[ron h] Sunday, February 01, 2009 11:06:42 PM | |
|
If memory serves me correctly, that's why we eliminated the import tax on steel in the first place, basically to keep peace in the international community...then came the mini-mills all over the place...argh...countries like China and Germany wanted sanctions applied against us because of that...you're absolutely correct, we do play on an un-even playing field...and it has cost us dearly... [Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by TIMBONI from Sunday, February 01, 2009 11:01:34 PM) | | TIMBONI wrote: | | I have to admit that I am not up to date on the current situation, but if the past serves to represent the present , the comparison is really not on equal footing. If the U.S. imposed the same tariffs on imported products as other countries imposed on our products exported to them we would probably be ok, but that never seems to be the case. The U.S. is always expected to compete on an uneven playing field and just shut up and play. |
|
|
[TIMBONI] Sunday, February 01, 2009 11:01:34 PM | |
|
I have to admit that I am not up to date on the current situation, but if the past serves to represent the present , the comparison is really not on equal footing. If the U.S. imposed the same tariffs on imported products as other countries imposed on our products exported to them we would probably be ok, but that never seems to be the case. The U.S. is always expected to compete on an uneven playing field and just shut up and play. |
|
[Head banger] Sunday, February 01, 2009 10:56:22 PM | |
|
there is actualy a clause that says that if domestic steel of suficient quality is not available or costs 25% more than imports then the imported may be used. so the price cant realy skyrocket. the thing is, sooner or later tarp ends and then, can the american mills compete. I say that protectionism actualy weekens the industry its designed to protect. [Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by ronhartsell from Sunday, February 01, 2009 10:52:22 PM) | | ronhartsell wrote: | | It's all about costs for me, Head banger...if domestic steel is more expensive than imported steel, then you're get less steel for the dollar, which is wasteful spending...I'm all in favor of 'Buy American' as I am American, and others should do the same respectively no matter where they live...support your own local economy...but to have no choice in making purchases (of steel or whatever) seems a little overboard...maybe if there were a 'fixed' cost involved, that would make me feel better about it, or say it has to be within 'x' % of the next guy, even that would be different...but once an industry has a corner locked up, bad things usually happen... | | Head banger wrote: | | sure it can lead to tax payer money being spent faster than nessesary, but long term, does buy american rules help whatever industry they are applied to? | | ronhartsell wrote: | | Darth Painkiller lead me back here, and now you're keeping me here Head banger...just kidding, I'm gonna respond to this because I live in a steel producing area...we're not Pittsburg or Germany, but the Gary, IN area and other cities on the Lake Michigan shore line are literally lined with steel mills. Most of the families in Lake County, IN have currently working or retired mill workers in their families.
Congressman Pete Visclosky (IN-1) is my representative, and he has always been a "Buy American" guy, even to a fault at times. He is one of the hardest working politicians I have ever known. He is one who will actually write you a response if you mail him and he will call you on the phone if need be.
He is the one who introduced an ammendment that requires all steel bought with money from the bill must be made in America. The ammendment passed.
If you go to TradeReform.org there is a good read of an e-mail where he talks about this.
Aside from all this, I'm not sure it's that great of an idea because (I'm assuming here) steel prices are never locked at a fixed cost, and if that's the case, tax payer money may have to be spent (via the bill) on steel that may be baught at a cheaper cost else where. So, yes it does support the "Buy American" agenda, but is it good economics?? | | Head banger wrote: | | so, the new draft of the TARP act contains language that says that to qualify for federal funds any project must only use american steel, with a few exceptions.
is this sort of protectionism a good idea in the short term, and is it good in the long term
discuss among yoursleves, I am gone for the weekend. |
|
|
|
|
|
[ron h] Sunday, February 01, 2009 10:52:22 PM | |
|
It's all about costs for me, Head banger...if domestic steel is more expensive than imported steel, then you're get less steel for the dollar, which is wasteful spending...I'm all in favor of 'Buy American' as I am American, and others should do the same respectively no matter where they live...support your own local economy...but to have no choice in making purchases (of steel or whatever) seems a little overboard...maybe if there were a 'fixed' cost involved, that would make me feel better about it, or say it has to be within 'x' % of the next guy, even that would be different...but once an industry has a corner locked up, bad things usually happen... [Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by Head banger from Sunday, February 01, 2009 10:38:31 PM) | | Head banger wrote: | | sure it can lead to tax payer money being spent faster than nessesary, but long term, does buy american rules help whatever industry they are applied to? | | ronhartsell wrote: | | Darth Painkiller lead me back here, and now you're keeping me here Head banger...just kidding, I'm gonna respond to this because I live in a steel producing area...we're not Pittsburg or Germany, but the Gary, IN area and other cities on the Lake Michigan shore line are literally lined with steel mills. Most of the families in Lake County, IN have currently working or retired mill workers in their families.
