards over the years. When you look at how far actual mileage has come since those CAFE standards were established, most people will agree that it is one government edict that has worked well. Even government gets it right once and awhile.



posted on Nov, 5 2009 @ 01:17 PM
link   
reply to post by sos37
 


The repubs on this site are getting sadly predictable. Saw this coming like a runaway freight train. So said that you are so one sided with a party that you search for every little dust bunny of evidence to support your hopes.

First question is common sense, what do governors have to do with the white house?


60% of voters said their votes have nothing to do with the Obama administration. Nor should they. Governors are a different political animal and Presidential support should never be considered.

both state voters had the economy as a prioritiy but for New Jersey, the second priority was the insanely high property taxes.

IN NJ, only 19% of the voters voting for or against Obama was equally divided. Again, to vote for governor based on presidential preference is just stupid.

Chris Christie won NJ because he is for lowering property taxes. IT is plain and simple.

McDonell won VA because he went out of his way to appeal to the Independants, which were a deciding factor for VA.



posted on Nov, 5 2009 @ 02:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by nixie_nox
60% of voters said their votes have nothing to do with the Obama administration. Nor should they. Governors are a different political animal and Presidential support should never be considered.


You're right, but you're also wrong. Those people said that it wasn't a referendum on Obama and it wasn't. But the problem for Obama is that the number one issue for the voters in both states was based in economic conditions. What's the #1 issue among voters nationally right now? Economic conditions.

The lesson of this election is that there is a very high degree of frustration with the condition of the economy and the overall direction of the country. They're looking for someone to blame and right now, that person isn't Barack Obama. However, they have shown that they're willing to blame Democrats for it in states that they won just 12 months ago. The fact that they willingly gave their votes to members of a supposedly dead and despised party is just the stake in the heart.

If the Democrats can't see the obvious warning signs in that, they're going to be in serious trouble next fall.



posted on Nov, 5 2009 @ 02:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Eurisko2012

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
reply to post by Eurisko2012
 


I'm just curious. Hoffman's district has been electing Republicans nonstop since before the civil war. Over seventy elections, every time, Republican. Why is the seventy-first time "special" exactly?


Temporary fumble.
The GOP put the wrong person in there.

She dropped out and then endorsed the democrat. (Rino)
I think the GOP has learned from their mistakes.
In November 2010 the NY 23 will be back up for grabs.
Hoffman will win.
Actually, November 2010 will be another dark night for the democrats.
We might take back the House and the Senate.


It amazes me how people who think the government is evil and needs to be dismantled, are always the first in line for government jobs and paychecks. I guess it's the old Republican standby of "The government doesn't work, elect us and we'll prove it!"


Originally posted by ProfEmeritus
reply to post by Mak Manto
 





But we're not doing nothing. We're dumping pollutants into the atmosphere. EVEN IF none of you believe that global warming is caused by people, pollutants ARE KNOWN to be dangerous.

No one is saying that we shouldn't control true pollution. We should.
However, according to the global warming fanatics, even humans are contributing to global warming by exhaling CO2. In fact, some are suggesting that we "cut" the world population down to 500,000,000 to cut down on CO2 emissions.


"According to the global warming fanatics" like... who, exactly?

"Some are suggesting..." Okay, who is suggesting?



posted on Nov, 5 2009 @ 02:56 PM
link   
reply to post by vor78
 



yes and no. There are a lot of faults at the local level as far as the economy goes. In some ways, the state levels are just as guilty for letting their states go broke.

The big run for my state will be a one time former rep gov and the current dem gov. While I very rarely vote repub, I actually liked this guy. And most like if they DO run like everyone hopes, I will actually be voting for the repub.
Because the current guy is not dealign with the economy well. This is a very very wealth state, if not the wealthiest. I should be getting furloughed five days this year and 12 coworkers getting laid off. I am a state employee. The guy was not very good before getting electing gov.

So I will be voting for the repub. Does this have any bearing on obama? No. He is just the better of the two candidates.

Despite how it feels on ATS sometimes, the fed is not the only government. And really only people in their state know what is going on. From the rumors I have heard the dem candidate for VA was just an oddball. He was just not worthy. And sometimes these things just trandcend parties. Someone is liked, someone isn't.



posted on Nov, 5 2009 @ 07:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by nixie_nox
First question is common sense, what do governors have to do with the white house?


Governor races tend to tell the trend of a State. Take a look historically. Not 100% but a fairly good test.




60% of voters said their votes have nothing to do with the Obama administration. Nor should they. Governors are a different political animal and Presidential support should never be considered.


The President invested in the NJ race, that his coatails couldn't do the job speaks not only to the Gov. of NJ but to Obama's abilty to pull marginal candidates through. If Cap and Trade and Healthcare passes and every citizen grumbles about paying more in taxes, how well will Obama's coattails prove? Dem Candidates might not even ask him to campaign for him. There is the flip side of being too closely tied to the President when their polices fail.




both state voters had the economy as a prioritiy but for New Jersey, the second priority was the insanely high property taxes.


What makes you think the economy (actually jobs) and taxes won't be the top two on peoples mind nationwide in 2010?






Chris Christie won NJ because he is for lowering property taxes. IT is plain and simple.

McDonell won VA because he went out of his way to appeal to the Independants, which were a deciding factor for VA.


Why didn't the Dems do both of those? Don't you think that is a message from the voters?



posted on Nov, 5 2009 @ 08:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mak Manto

Originally posted by ProfEmeritus
reply to post by Mak Manto
 





How is it bad if we want a trade and cap?

It is wrong because it is based on the false claim that Carbon emissions are causing global warming. In fact, many scientists believe that we are heading straight into a new ice age, so even IF C was contributing to global warming, we may then be helping along the race to the ice age.
It is better NOT to act, if we are not sure which way things are going.
Sometimes DOING NOTHING is better than doing the wrong thing.

But we're not doing nothing.

We're dumping pollutants into the atmosphere.

EVEN IF none of you believe that global warming is caused by people, pollutants ARE KNOWN to be dangerous.

That isn't a false claim...


Oh my gosh... So put a cork in your butt to further your cause and leave the rest of the free world alone. Shut off your computer if you are so scared... Typical... Another one of those that says do as I say not as I do...



posted on Nov, 5 2009 @ 08:48 PM
link   
reply to post by pavil
 


What do governor races have to do with Team Obama?

------------------------------------------------------------------
Obama had his fingerprints all over the Corzine New Jersey
race. - Spectacular Failure -
The independent voters are running away from Obama and
his agenda.
Translation - there is a good chance the republicans will take back
the House and the Senate November 2010.




top topics



 
5
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join