TexasCHLforum.com

atticus wrote:It may take the numerous abuses of the federal government (IRS scandal, Obamacare, NSA domestic spying, etc.) to rouse the troops in 2014. We'll see.

Have you noticed that the propaganda arm of the democrat party (MSM) has been silent on those things for a while? A few blogs and one or two conservative leaning publications are not going to change anybody's mind....not when they are happening in an echo chamber. It requires, sadly, the legacy media to do their jobs, and they aren't willing to cooperate if it means a republican victory. The other day when that gal from the IRS resigned....BECAUSE of the IRS scandal....the NYT put the story on page 18, below the fold, in a column about people coming and going in government. For anybody who knows anything about newspaper publishing, BIG stories go on right hand pages, above the fold, up front (Page 3), or Front Page. They buried the story. So is everyone else. Kiss the IRS scandal goodbye as an issue to rouse the voters with.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

bizarrenormality wrote:

The only thing worse than losing the fight to defund/kill ObamaCare would be losing the House to the Democrats, losing Republican-held Senate seats to the Democrats, and putting a Democrat in the White House.

Listening to real people, not the media, it sounds like the surest way for Republicans to lose seats is giving in to Obama.

You must have missed the 2012 election. Obama was reelected and the Democrats gained seats in both the House and Senate. Those "real people" you reference did that.

Chas.

That's the "52%" that I referred to previously. As long as those people remain locked in their stupidity and shiftless avarice, the party's over, so to speak. And because they are stupid, shiftless, and greedy, they will never admit...even to themselves in private....that they made a mistake by voting for the charlatan in chief..........let alone their votes for petty charlatans. Their moral compass is broken, and every single vote they cast is decided on the basis of whether or not it will give them more free stuff in the near future. They are not long term thinkers, because long term thinking requires a belief in something bigger than immediate self-gratification.

That's bad news. But the worse news is that these people procreate, and make more people just like them, with the same grasping lack of higher values. No amount of "free education" will educate them to think anything different......not when that "free education" establishment is firmly in the camp of encouraging that fecklessness.

The proportion of stupid, shiftless, and greedy voters to thoughtful, industrious, and higher thinking voters is roughly 52% to 48% right now....give or take a fraction of a percentage point on either side. What will that ratio be in 10 years? 60% to 40%? 75% to 25%? One thing is obvious to me: it is a growing disparity, not a shrinking one.

For this reason, I firmly believe that we are past the tipping point. The tipping point, the finite fulcrum against which the lever of Obamacare was applied was the 2012 presidential election. That was the last point at which thinking people had an opportunity to resurrect the nation from a slide into irrelevance. Looking back, future historians (if there are any literate people left by then) will define Obamacare as the feather which broke the camel's back.

Really bad juju is comin'.

The Lone Ranger and Tonto while on an adventure chasing the bad guys across the west Texas desert, made camp for the night. After they got their tent all set up, both men fell sound asleep.

Some hours later, Tonto wakes the Lone Ranger and says, 'Kemo Sabe, look towards sky, what you see?

The Lone Ranger replies, 'I see millions of stars.'

What that tell you?' asked Tonto.

The Lone Ranger ponders for a minute then says, 'Astronomically speaking, it tells me there are millions of galaxies and potentially billions of planets. Astrologically, it tells me that Saturn is in Leo. Time wise, it appears to be approximately a quarter past three in the morning. Theologically, the Lord is all-powerful and we are small and insignificant. Meteorological, it seems we will have a beautiful day tomorrow.

What's it tell you, Tonto?'

"You dumber than an Obama voter. It means someone stole the tent."

Cruz plays Tonto in this story, which is a perfect metaphor. In spanish, "tonto" is roughly equivalent to "village idiot," which is what all of his detractors are saying about him. But like Tonto in the above parable, the real "tonto" is the Lone Ranger—in this case, Harry Reid and any of the other enablers who refused to support Cruz's attempts to point out the obvious.

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

TexasCajun wrote:

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:

Cedar Park Dad wrote:I'd love to see multiple parties. Its healthier for democracy.

On that, we can agree. That speaks to another one of the institutional weakness of the republicans. They've made their choice. Now they have to sleep with it. From now on, they will only ever govern by coalition, and that weakens their position even further. In the other corner, the commies are all happy little bots because they get free stuff.

Lots of Republicans get free stuff off the government too. Every government contract out there is someone's meal ticket.