Congressman Pete Visclosky (IN-1) is my representative, and he has always been a "Buy American" guy, even to a fault at times. He is one of the hardest working politicians I have ever known. He is one who will actually write you a response if you mail him and he will call you on the phone if need be.
He is the one who introduced an ammendment that requires all steel bought with money from the bill must be made in America. The ammendment passed.
If you go to TradeReform.org there is a good read of an e-mail where he talks about this.
Aside from all this, I'm not sure it's that great of an idea because (I'm assuming here) steel prices are never locked at a fixed cost, and if that's the case, tax payer money may have to be spent (via the bill) on steel that may be baught at a cheaper cost else where. So, yes it does support the "Buy American" agenda, but is it good economics?? | | Head banger wrote: | | so, the new draft of the TARP act contains language that says that to qualify for federal funds any project must only use american steel, with a few exceptions.
is this sort of protectionism a good idea in the short term, and is it good in the long term
discuss among yoursleves, I am gone for the weekend. |
|
|
|
|
[Head banger] Sunday, February 01, 2009 10:38:31 PM | |
|
sure it can lead to tax payer money being spent faster than nessesary, but long term, does buy american rules help whatever industry they are applied to? [Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by ronhartsell from Saturday, January 31, 2009 1:16:03 PM) | | ronhartsell wrote: | | Darth Painkiller lead me back here, and now you're keeping me here Head banger...just kidding, I'm gonna respond to this because I live in a steel producing area...we're not Pittsburg or Germany, but the Gary, IN area and other cities on the Lake Michigan shore line are literally lined with steel mills. Most of the families in Lake County, IN have currently working or retired mill workers in their families.
Congressman Pete Visclosky (IN-1) is my representative, and he has always been a "Buy American" guy, even to a fault at times. He is one of the hardest working politicians I have ever known. He is one who will actually write you a response if you mail him and he will call you on the phone if need be.
He is the one who introduced an ammendment that requires all steel bought with money from the bill must be made in America. The ammendment passed.
If you go to TradeReform.org there is a good read of an e-mail where he talks about this.
Aside from all this, I'm not sure it's that great of an idea because (I'm assuming here) steel prices are never locked at a fixed cost, and if that's the case, tax payer money may have to be spent (via the bill) on steel that may be baught at a cheaper cost else where. So, yes it does support the "Buy American" agenda, but is it good economics?? | | Head banger wrote: | | so, the new draft of the TARP act contains language that says that to qualify for federal funds any project must only use american steel, with a few exceptions.
is this sort of protectionism a good idea in the short term, and is it good in the long term
discuss among yoursleves, I am gone for the weekend. |
|
|
|
[ron h] Saturday, January 31, 2009 1:16:03 PM | |
|
Darth Painkiller lead me back here, and now you're keeping me here Head banger...just kidding, I'm gonna respond to this because I live in a steel producing area...we're not Pittsburg or Germany, but the Gary, IN area and other cities on the Lake Michigan shore line are literally lined with steel mills. Most of the families in Lake County, IN have currently working or retired mill workers in their families.
Congressman Pete Visclosky (IN-1) is my representative, and he has always been a "Buy American" guy, even to a fault at times. He is one of the hardest working politicians I have ever known. He is one who will actually write you a response if you mail him and he will call you on the phone if need be.
He is the one who introduced an ammendment that requires all steel bought with money from the bill must be made in America. The ammendment passed.
If you go to TradeReform.org there is a good read of an e-mail where he talks about this.
Aside from all this, I'm not sure it's that great of an idea because (I'm assuming here) steel prices are never locked at a fixed cost, and if that's the case, tax payer money may have to be spent (via the bill) on steel that may be baught at a cheaper cost else where. So, yes it does support the "Buy American" agenda, but is it good economics?? [Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by Head banger from Friday, January 30, 2009 5:05:23 PM) | | Head banger wrote: | | so, the new draft of the TARP act contains language that says that to qualify for federal funds any project must only use american steel, with a few exceptions.
is this sort of protectionism a good idea in the short term, and is it good in the long term
discuss among yoursleves, I am gone for the weekend. |
|
|
[Head banger] Friday, January 30, 2009 5:05:23 PM | |
|
so, the new draft of the TARP act contains language that says that to qualify for federal funds any project must only use american steel, with a few exceptions.
is this sort of protectionism a good idea in the short term, and is it good in the long term
discuss among yoursleves, I am gone for the weekend. |
|
[ron h] Friday, January 30, 2009 8:13:00 AM | |
|
I also believe that Local and State Government can do a much better job than what they do...I think they rely too heavily on Federal Government to find soloutions to their problems...City, County, and State Governments need to work more closely together for common goals (let alone have have the SAME goals), and I believe it's in this area that the everyday people can have more of an impact...our Reps on Capitol Hill rely too heavily on information provided TO them by 'other' Reps from 'home' States (what I like to call the 'middlemen/women), and if 'they' don't have a finger on the pulse of the ppl, then things get really out of perspective...which is why we as citizens need to have regular dialouge with our local Councilmembers, as they are the ones that go to our State Capitols with our 'issues' before it goes to Washington...to me there's a lot of room for 'issues' to get lost in translation, or perhaps a single individual to misreprestent!! |
|
[Head banger] Friday, January 30, 2009 7:26:22 AM | |
|
Thats the root of the matter, the reps vote on party lines, no mater what they or their constituants feel is right. that being the case, most of them are wasted in office. save the money and have 1 rep for every 5 states. you get the same result. [Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by Darth_Painkiller_0870 from Friday, January 30, 2009 7:23:34 AM) | | Darth_Painkiller_0870 wrote: | | I agree wholeheartedly with your assessment, Ron! I've never understood why just because someone is a member of Party "A", they can't agree or vote for someone from Party "B" if they feel that person is the better candidate to represent them. It should be noted the 4 Congresspeople from the districts covered by the local newspaper my ex-wife subscribes to, voted along party lines for/against the stimulus package. | | ronhartsell wrote: | | I've always wondered why the voting public has to conform to Party lines...I believe that there are good ideas from both sides of the fence...but aren't our elected public servants suppose to mirror (and vote) according to what the people they represent want instead of the idea of 'you voted me in, now I'm gonna do it my way' or, 'because you elected a Republican/Democrat, this is the way We do it, therefore you (the voting public) must conform to us?? We elect ppl to represent US so that we don't have to go to the Polls every other day to cast a ballot on something...if there is to be a time of reflection, they should be reflecting on what WE think WE need, NOT what THEY think WE need...maybe I'm off the mark (I swore I wasn't gonna get involved in this anymore, but I sometimes can't help myself, sorry!!) but I think that when Politicians get to Washington, away from their home States, they somehow lose touch with 'our' needs, get caught up in the 'machine' so to speak...they need to go 'home' and seriously check the pulse of their 'jurisdictions' to seek out the problems and find soloutions that work!! And this goes for both sides!!! | | Darth_Painkiller_0870 wrote: | | I just found the following article on cnn.com. It's basically the usually savvy opinion of U.S. Republican Party Congressman and House Minority Leader Mitch McConnell from Kentucky.
I happen to agree with the man. I am a member of this political party, as I am a fan of less government and my principles tend to lean to the right (conservative) on a number of issues (stem-cell research not being one of them). Any thoughts?
(CNN) – Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell painted a downright dismal view of the state of his party Thursday afternoon, telling Republican National Committee members the GOP is in grave danger of being marginalized to a regional party.
"We’re all concerned about the fact that the very wealthy and the very poor, the most and least educated, and a majority of minority voters, seem to have more or less stopped paying attention to us," the Kentucky Republican said on the second day of the four-day gathering.
"And we should be concerned that, as a result of all this, the Republican Party seems to be slipping into a position of being more of a regional party than a national one.
"In politics there's a name for a regional party, it's called a minority party," said McConnell.
The sobering remarks came one day before the 168 members of the RNC are set to elect a chairman tasked with steering the party out of its beleaguered status, and win back some of the voting blocs virtually abandoned the party last November, including minority and younger voters.
"My concern is that unless we do something to adapt, our status as a minority party may become too pronounced for an easy recovery," McConnell also said.
McConnell also laid some blame at the feet of former President Bush, whom he described a "man of principle," but one who did "not win any popularity contests."
"History shows that unpopular presidents are usually a drag on everybody else who wears their political label," he said. "It happened with Truman. It happened with Johnson. It happened with Nixon. It happened with Clinton in ‘94. And it happened in ‘06 and ‘08 with President Bush."
He said particular effort needs to be applied to attracting African American and Hispanic voters. Black voters have historically voted heavily Democratic, while Hispanic voters were significantly more Democratic than they had been in previous presidential elections.
"Too often we’ve let others define us," McConnell said. "And the image they’ve painted isn’t very pretty. Ask most people what Republicans think about immigrants, and they’ll say we fear them. Ask most people what we think about the environment, and they’ll say we don’t care about it. Ask most people what we think about the family, and they’ll tell you we don’t — until about a month before Election Day."
But McConnell addressed a a group deeply divided on where the Party should head in the next four years, a tension that has played out in the unexpectedly cut-throat race for the party's chairmanship.
The Senate Minority Leader, who faced an unexpectedly competitive race last year to retain his seat, told the Republican gathering it's not too late for the party to rebuild itself. But he warned the GOP cannot change its fundamental values in the course of trying to appeal to a wider cross-section of the country.