You can't intelligently equate someone living on welfare, using their obamaphone, and soon getting their medical through obamacare to a company being awarded a government contract.

Sure I can. The government industrial complex is a hungry beast. More relevantly in an earlier position I dealt with several clients who's majority of cash flows were from government contracts. Extremem good old boy with "bidding" contracts tailored to their products. They certainly weren't OWS protestors.

Democrats do it too (Solyndra, Tesla). Its all crony capitalism.

The key word here is "Products." People living institutionally on welfare, using obamaphones, and getting their healthcare paid for by the fines assessed against people like me, are not making any products that benefit society in any way whatsoever. At least overpaid bidders for government contracts have to actually produce and deliver a product or they can go to jail for fleecing the rest of us. Nobody is throwing welfare recipients in jail for fleecing the rest of us.

Cedar Park Dad wrote:I'd love to see multiple parties. Its healthier for democracy.

On that, we can agree. That speaks to another one of the institutional weakness of the republicans. They've made their choice. Now they have to sleep with it. From now on, they will only ever govern by coalition, and that weakens their position even further. In the other corner, the commies are all happy little bots because they get free stuff.

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics ... xas/69976/
Meet Congress' New Third Party and Its Leader, the Junior Senator from Texas

But a report from The National Review's Robert Costa following the Senate's rejection of that idea on Friday indicates that the vaguely-defined caucus already has a leader. Costa begins:

On a Thursday conference call, a group of House conservatives consulted with Senator Ted Cruz of Texas about how to respond to the leadership's fiscal strategy. Sources who were on the call say Cruz strongly advised them to oppose it, and hours later, Speaker John Boehner’s plan fizzled.

That's a stunning development, one that Costa suggests has driven House Republican leaders to "fury." On Thursday, we articulated the extent of Republican disapproval of Cruz. Now we realize that it may be time to try and articulate Congress' new third party.

The republican party is in deep DEEP kimchee, and they have ONE way forward to survival as a party: give up trying to be popular at beltway cocktail parties and LISTEN to and ACT UPON the desires of their conservative constituencies. Here's why: the days of wooing conservatives at election time, and then knifing them in the backs once Congress is in session are over. The "dastardly" Tea Party movement turns out to REALLY BE a grassroots movement of people who are extremely dissatisfied with the party's gradual drifting into complacency and this "go along to get along" mentality of beltway republicans. In the words of the immortal Howard Beal, they are "mad as heck, and they're not going to take it anymore." (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rGIY5Vyj4YM)

Beltway republicans can either accede to that reality and start representing the conservative constituents they so ardently wooed at election time, or they can die of irrelevance as a party. "Representing" means that if your constituents are "mad as heck," then YOU get mad as heck and you refuse to take anymore of it, on behalf of your constituents. There is a certain arrogance, even among reputed conservatives, to say that you are going to dampen the expression of the ardor of your constituents because you know better than they do. That is what has gotten the republican party in trouble, and that is why I left it.

I have written a number of times that I believe that the republican party is at the same crossroads that the Whigs found themselves at in 1851. Some have dismissed that statement of mine by saying that this is hardly the first time that someone has said the same thing. Well that's fine. Some may have cried wolf in the past. Until recently, I have not been inclined to do so because I had faith in the system, because I believed/hoped that if republicans actually represented their constituents, without apology, and without giving a rip as to what the media thinks about them, that these problems would eventually correct themselves. The problem is, THIS time the wolf really is at the door, and republicans dismiss that at their own peril as a party of significance in American politics. The problems won't correct themselves because 51% of the voters are stupid, ignorant, venal, shiftless, greedy, self-involved and unpatriotic people, who are happy to fiddle while Rome burns.

Yes, the nation IS polarized like seldom before. The difference this time is that the major party that would have previously represented the conservative pole has become more and more a "free radical" which harms by failing to represent its traditional base. Nature abhors a vacuum. If republicans won't fill it, then a third party will.

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

K.Mooneyham wrote: No, Senator Cruz did NOT vote for cloture. Here is a link to an article that lists who did and did not vote for cloture among the Republicans in the Senate.

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/terence ... e-majority

I stand corrected. Thanks for the link!

The whole purpose of Cruz's "grandstanding" as you put it was to prevent cloture.

No. he had an agreed time for his tales of Dr. Seuss.