"You don’t get them back by pretending to be something else," he said. “And you certainly don’t gain voters by running away from the ones that are most loyal. But it’s clear our message isn’t getting out to nearly as many people as it should."
"…We should avoid the false choice of being a party of moderates or conservatives," he said. "America is diverse. The two major parties should be too. But this doesn’t mean turning our backs on commonsense conservatism, or tailoring our positions to suit particular groups. Our principles are universal. They apply to everyone."
|
|
|
|
|
[Return_of_Darth_Painkiller_0870] Friday, January 30, 2009 7:23:34 AM | |
|
I agree wholeheartedly with your assessment, Ron! I've never understood why just because someone is a member of Party "A", they can't agree or vote for someone from Party "B" if they feel that person is the better candidate to represent them. It should be noted the 4 Congresspeople from the districts covered by the local newspaper my ex-wife subscribes to, voted along party lines for/against the stimulus package. [Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by ronhartsell from Friday, January 30, 2009 6:51:14 AM) | | ronhartsell wrote: | | I've always wondered why the voting public has to conform to Party lines...I believe that there are good ideas from both sides of the fence...but aren't our elected public servants suppose to mirror (and vote) according to what the people they represent want instead of the idea of 'you voted me in, now I'm gonna do it my way' or, 'because you elected a Republican/Democrat, this is the way We do it, therefore you (the voting public) must conform to us?? We elect ppl to represent US so that we don't have to go to the Polls every other day to cast a ballot on something...if there is to be a time of reflection, they should be reflecting on what WE think WE need, NOT what THEY think WE need...maybe I'm off the mark (I swore I wasn't gonna get involved in this anymore, but I sometimes can't help myself, sorry!!) but I think that when Politicians get to Washington, away from their home States, they somehow lose touch with 'our' needs, get caught up in the 'machine' so to speak...they need to go 'home' and seriously check the pulse of their 'jurisdictions' to seek out the problems and find soloutions that work!! And this goes for both sides!!! | | Darth_Painkiller_0870 wrote: | | I just found the following article on cnn.com. It's basically the usually savvy opinion of U.S. Republican Party Congressman and House Minority Leader Mitch McConnell from Kentucky.
I happen to agree with the man. I am a member of this political party, as I am a fan of less government and my principles tend to lean to the right (conservative) on a number of issues (stem-cell research not being one of them). Any thoughts?
(CNN) – Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell painted a downright dismal view of the state of his party Thursday afternoon, telling Republican National Committee members the GOP is in grave danger of being marginalized to a regional party.
"We’re all concerned about the fact that the very wealthy and the very poor, the most and least educated, and a majority of minority voters, seem to have more or less stopped paying attention to us," the Kentucky Republican said on the second day of the four-day gathering.
"And we should be concerned that, as a result of all this, the Republican Party seems to be slipping into a position of being more of a regional party than a national one.
"In politics there's a name for a regional party, it's called a minority party," said McConnell.
The sobering remarks came one day before the 168 members of the RNC are set to elect a chairman tasked with steering the party out of its beleaguered status, and win back some of the voting blocs virtually abandoned the party last November, including minority and younger voters.
"My concern is that unless we do something to adapt, our status as a minority party may become too pronounced for an easy recovery," McConnell also said.
McConnell also laid some blame at the feet of former President Bush, whom he described a "man of principle," but one who did "not win any popularity contests."
"History shows that unpopular presidents are usually a drag on everybody else who wears their political label," he said. "It happened with Truman. It happened with Johnson. It happened with Nixon. It happened with Clinton in ‘94. And it happened in ‘06 and ‘08 with President Bush."
He said particular effort needs to be applied to attracting African American and Hispanic voters. Black voters have historically voted heavily Democratic, while Hispanic voters were significantly more Democratic than they had been in previous presidential elections.
"Too often we’ve let others define us," McConnell said. "And the image they’ve painted isn’t very pretty. Ask most people what Republicans think about immigrants, and they’ll say we fear them. Ask most people what we think about the environment, and they’ll say we don’t care about it. Ask most people what we think about the family, and they’ll tell you we don’t — until about a month before Election Day."
But McConnell addressed a a group deeply divided on where the Party should head in the next four years, a tension that has played out in the unexpectedly cut-throat race for the party's chairmanship.
The Senate Minority Leader, who faced an unexpectedly competitive race last year to retain his seat, told the Republican gathering it's not too late for the party to rebuild itself. But he warned the GOP cannot change its fundamental values in the course of trying to appeal to a wider cross-section of the country.
"You don’t get them back by pretending to be something else," he said. “And you certainly don’t gain voters by running away from the ones that are most loyal. But it’s clear our message isn’t getting out to nearly as many people as it should."
"…We should avoid the false choice of being a party of moderates or conservatives," he said. "America is diverse. The two major parties should be too. But this doesn’t mean turning our backs on commonsense conservatism, or tailoring our positions to suit particular groups. Our principles are universal. They apply to everyone."
|
|
|
|
[ron h] Friday, January 30, 2009 6:51:14 AM | |
|
I've always wondered why the voting public has to conform to Party lines...I believe that there are good ideas from both sides of the fence...but aren't our elected public servants suppose to mirror (and vote) according to what the people they represent want instead of the idea of 'you voted me in, now I'm gonna do it my way' or, 'because you elected a Republican/Democrat, this is the way We do it, therefore you (the voting public) must conform to us?? We elect ppl to represent US so that we don't have to go to the Polls every other day to cast a ballot on something...if there is to be a time of reflection, they should be reflecting on what WE think WE need, NOT what THEY think WE need...maybe I'm off the mark (I swore I wasn't gonna get involved in this anymore, but I sometimes can't help myself, sorry!!) but I think that when Politicians get to Washington, away from their home States, they somehow lose touch with 'our' needs, get caught up in the 'machine' so to speak...they need to go 'home' and seriously check the pulse of their 'jurisdictions' to seek out the problems and find soloutions that work!! And this goes for both sides!!! [Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by Darth_Painkiller_0870 from Friday, January 30, 2009 5:01:51 AM) | | Darth_Painkiller_0870 wrote: | | I just found the following article on cnn.com. It's basically the usually savvy opinion of U.S. Republican Party Congressman and House Minority Leader Mitch McConnell from Kentucky.
I happen to agree with the man. I am a member of this political party, as I am a fan of less government and my principles tend to lean to the right (conservative) on a number of issues (stem-cell research not being one of them). Any thoughts?
(CNN) – Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell painted a downright dismal view of the state of his party Thursday afternoon, telling Republican National Committee members the GOP is in grave danger of being marginalized to a regional party.
"We’re all concerned about the fact that the very wealthy and the very poor, the most and least educated, and a majority of minority voters, seem to have more or less stopped paying attention to us," the Kentucky Republican said on the second day of the four-day gathering.
"And we should be concerned that, as a result of all this, the Republican Party seems to be slipping into a position of being more of a regional party than a national one.
"In politics there's a name for a regional party, it's called a minority party," said McConnell.
The sobering remarks came one day before the 168 members of the RNC are set to elect a chairman tasked with steering the party out of its beleaguered status, and win back some of the voting blocs virtually abandoned the party last November, including minority and younger voters.
"My concern is that unless we do something to adapt, our status as a minority party may become too pronounced for an easy recovery," McConnell also said.
McConnell also laid some blame at the feet of former President Bush, whom he described a "man of principle," but one who did "not win any popularity contests."
"History shows that unpopular presidents are usually a drag on everybody else who wears their political label," he said. "It happened with Truman. It happened with Johnson. It happened with Nixon. It happened with Clinton in ‘94. And it happened in ‘06 and ‘08 with President Bush."
He said particular effort needs to be applied to attracting African American and Hispanic voters. Black voters have historically voted heavily Democratic, while Hispanic voters were significantly more Democratic than they had been in previous presidential elections.
"Too often we’ve let others define us," McConnell said. "And the image they’ve painted isn’t very pretty. Ask most people what Republicans think about immigrants, and they’ll say we fear them. Ask most people what we think about the environment, and they’ll say we don’t care about it. Ask most people what we think about the family, and they’ll tell you we don’t — until about a month before Election Day."
But McConnell addressed a a group deeply divided on where the Party should head in the next four years, a tension that has played out in the unexpectedly cut-throat race for the party's chairmanship.
The Senate Minority Leader, who faced an unexpectedly competitive race last year to retain his seat, told the Republican gathering it's not too late for the party to rebuild itself. But he warned the GOP cannot change its fundamental values in the course of trying to appeal to a wider cross-section of the country.
"You don’t get them back by pretending to be something else," he said. “And you certainly don’t gain voters by running away from the ones that are most loyal. But it’s clear our message isn’t getting out to nearly as many people as it should."
"…We should avoid the false choice of being a party of moderates or conservatives," he said. "America is diverse. The two major parties should be too. But this doesn’t mean turning our backs on commonsense conservatism, or tailoring our positions to suit particular groups. Our principles are universal. They apply to everyone."
|
|
|
[Return_of_Darth_Painkiller_0870] Friday, January 30, 2009 5:01:51 AM | |
|
I just found the following article on cnn.com. It's basically the usually savvy opinion of U.S. Republican Party Congressman and House Minority Leader Mitch McConnell from Kentucky.
I happen to agree with the man. I am a member of this political party, as I am a fan of less government and my principles tend to lean to the right (conservative) on a number of issues (stem-cell research not being one of them). Any thoughts?