Hey, you can mock it all you want. I can read. And he might be one of the only ones not living in a fairy tale.........the fairy tale that if republicans bow to democrat inevitability, it will all be better. Here's why it is a fairy tale, because that 51% of the voters that I mentioned above will accept the ACA they don't want (according to most polls) in order to avoid having to admit that they were DOUBLY stupid, ignorant, venal, shiftless, greedy, self-involved and unpatriotic people, happy to fiddle while Rome burns, when they voted for that monster in the oval office TWICE. Cornyn, McCain, et al, will go softly into that no so gentle night........and they will drag the rest of us down with them.

I don't give a hoot what Cruz said (or read to his daughters from Dr. Seuss), he used time in a time-honored tactic of filibuster. The entire history of filibuster is replete with people using the time they've been given to read recipes into the congressional record, sing songs, quote poetry, whatever. Cruz's effort was no different. IF he had a little support, his effort might have succeeded. He had no support. His effort failed. And you stand among mockers of the same caliber as the WaPo's Dana Milbank, The Atlantic's Molly Ball, NBC's David Gregory, and other stalwart "neutral observers."

People make fun of Ted Cruz for being a Tea Party favorite, but they are largely ignorant about the Tea Party's motives. Here is their published agenda (http://www.teaparty.org/about-us/):

1. Illegal aliens are here illegally.
2. Pro-domestic employment is indispensable.
3. A strong military is essential.
4. Special interests must be eliminated.
5. Gun ownership is sacred.
6. Government must be downsized.
7. The national budget must be balanced.
8. Deficit spending must end.
9. Bailout and stimulus plans are illegal.
10. Reducing personal income taxes is a must.
11. Reducing business income taxes is mandatory.
12. Political offices must be available to average citizens.
13. Intrusive government must be stopped.
14. English as our core language is required.
15. Traditional family values are encouraged.

These are worthy standards. In exactly what way did the "moderate" wing of the republican party uphold any of these ideals while aiding Harry Reid to steamroll Obamare care over us?

See, this is why I don't invest too much of my caring anymore in the outcome, or in what other people who disagree with me think about it. I know what's coming, and I can't give to much value to what people say who claim to speak conservative but make fun of others when they actually speak it.

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

K.Mooneyham wrote: No, Senator Cruz did NOT vote for cloture. Here is a link to an article that lists who did and did not vote for cloture among the Republicans in the Senate.

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/terence ... e-majority

I stand corrected. Thanks for the link!

The whole purpose of Cruz's "grandstanding" as you put it was to prevent cloture.

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

atticus wrote:Cornyn and a bunch of other Republican senators voted with the Harry Reid led Democrats to end cloture, knowing all the time that Reid would strip out the House defunding provision. In the context of his cloture vote, Cornyn's later vote against the stripped senate bill was meaningless, and he knew it. It is somewhat misleading for Cornyn to claim that he has done everything he could do to defeat Obamacare. He did not fight cloture when he had the opportunity to do so. After all the dust settles, it is Cruz who comes out on top, because he did all he could to bring political heat to bear on the topic. It remains to be seen how much trouble this causes for Cornyn.

I do believe Cruz ALSO voted for cloture. The only difference I see between Cornyn's actions and Cruz's are that he stood around grandstanding for 20 hours.

Expect the market to crash today. Thanks for that.

A market whose strength is buoyed by bad government is a weak market with weak underpinnings. And I don't say that dismissively. A chunk of my retirement is going to disappear today. So be it.

Don't need to wait to see what will happen: http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/ ... print.html

Rex B wrote:The "progressives" are involved in a multi-generational gunfight for the future of our world.

....a "gunfight" which they think they can win if they just get rid of everybody else's guns. That's why I'd rather see the fight sooner rather than later, while we still have ours. If Ted Cruz and others can stand unbroken NOW, progressives will have to realize that their physical survival depends on their backing off instead of continuing to press forward.

I know there is a specifically warm and sulfurous place in hades for Harry Reid.

Here are the headlines on Drudge at this very moment:

Obama adviser compares Republicans to terrorists, kidnappers, arsonists...
More unions turning...
Reid: 'There's No Need For Conversations'...
SENATE CHAPLAIN: 'Lord, deliver us from governing by crisis'...
BUCHANAN TO GOP: Fix bayonets!
Henninger: Let It Collapse...
Only 1% says they now have insurance for the first time...
19% of healthcare pros say Americans 'will die earlier'...
'The Adorable Care Act '...
Reps Expose Abortion ‘Slush Fund'...
McCain: Partisanship Worst He's Ever Seen...