(CNN) – Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell painted a downright dismal view of the state of his party Thursday afternoon, telling Republican National Committee members the GOP is in grave danger of being marginalized to a regional party.
"We’re all concerned about the fact that the very wealthy and the very poor, the most and least educated, and a majority of minority voters, seem to have more or less stopped paying attention to us," the Kentucky Republican said on the second day of the four-day gathering.
"And we should be concerned that, as a result of all this, the Republican Party seems to be slipping into a position of being more of a regional party than a national one.
"In politics there's a name for a regional party, it's called a minority party," said McConnell.
The sobering remarks came one day before the 168 members of the RNC are set to elect a chairman tasked with steering the party out of its beleaguered status, and win back some of the voting blocs virtually abandoned the party last November, including minority and younger voters.
"My concern is that unless we do something to adapt, our status as a minority party may become too pronounced for an easy recovery," McConnell also said.
McConnell also laid some blame at the feet of former President Bush, whom he described a "man of principle," but one who did "not win any popularity contests."
"History shows that unpopular presidents are usually a drag on everybody else who wears their political label," he said. "It happened with Truman. It happened with Johnson. It happened with Nixon. It happened with Clinton in ‘94. And it happened in ‘06 and ‘08 with President Bush."
He said particular effort needs to be applied to attracting African American and Hispanic voters. Black voters have historically voted heavily Democratic, while Hispanic voters were significantly more Democratic than they had been in previous presidential elections.
"Too often we’ve let others define us," McConnell said. "And the image they’ve painted isn’t very pretty. Ask most people what Republicans think about immigrants, and they’ll say we fear them. Ask most people what we think about the environment, and they’ll say we don’t care about it. Ask most people what we think about the family, and they’ll tell you we don’t — until about a month before Election Day."
But McConnell addressed a a group deeply divided on where the Party should head in the next four years, a tension that has played out in the unexpectedly cut-throat race for the party's chairmanship.
The Senate Minority Leader, who faced an unexpectedly competitive race last year to retain his seat, told the Republican gathering it's not too late for the party to rebuild itself. But he warned the GOP cannot change its fundamental values in the course of trying to appeal to a wider cross-section of the country.
"You don’t get them back by pretending to be something else," he said. “And you certainly don’t gain voters by running away from the ones that are most loyal. But it’s clear our message isn’t getting out to nearly as many people as it should."
"…We should avoid the false choice of being a party of moderates or conservatives," he said. "America is diverse. The two major parties should be too. But this doesn’t mean turning our backs on commonsense conservatism, or tailoring our positions to suit particular groups. Our principles are universal. They apply to everyone."
|
|
[_strat_] Sunday, January 18, 2009 4:25:22 PM | |
|
Anyone that gets within shouting distance of those brats is a hero, not a coward. [Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by Head banger from Saturday, January 17, 2009 11:42:40 AM) | | Head banger wrote: | | well, there is something to be said for that, but the cowards would hide behind them.... | | _strat_ wrote: | | Nah, Ive got a better solution. I just watched one of them "Nanny reality shows" on TV. We should just get one of them big intercontinental bombers, load it up with kids, and drop them over Gaza. I guarantee you, the shit would be over in less than a day. | | Head banger wrote: | | yep. 47 this could have been diferent, but today, its not fixable. probably the most humane thing to do is nuke the whole area, but thats kind of dificult to sell. kill a few million now, end all the BS for a thousand years. nah. | | _strat_ wrote: | | Yeah, thats pretty much it. Mindless nationalism and religious extremism at its best.
I guess that the creation of Israel back in 1947 was the original sinn... But that was long ago, letting it get destroyed today wont set that wrong aright. | | Head banger wrote: | | sure blame is plentifull, solutions not so.
the problem with one side eliminating the other is both can be replenished from kids overseas. | | _strat_ wrote: | | Well, Hamas are freaks, that is true, but Israel cannot be completely absolved of guilt either. Gaza has been a prison for 1,5 million Palestinians for decades, and even in the best of times they had shortages of basic neccesities. Not to mention that Israels army is one of the most technologicaly advanced in the world. Im sure that if they would give a shit they wouldnt cause so many civilian casualties. Infact, they may deliberatly be causing so much, to scare Hamas into submission.
In any case, I think that the only solution would be to physicaly separate them. A NATO or an UN mission, whatever, with serious numbers, weapons and authorisation, that would keep them apart for long enugh (which would be decades) to cool them off. Failing that, pull everything out, and wait till one side eliminates the other. | | Head banger wrote: | | this shit will keep going on, untill either the world ends, all sids give up religion, or isreal moves and colonizes a new star system.
I see no hope, the hamas terorists will keep this up, and dont care if they or the kids they hide behind die. Isreal will fight back. it goes on. if, anyone was serious about a ceasefire that was meaningfull, they could agree to share that area, but the hate runs too deep. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
[Head banger] Saturday, January 17, 2009 11:42:40 AM | |
|
well, there is something to be said for that, but the cowards would hide behind them.... [Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by _strat_ from Saturday, January 17, 2009 9:16:33 AM) | | _strat_ wrote: | | Nah, Ive got a better solution. I just watched one of them "Nanny reality shows" on TV. We should just get one of them big intercontinental bombers, load it up with kids, and drop them over Gaza. I guarantee you, the shit would be over in less than a day. | | Head banger wrote: | | yep. 47 this could have been diferent, but today, its not fixable. probably the most humane thing to do is nuke the whole area, but thats kind of dificult to sell. kill a few million now, end all the BS for a thousand years. nah. | | _strat_ wrote: | | Yeah, thats pretty much it. Mindless nationalism and religious extremism at its best.
I guess that the creation of Israel back in 1947 was the original sinn... But that was long ago, letting it get destroyed today wont set that wrong aright. | | Head banger wrote: | | sure blame is plentifull, solutions not so.
the problem with one side eliminating the other is both can be replenished from kids overseas. | | _strat_ wrote: | | Well, Hamas are freaks, that is true, but Israel cannot be completely absolved of guilt either. Gaza has been a prison for 1,5 million Palestinians for decades, and even in the best of times they had shortages of basic neccesities. Not to mention that Israels army is one of the most technologicaly advanced in the world. Im sure that if they would give a shit they wouldnt cause so many civilian casualties. Infact, they may deliberatly be causing so much, to scare Hamas into submission.
In any case, I think that the only solution would be to physicaly separate them. A NATO or an UN mission, whatever, with serious numbers, weapons and authorisation, that would keep them apart for long enugh (which would be decades) to cool them off. Failing that, pull everything out, and wait till one side eliminates the other. | | Head banger wrote: | | this shit will keep going on, untill either the world ends, all sids give up religion, or isreal moves and colonizes a new star system.
I see no hope, the hamas terorists will keep this up, and dont care if they or the kids they hide behind die. Isreal will fight back. it goes on. if, anyone was serious about a ceasefire that was meaningfull, they could agree to share that area, but the hate runs too deep. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
[_strat_] Saturday, January 17, 2009 9:16:33 AM | |
|
Nah, Ive got a better solution. I just watched one of them "Nanny reality shows" on TV. We should just get one of them big intercontinental bombers, load it up with kids, and drop them over Gaza. I guarantee you, the shit would be over in less than a day. [Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by Head banger from Friday, January 16, 2009 7:17:42 AM) | | Head banger wrote: | | yep. 47 this could have been diferent, but today, its not fixable. probably the most humane thing to do is nuke the whole area, but thats kind of dificult to sell. kill a few million now, end all the BS for a thousand years. nah. | | _strat_ wrote: | | Yeah, thats pretty much it. Mindless nationalism and religious extremism at its best.
I guess that the creation of Israel back in 1947 was the original sinn... But that was long ago, letting it get destroyed today wont set that wrong aright. | | Head banger wrote: | | sure blame is plentifull, solutions not so.
the problem with one side eliminating the other is both can be replenished from kids overseas. | | _strat_ wrote: | | Well, Hamas are freaks, that is true, but Israel cannot be completely absolved of guilt either. Gaza has been a prison for 1,5 million Palestinians for decades, and even in the best of times they had shortages of basic neccesities. Not to mention that Israels army is one of the most technologicaly advanced in the world. Im sure that if they would give a shit they wouldnt cause so many civilian casualties. Infact, they may deliberatly be causing so much, to scare Hamas into submission.
In any case, I think that the only solution would be to physicaly separate them. A NATO or an UN mission, whatever, with serious numbers, weapons and authorisation, that would keep them apart for long enugh (which would be decades) to cool them off. Failing that, pull everything out, and wait till one side eliminates the other. | | Head banger wrote: | | this shit will keep going on, untill either the world ends, all sids give up religion, or isreal moves and colonizes a new star system.
I see no hope, the hamas terorists will keep this up, and dont care if they or the kids they hide behind die. Isreal will fight back. it goes on. if, anyone was serious about a ceasefire that was meaningfull, they could agree to share that area, but the hate runs too deep. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
[Head banger] Friday, January 16, 2009 7:17:42 AM | |
|
yep. 47 this could have been diferent, but today, its not fixable. probably the most humane thing to do is nuke the whole area, but thats kind of dificult to sell. kill a few million now, end all the BS for a thousand years. nah. [Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by _strat_ from Friday, January 16, 2009 4:34:01 AM) | | _strat_ wrote: | | Yeah, thats pretty much it. Mindless nationalism and religious extremism at its best.