And beneath that, in position of prominence, center page:

POLITICS 'HAVE REACHED CIVIL WAR LEVELS'

The comments on the link at the bottom of the picture are particularly revealing. The National Journal is a notoriously LIBERAL publication. ALL of the comments are from conservatives expressing great anger at Senator Harkin in particular, and the Senate and Obama generally. I did not see one single comment from a liberal.............on a liberal publication.....

I understand what Cornyn is trying to accomplish here. I really do. BUT..... what he is trying to accomplish only works in a stable environment in which the parties cooperate and understand quid pro quo. We are WELL beyond that point in national politics. "Progressives" (my term for socialists, liberals, commies, and other varieties of nazis) have pushed us as far as we are willing to be pushed without rising up against them. "Congressives" (my term for anyone who opposes progressivism) are unwilling to be pushed any further because to do so would fundamentally change the USA into a completely different sort of nation. We really ARE at the breaking point. Either progressives have to back off (which they won't, because they are not governed by the norms of morality), or congressives have to back down (which they better not or we will have crossed the irreversible divide).

Ted Cruz recognizes this. Cornyn does not. Obamacare is the proverbial "last straw." It might have been any other issue of minimal import, and republicans would have caved (again) just to keep the peace (because progressives don't give a hang about peace; they only care about results). But Obamacare is such a massive issue that it can't possibly be swept under the rug. The American people, on either side of the argument, simply won't stand for that. And nationally, even the most optimistic polls show 52% of Americans opposing Obamacare. Add to that the fact that Congress has voted itself an exemption from it......with the aiding and abetting of Obama himself, who apparently doesn't think that his signature "accomplishment" is good enough for Congress.......and the American people—at the minimum 52%, and in all likelihood a much greater number than that—are ready to go all the way to the mat, biting, scratching, gouging, kicking, and spitting, to kill this thing..........EVEN IF it means throwing the nation into brink of civil war.

THAT's how much voters care about this. Any republican who soft-pedals and tries to maneuver around this thing and "negotiate" over it is simply setting himself up to be run over in 2014. Cornyn and men and women like him honestly believe themselves to be virtuous traders in how to get things done, and I believe that they are honestly virtuous. But they don't realize that we are well PAST doing things that way anymore, because all it does is result in more progressive gains and congressive losses.

Me personally? I'm like the guy who has been afraid of a fight for a long time because he's been afraid of getting hurt, but has also been afraid for a long time of what the future will hold if he knuckles under and doesn't fight; and who is now so angry at what has become history because of the fear of fighting that he now welcome's the fight because even getting hurt feels better than living in fear of what might happen if he doesn't fight.

I'm guessing that I am far from the only American who feels that angry, dispossessed, and disenfranchised by his own government.

Progressives are like sharks. They eat, swim, and make baby sharks. ALL of them make the nation's political sea a dangerous place to swim because they are NEVER not hungry. I know what to do about sharks. The laws may prevent it now, but when there is no more law.......... And that is why the progressive inability to believe in a nation of laws and not men is at its heart so illogical. When pressed to its ultimate expression, it leads to their own demise.

Rex B wrote:I just sent Cornyn an email:

Senator Cornyn:
I have voted Republican since my own Age of Awareness, decades ago. I have voted for you every time your name has appeared on my ballot. I have been very happy with your efforts on our behalf.
Until this week, that is. You chose to not support Ted Cruz in his recent effort. I heard all your reasons for doing so, but to me and many others, it sounded a lot like "going along to get along".
I voted for Cruz, and I contributed to his campaign. We sent Ted to DC to do exactly what he is doing - stand up to the Democrats and give them no quarter. He is doing exactly that, and millions of Texans are cheering for him.
The Democrats have used every dirty trick in the book, and many flatly illegal moves, to advance their agenda. It's time we quit playing nice. It's time YOU got as angry as we are, and go toe-to-toe with the Democrats in the only language they understand. It's not business as usual.
Senator, you need to reflect the anger your constituents feel, or you will lose them come next election. At this point in time, you have lost my vote.

Get mad, and join the fight!

That was a good letter.

sjfcontrol wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:

1. Republicans don't have a prayer of regaining the Senate any time soon: http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/histor ... rtydiv.htm

   113th Congress (2013-2015)
   Majority Party: Democrat (53 seats)
   Minority Party: Republican (45 seats)
   Other Parties: 2 Independents (both caucus with the Democrats)
   Total Seats: 100
   Note: Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) died on June 3, 2013. He was replaced by Jeffrey Chiesa (R-NJ) on June 6, 2013, making the party division 52 Democrats, 46 Republicans, and 2 Independents (who both caucus with the Democrats).