I guess that the creation of Israel back in 1947 was the original sinn... But that was long ago, letting it get destroyed today wont set that wrong aright. | | Head banger wrote: | | sure blame is plentifull, solutions not so.
the problem with one side eliminating the other is both can be replenished from kids overseas. | | _strat_ wrote: | | Well, Hamas are freaks, that is true, but Israel cannot be completely absolved of guilt either. Gaza has been a prison for 1,5 million Palestinians for decades, and even in the best of times they had shortages of basic neccesities. Not to mention that Israels army is one of the most technologicaly advanced in the world. Im sure that if they would give a shit they wouldnt cause so many civilian casualties. Infact, they may deliberatly be causing so much, to scare Hamas into submission.
In any case, I think that the only solution would be to physicaly separate them. A NATO or an UN mission, whatever, with serious numbers, weapons and authorisation, that would keep them apart for long enugh (which would be decades) to cool them off. Failing that, pull everything out, and wait till one side eliminates the other. | | Head banger wrote: | | this shit will keep going on, untill either the world ends, all sids give up religion, or isreal moves and colonizes a new star system.
I see no hope, the hamas terorists will keep this up, and dont care if they or the kids they hide behind die. Isreal will fight back. it goes on. if, anyone was serious about a ceasefire that was meaningfull, they could agree to share that area, but the hate runs too deep. |
|
|
|
|
|
[MaMbO] Friday, January 16, 2009 6:34:31 AM | |
|
Fuck you howard!!! getting that honours medal from bush. bush claims he is a true friend of the US but really hes a true friend of bush!! he should never have received that award!!! |
|
[_strat_] Friday, January 16, 2009 4:34:01 AM | |
|
Yeah, thats pretty much it. Mindless nationalism and religious extremism at its best.
I guess that the creation of Israel back in 1947 was the original sinn... But that was long ago, letting it get destroyed today wont set that wrong aright. [Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by Head banger from Thursday, January 15, 2009 9:47:05 AM) | | Head banger wrote: | | sure blame is plentifull, solutions not so.
the problem with one side eliminating the other is both can be replenished from kids overseas. | | _strat_ wrote: | | Well, Hamas are freaks, that is true, but Israel cannot be completely absolved of guilt either. Gaza has been a prison for 1,5 million Palestinians for decades, and even in the best of times they had shortages of basic neccesities. Not to mention that Israels army is one of the most technologicaly advanced in the world. Im sure that if they would give a shit they wouldnt cause so many civilian casualties. Infact, they may deliberatly be causing so much, to scare Hamas into submission.
In any case, I think that the only solution would be to physicaly separate them. A NATO or an UN mission, whatever, with serious numbers, weapons and authorisation, that would keep them apart for long enugh (which would be decades) to cool them off. Failing that, pull everything out, and wait till one side eliminates the other. | | Head banger wrote: | | this shit will keep going on, untill either the world ends, all sids give up religion, or isreal moves and colonizes a new star system.
I see no hope, the hamas terorists will keep this up, and dont care if they or the kids they hide behind die. Isreal will fight back. it goes on. if, anyone was serious about a ceasefire that was meaningfull, they could agree to share that area, but the hate runs too deep. |
|
|
|
|
[spapad] Thursday, January 15, 2009 7:29:23 PM | |
|
Last "State of the Union" speech from Dubbah!!!!! How sweet it is! |
|
[Head banger] Thursday, January 15, 2009 9:47:05 AM | |
|
sure blame is plentifull, solutions not so.
the problem with one side eliminating the other is both can be replenished from kids overseas. [Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by _strat_ from Thursday, January 15, 2009 7:00:06 AM) | | _strat_ wrote: | | Well, Hamas are freaks, that is true, but Israel cannot be completely absolved of guilt either. Gaza has been a prison for 1,5 million Palestinians for decades, and even in the best of times they had shortages of basic neccesities. Not to mention that Israels army is one of the most technologicaly advanced in the world. Im sure that if they would give a shit they wouldnt cause so many civilian casualties. Infact, they may deliberatly be causing so much, to scare Hamas into submission.
In any case, I think that the only solution would be to physicaly separate them. A NATO or an UN mission, whatever, with serious numbers, weapons and authorisation, that would keep them apart for long enugh (which would be decades) to cool them off. Failing that, pull everything out, and wait till one side eliminates the other. | | Head banger wrote: | | this shit will keep going on, untill either the world ends, all sids give up religion, or isreal moves and colonizes a new star system.
I see no hope, the hamas terorists will keep this up, and dont care if they or the kids they hide behind die. Isreal will fight back. it goes on. if, anyone was serious about a ceasefire that was meaningfull, they could agree to share that area, but the hate runs too deep. |
|
|
|