   Republicans would have to gain NINE seats: six seats to make up the deficit between democrats and republicans just to even out at 50%; one more seat to gain a 1 seat edge; plus TWO more seats to offset the two independents who caucus with the democrats.......and that assumes that Senator Jeffrey Chiesa (R-NJ, appointed by Gov. Chris Cristi) can hold onto his seat in 2014, in democrat dominated New Jersey. That ain't gonna happen. Not in one election cycle. MAYBE in 3 or 4 election cycles, but senate terms are 6 years long and by then AHA will have been law of the land for 20 years or more and it will be permanent.........just like social security, medicare, food stamps, welfare, dept of education, and other unconstitutional abominations, as RoyGBiv pointed out earlier. Republican dreams of recapturing the senate are pipe dreams. Nothing more. I am 61 years old, and I cannot imagine the Senate regaining a conservative majority within the remainder of my lifetime.

Not following your math. If "we" currently have 46 seats, and we gain FIVE more (not 9), then we will have 51 seats, and "they" will have 49 (regardless of the division between Dem and Ind).

You're right. I did get the math wrong ........BUT.........I don't see republicans picking up 6 seats either. You think the nation's media will let that happen? You think democrats won't drive illegals (and dead people) to the polls to stop it? We're talking about states which currently have democrat senators. Those states elected Obama. TWICE. What are the odds that they'll elect republicans? Slim and none, and Slim just left town. And what about Chiesa's republican seat in NJ? He's a temporary appointee. In 2014, he has to stand for election (if he wants to keep the job) in a democrat dominated state, whose senior senator is democrat Bob Menendez, chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. (The same Senator Menendez who is accused of having sex with underaged prostitutes in the Dominican Republic.) I can't imagine that Chiesa will be elected. That opens the gap to 7 for republicans to overcome.

I just don't see it happening........and even if it did, I don't see republicans having enough of a majority in both houses to be able to override any presidential vetoes........so nothing changes. In the end, republicans will cave to the progressives in the name of "getting something done." That means that the progressives' agenda to destroy America continues unabated, regardless of who holds power.

And all of that nonsense originates with this guy:

Cedar Park Dad wrote:When has a major piece of legislation been overturned via defunding?

http://www.apa.org/science/about/psa/20 ... lence.aspx - concerning lifting a freeze on federal funding for "gun violence" research.......funding had previously been signed into law, and then funding was frozen.

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/breaki ... -in-house/ - concerning the defunding of Planned Parenthood......funding which was previously signed into law.

And as I wrote in my previous post, this is not about defunding..... it is about Reid's efforts to reduce the cloture requirement to a simple majority. That has HUGE implications for a whole host of other things besides Obamacare. Go back and read all of my first post in this thread. It concerns Senate approval of a whole bunch of Obama's judicial and bureaucratic nominees who will be with us LONG after Obama is gone from office. Reid has been trying to get the cloture requirement reduced for this reason exactly, for a very long time. Getting it done for Obamacare is just a ruse.

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

Robert*PPS wrote:1) There comes a time, and in this case an issue, where pure political tactics aren't enough. There comes a time when, in the face of those who firmly stand in opposition to your values, you stand on principle, and you make that stand with conviction. Without principle, any political party that wins elections will be problematic to the foundations of liberty and freedom that the United States embodies.

2) Cruz is standing on principle. Cornyn is playing political Stratego. I will remember this in the poll booth.

3) Arguing that standing on principle risks the country is like arguing that one should not rock the boat for fear of capsizing when there is a person at the front laughing hysterically and drilling a hole in the hull.

To overturn a law you need a majority passed by both the House and Senate, signed by the President, and vetted COnstitutionally by the courts (if sued upon).

This is attempting to overturn a law via unconstitutonal means. We live in constitutional Republic. Act like it.

And if you don't like sausage-making, look the other way. This IS how laws get passed....and overturned.....and this would hardly be the first time "defunding" was used—in a constitutional context no less—as the open shot in a campaign to overturn something. Some times those efforts succeed, and sometimes they don't. But just because they don't succeed, that doesn't make the effort unconstitutional. We live in a Constitutional Republic. Act like it.